If their method is the a large part of the problem, why would it be useful to imitate that method?
It isn't an exact imitation. It is an improvement on it I think. For example, a FARMS review will tackle a book, skip over dozens of valid points and scrounge for one or two things to whine about. The idea here is to show that author to be untrustworthy. I'm simply leaving it up to the apologists to follow their own logic and abide by their own standard when it comes to reading their own scholars, and it drives them nuts and renders them silent.
I mean if an amateur critic operating outside his field of expertise is to be considered untrustworthy - or as is most often the accusation, "deceptive" - simply because he got one or two things wrong in his book, then how much more are scholars operating within their field of expertise, to be considered untrustworthy when they get several things wrong?
As I said to Dan several times before: "If I am wrong on any given point about Islam, well, I'm not an Islamic scholar. So what's your excuse?" And this was assuming I had been wrong - which of course he never demonstrated.
What turns me off about what I am seeing here lately, or perhaps what turns me off lately about what I am seeing here is precisely this focus on the person instead of the argument.
The argument has been dealt with too many times to mention and it was always edited or deleted at FAIR. If that were the end of it, I doubt I would have continued. But Dan used these events to have my name tarnished for years now, all the while claiming victim status whenever I clarify my positions elsewhere and challenge him to explain his false assertions. You see, when you point out errors of the critics, it is considered good scholarship and a noble search for truth. But when the tables are turned, and it is the LDS scholar who is providing falsehoods, then you must walk on egg shells and never imply they were dishonest to any degree. Because if you do, they get offended and then use this as an excuse never to talk to you.
A few months ago at MADB people were saying John Gee doesn't respond to critics like Metcalfe because they offended Gee by suggesting he was being less than honest. Dan Vogel immediately drew everyone's attention to a FROB article Gee write which prettymuch said critics like Larson and MEtcalfe were being deceptive.
This was amazing because these guys like to play nice only when they are the ones guilty of sloppy scholarship. Otherwise they play by no rules whatsoever. When they are proved wrong, you're not allowed to take off the gloves with them because you'll be exiled and ignored forever. But it is OK for them to treat critics with as much contempt as is necessary to get readers to stay away from them. You see, they think theirs is the only noble cause. It isn't truth that they are interested in, it is only serving the interests of Church membership. The most effective method is that they pull one or two falsehoods from a book and then use it to paint a nasty caricatureof the author as deceptive. This is virtually all the FROB entails.
All I have done really is to point out the errors that continually take place at MADB as they happen. The problem is my name usually gets thrown in there because Dan made sure I was the poster boy for bigotry towards Islam.
That pissed me off, so I feel little symapthy for him when he squirms every time I post something about his poor scholarship.