Hamblin and Peterson: Might as well be a couple of rocks.

[_The Mighty Builder]

Why would you impugn Rocks?

They are at least honest, heavy and most of all know what they are. No sir, Rocks are good. Now Mopologist are just Mormonisheous and there's not much more to say than that.

Mormonisheousness is as Mormons do - LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[_Kishkumen]

While Kish commented that he was sure that MI would "get over my disappointment in them" (I'm sure he is right), the larger issue of the general quality and relevance of what the apologists write and publish (IMHO) continues to be a problem for the image of the Church.

First of all, you are demonstrating to me that you haven't the foggiest clue why this change took place, or at least conveniently forget it when it suits your purposes and prejudices. The purpose for jettisoning the Old Guard of Mopologists was to switch the focus of NAMIRS to Mormon Studies away from apologetics of the Petersonian variety.

Now, evidently, absent any new information other than some numbers for the uptick in book publications, you are prepared to dismiss this change. You have no idea regarding the books' topics, authors, etc., but you are prepared to come down in judgment on the whole lot.

Excuse me if I don't think terribly highly of your predilection for hasty judgments on next to no information.

Carl may be your friend and I'm sorry but, as I said on the other thread, I still find his statement regarding projected publications at MI to be amusing.

Whether Carl is my friend or not is immaterial. You have yet to acknowledge the evidence that argues against your empty prejudice and merely return to dissecting in various ways Carl's initial statement, trying to slice it and dice it in order to find some fault with it. The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about where it regards the MI's publications capacity and you never have.

I did suggest that he might think about tightening things up a bit when he writes "press releases" to message boards. Look at the section in question again:

Since you are not and never have been a publisher, and you don't know any hard facts about MI's current stock of manuscripts, I will place your "analysis" in the crapper, where it belongs.

Now, and especially in light of the fact that they have hired an individual who they claim is capable of pushing more than 60 titles a year out the door, can you really tell me, with a straight face, that the internal inconsistency evident here is not amusing?

The only thing I find amusing is your desperate persistance in trying to turn your empty speculations and manifest prejudices into something substantial.

[_DrW]

While Kish commented that he was sure that MI would "get over my disappointment in them" (I'm sure he is right), the larger issue of the general quality and relevance of what the apologists write and publish (IMHO) continues to be a problem for the image of the Church.

First of all, you are demonstrating to me that you haven't the foggiest clue why this change took place, or at least conveniently forget it when it suits your purposes and prejudices. The purpose for jettisoning the Old Guard of Mopologists was to switch the focus of NAMIRS to Mormon Studies away from apologetics of the Petersonian variety.

Now, evidently, absent any new information other than some numbers for the uptick in book publications, you are prepared to dismiss this change. You have no idea regarding the books' topics, authors, etc., but you are prepared to come down in judgment on the whole lot.

Excuse me if I don't think terribly highly of your predilection for hasty judgments on next to no information.

Carl may be your friend and I'm sorry but, as I said on the other thread, I still find his statement regarding projected publications at MI to be amusing.

Whether Carl is my friend or not is immaterial. You have yet to acknowledge the evidence that argues against your empty prejudice and merely return to dissecting in various ways Carl's initial statement, trying to slice it and dice it in order to find some fault with it. The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about where it regards the MI's publications capacity and you never have.

I did suggest that he might think about tightening things up a bit when he writes "press releases" to message boards. Look at the section in question again:

Since you are not and never have been a publisher, and you don't know any hard facts about MI's current stock of manuscripts, I will place your "analysis" in the crapper, where it belongs.

Now, and especially in light of the fact that they have hired an individual who they claim is capable of pushing more than 60 titles a year out the door, can you really tell me, with a straight face, that the internal inconsistency evident here is not amusing?

The only thing I find amusing is your desperate persistance in trying to turn your empty speculations and manifest prejudices into something substantial.

We obviously have different views as to what is amusing.

[_Kishkumen]

We obviously have different views as to what is amusing.

On this topic, we clearly do. Smug ignorance is rarely amusing to me.

[_DrW]

We obviously have different views as to what is amusing.

On this topic, we clearly do. Smug ignorance is rarely amusing to me.

So, the discussion has finally progressed to ad hominem attacks.

Well done.

[_Kishkumen]

So, the discussion has finally progressed to ad hominem attacks.

Well done.

Dude, you started at ad hominem attacks. It just took me this long to stoop to your level.

[_DrW]

So, the discussion has finally progressed to ad hominem attacks.

Well done.

Dude, you started at ad hominem attacks. It just took me this long to stoop to your level.

Sorry, but you will need to show me where I have attacked you personally on this, or any other board, ever.

[_Sethbag]

Come on, this thing between you two has found its way to what, three or four different threads already?

[_Kishkumen]

Sorry, but you will need to show me where I have attacked you personally on this, or any other board, ever.

Post deleted. I am done with this conversation.

[_DrW]

Sorry, but you will need to show me where I have attacked you personally on this, or any other board, ever.

No, DrW. Nice try. You have based you entire argument about the MI's future publications on the premise that Carl Griffin is an ignorant, overly enthusiastic rube Mormon whose words about his own job can be dismissed out of hand, when you have no real basis for arriving at that conclusion aside from your obvious prejudices.

Fair enough.

If you will remove the word "ignorant" from your statement above, and stipulate that my "obvious prejudices" are based on experience with both Mormonism and publishing, I will concede the argument and agree with your post above. Like I said, I have no doubt that Carl Griffins is a nice guy.

If it makes you any happier, I might even attend Church (once only) as a form of contrition.