DiscussMormonism.com

If I Did It: Confessions of an SMPT Imposter

by

Gadianton P. Robbers, Phd

Chapter 4
"Business and Politics"


The comment by Dr. Peterson that forced into my mind the dinner scene from Titanic and then, operated as a kind of paradigm that would tie all his various interactions in this thread together was this one, directed toward another critic:

DCP wrote:The people centrally involved in the Society -- or, as Gadianton Scratch likes to write it, " 'the society' " -- are, by and large, professionally trained philosophers who work in academic philosophy or related areas.

If you like that kind of thing, there's a good chance you'll enjoy this conference. If you don't, you almost certainly won't.

Cal from the movie, Titanic wrote:Probably best. It'll be all business and politics, that sort of thing.
Wouldn't interest you.

Yes, this quote here had put it all together for me. I might have thought the best way to respond to the condescending smugness would be to brashly dismiss his "Society" by satire that refused to acknowledge all the things Dr. Peterson had dwelt on to make the Society seem important. Since DCP had stressed ad nauseum what even rubes like us already knew by common sense, that the Society would never go for a scathing indictment of Mopologetics, I would have felt, if I did it, that the best topic imaginable would be exactly that. And instead of backing down, as he tried to trumpet the important "vetting process", the "blind peer review" that would ruin my plan, I'd just up the ante. At 5:00 P.M., Jan 11, I announced my proposal was almost complete.

me wrote:But, let it not be said I'm afraid of the panel, or "the society". This morning I got about 700 words down and so my proposal is almost complete.

If I did it, I would have wanted to cover my bases and make sure everyone knew that I was busting DCP's chops. The way I would have done this, while keeping true to the decided MO, would be to exaggerate my ridiculousness everytime DCP exaggerated his seriousness.

me wrote:I looked up the scriptures from that page, as part of the preliminary work for the paper I will be presenting, and I came up with nothing

By 10:00 that evening, within 5 hours, I went from announcing I would be proposing a paper to announcing I'd be presenting it as if it were a done deal. I would have been jesting, suggesting that anyone could get into the SMPT with any topic, that it isn't that hard. And my efforts would have been repaid handsomely by Dr. Peterson's repeated insistence that it is hard to get in, very, very hard,

DCP wrote:just found out on Friday that a good friend of mine, a well-published scholar with an Ivy League Ph.D. in political philosophy, is still smarting from having his proposal for an SMPT presentation rejected two or three years ago

Wow! How could any of us rubes on MDB expect to get in if even some of his Ivy League Phd friends were being denied?

But no matter, if I did it, and if DCP were going to fret over me declaring that I would be presenting an inappropriate topic when the call for papers had just yet been announced and none of the proposels had been reviewed yet, then I'd up the ante by securing my time slot,

Joey and Dan,

I need to duck a little early, so if they give you an early slot, like 9:00 or 10:00, can we trade if I need to?

Some have said, namely DCP, that I had never given any indication that I was spoofing. Does my interaction on this thread reek of unflinching seriousness?

Consider this statement I had made earlier,

me wrote:I would like to know about what security measures are in place for the conference, just in case my person becomes threatened by any backlash to my presentation.

Do Liz, Jersey Girl, DCP, LoaP, or anyone else really think that I seriously tried to "con" everyone on this forum, that I had not even hinted that I was jesting when I announced my fear that I'd be in physical danger at a philosophy conference because of "Mopologists" wishing to take revenge against me for a paper I'd be presenting there skewering them for their shameful deeds, a paper that had been accepted before proposels were even being taken, and where the Society would fit me with a time slot of my choosing?

And consider, every time I announced my paper, DCP immediately shot it down as unlikely or an outright lie along with overly elaborate explanations as to why -- exactly as predicted. Why wasn't there cog dis for Liz or anyone else who claims to both respect and like me and DCP? I mean, why would anyone who respects DCP take what I was saying at face value given that DCP is on the board of directors of the SMPT and flat out denounced everything I said as a lie? Wouldn't such a person reason that DCP just might know what he was talking about in regard to the protocols of accepting papers?

It seems to me, only a complete idiot couldn't have put all this together --- if I did it, of course.

Does that mean I think Liz is a complete idiot? No! I think Doctor Scratch settled this in another thread. Scratch presented very good evidence that Liz isn't really all that interested in the work of Cassius, and simply never followed it. Just sort of gleaned a few comments here and there, probably thought it was enough to know what was going on, but it wasn't.

If I did it, surely I had gone to great lengths to ensure that no onlookers would be taking me seriously. And I have to say, that niether on this thread, nor any other thread up until the conference drew near, nor in PM did anyone ever say anything on this forum that I saw indicating they thought I was serious. And after the original SMPT thread died down, there was very little if any discussion of the matter until shortly before the conference. If I did it, I sure didn't put a lot of effort into it. That's for sure.

Gadianton wrote:The way I would have done this, while keeping true to the decided MO, would be to exaggerate my ridiculousness everytime DCP exaggerated his seriousness.

LOL! Now it becomes clear.

I need to duck a little early, so if they give you an early slot, like 9:00 or 10:00, can we trade if I need to?

LOL again! Too bad I missed that the first time around.

I would like to know about what security measures are in place for the conference, just in case my person becomes threatened by any backlash to my presentation.

And a final LOL. Now that is funny!

It was just a stupid stunt. Not particularly clever, not funny. Merely pointless.

As are these silly "chapters."

It was just a stupid stunt. Not particularly clever, not funny. Merely pointless.

As are these silly "chapters."

It may not have been particularly clever at its inception, but it certain became extremely funny, due to your and LOAP’s reaction.

You played your role so seamlessly for this particular satire that one would almost suspect you were in on it. Knowing you were not, and that your reactions were simply your genuine reactions made Gad’s satire all the funnier, because your reactions underlined two things:

1 - his observation about the deadly seriousness of certain (not all) high-profile apologists regarding their academic qualifications as well as the academic context of the defense of the faith approaches, at times, the type of pomposity that satirists like Colbert love to skewer was dead-on

2- the underlying point that the same apologists are normally incapable of recognizing their own pomposity was illustrated, time and again, by your responses

I don’t find Scratch’s constant analysis of your character particularly interesting or justified. But I think that Gad’s satire was both interesting and justified – and funny.

It’s difficult for people with an emotional connection to Mormonism to see this. Perhaps it would help to imagine apologists defending the assertions of scientology, resplendent with the frozen aliens in volcanoes, using their academic qualifications and academic context of their presentations to assume a condescending posture towards those without those same qualifications who quite logically look askance at those same claims. Imagine those apologists dwelling, at length, about how difficult it is to attain a spot on one of their academic conferences, and sneeringly inviting the “rubes” who find their claims obviously ludicrous to try and earn a spot themselves. As I’ve pointed out in the past, in fact, scientology is quite proud of their PhDs and parades them as well, so this is not a far-fetched example.

It was just stupid and pointless.

Though his defenders are playing their role perfectly, as could easily have been predicted. They just can't see it. Which was also completely predictable.

Your comments on the LOAP thread indicate that you still don't get what the satire was about. You weren't supposed to be fooled.

Thank you Beastie. As I predicted, my attempts to write this book would roadblocked by cruel comments that it's a "silly" thing to do and that I am uninteresting. The chapters will continue to be written, until the end is reached.

beastie wrote:1 - his observation about the deadly seriousness of certain (not all) high-profile apologists regarding their academic qualifications as well as the academic context of the defense of the faith approaches, at times, the type of pomposity that satirists like Colbert love to skewer was dead-on

Ding, ding, ding, ding rings the bell for the obviously correct answer. And one thing that can defeat the satire is to pretend you don't see it as such.

beastie wrote:Your comments on the LOAP thread indicate that you still don't get what the satire was about. You weren't supposed to be fooled.

it wasn't about anything. It was just stupid.

Wow. I certainly don't envy the apologists' difficult position here. On the one hand, they could admit that this was a well-executed satire (provided that Gad did it, of course), and could try to laugh along with everyone else. Sure: they'd have to admit that they were blinded by their own pomposity and seriousness, but, hey---now they get it, ha ha, very funny, and all of that. The other alternative is to insist that none of this is funny at all (which is what DCP is currently doing). While I guess this allows the apologists to maintain some shred of "moral integrity," the sacrifice is that they come across as grimly humorless. So, a tough set of choices for the apologists.