DrW wrote:Had his statement read something like the one below, which is shorter and conveys the same information, I would not have commented.
(3) We currently have (by my count) 27 books in our editorial pipeline and there appears to be no shortage of proposed new titles from qualified authors. However, our publishing resources are modest and we have a number of priorities to balance. In addition to our journals, newsletter and website, we have launched an initiative to republish our entire back catalog, both books and periodicals, in modern digital formats. This will require a heavy editorial investment. Even so, I expect we will publish at least 6-7 new books this year.
Hey, great! You should contact Blair Hodges, the new communications director for MI. I am sure he would be thrilled to receive your sage advice on how to discuss forthcoming publications in front of cranky academics on message boards.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Well, I can see that Patrick Milburg has hoisted himself on his own petard here. All of this stuff about "context" and so forth is surely only an avoidance tactic. Boy, Milgred was totally put in his place by that guy who agreed with Daniel Patterson and authored all of those books. We can all rest assured that this appeal to the authority of that scholar has educated his reading public well on how to engage with those who disagree with us.
1. Write the person who proofread your piece about that guy on the internetz who disagreed. 2. Ask the fellow if he did not think you all did a fabulous job on that thing. 3. Break through the resistance of your friend who thinks you're an obsessive nut to get a response you can hoist up on the internetz. 4. Hoist up said response without any unnecessary (or illuminating) context like the part where your friend tells you that you ought to cool off. 5. Make vague, pointless references to those people on the internetz you deeply dislike for not loving what you do. 6. Voila! Win.
I think we can all take a lesson from Donnell Plinterson in his handling of this matter. Portford Moldrek will think twice before criticizing the learned columns of Penterton and Hamfred again.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:If we could get you to spend a night in the state penitentiary, it might be tempting.
And that's different to a month attending Church, how exactly?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Check this out in the comment section to Dan's blog.
Darren wrote:“NAMIRS,” by which he meant BYU’s “Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship”
LoL – I had to look up NAMIRS online to know what it stood for despite mine having seen it a few times in the past. (I humorously decripted it as “Non-American Mormons In Relief Society)”. This SC is nothing more than a pompous arse whose haughty self loathing of his own intellect shows the igonramus he is. His arguments exist only in a superficial bubble on the blogosphere. His arguments can only exist there as when open for scrutiny, they are decimated. Since this superficial bubble is a place dedicated to tear good men down, we’ll call this place Hades.
Darren, Stak was the one who posted Dan's response! He's not hiding from critical responses. Can an MD&D poster say this with a straight face?
Stormy Waters wrote:Darren, Stak was the one who posted Dan's response! He's not hiding from critical responses. Can an MD&D poster say this with a straight face?
Yes, that is pretty cowardly of "Darren" to accuse Stak of something he is clearly not doing. Stak seeks interaction with other minds. He wants his feet put to the fire. Unfortunately, on this occasion what was offered was a poor substitute. It lacked context and did not engage many of the issues that Stak raised. So, "Darren," I guess your ineffective criticism falls flat.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
MrStakhanovite wrote:We lack too many important contexts to fully appreciate the response I think. I’d have to see what exactly Dan said in his e-mail to Graham and the entire e-mail from Graham before I’d feel comfortable making an assessment.
On the whole, I didn’t think it was insulting. I also don’t think it even comes close to touching on the issue whether Aristotelian philosophy in incongruent to Classical Theism or if it is a responsible assessment to say that praying to Aristotle’s God is like “praying to a rock”.
So I published the criticisms on my blog and took them for what they were worth. I don’t exactly try to hide my personal disdain for Dan, so I’m pretty comfortable just dealing with what comes my way from those quarters. Since I pretty much call Dan’s character and abilities as a scholar into question quite openly, I consider this pretty mild.
On reflection, Dan doesn’t have many avenues here. I make my name and where I go to school readily available, my entire immediate family can be found on my public face book page and they are pretty aware (as are my Professors) about what I do online. There is simply nothing him or one of his creatures like Pahoran can do to bully me. They can’t “out” me to unsuspecting family members or Bishops.
Dan also can’t appeal to a book or an article, because I’m going to find it and read it, which means if he takes anything out of context, he is just opening up another can of worms.
So this is one avenue that isn’t likely to blow up in his face.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Kishkumen wrote:Well, I can see that Patrick Milburg has hoisted himself on his own petard here. All of this stuff about "context" and so forth is surely only an avoidance tactic. Boy, Milgred was totally put in his place by that guy who agreed with Daniel Patterson and authored all of those books. We can all rest assured that this appeal to the authority of that scholar has educated his reading public well on how to engage with those who disagree with us.
1. Write the person who proofread your piece about that guy on the internetz who disagreed. 2. Ask the fellow if he did not think you all did a fabulous job on that thing. 3. Break through the resistance of your friend who thinks you're an obsessive nut to get a response you can hoist up on the internetz. 4. Hoist up said response without any unnecessary (or illuminating) context like the part where your friend tells you that you ought to cool off. 5. Make vague, pointless references to those people on the internetz you deeply dislike for not loving what you do. 6. Voila! Win.
I think we can all take a lesson from Donnell Plinterson in his handling of this matter. Portford Moldrek will think twice before criticizing the learned columns of Penterton and Hamfred again.
Duuuuuuuuude! You are fast becoming my very most favorite poster! You crack me up man! This is great......the Peterson/Hamblin debacle is just.....well, insane.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
