Page 2 of 2
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:33 am
by drumdude
DCP wrote:Sigh. One or two members of the tiny society of unhinged obsessives over at the Peterson Obsession Board, who live to be indignant and outraged at everything I do, say, and write, are currently hyperventilating about my statement (above) that the biographies of J. J. Strang on which I drew for that old column are in the Harold B. Lee Library. All I meant, of course, was that the books are in the library and, implicitly, that I'm not -- meaning that I can't refer to them again without going to the library. I was, in fact, in Sun Valley, Idaho, when I posted the reply above. And, as will soon be apparent, I won't be in the Lee Library again in the next while, either.
Don't fret Daniel. No one needs to be making a trek to the Lee Library to find out the truth here, as I hope has been made readily apparent.
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:45 am
by IHAQ
drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:41 am
Daniel claims that the reason there are no footnotes is because a newspaper article is not the proper place to include footnotes.
But Daniel chose in 2017 to copy the article verbatim into a larger Interpreter piece about Witnesses. Footnotes are found throughout the piece, as is appropriate for something published in what we are told is a scholarly journal.
But footnotes are again completely absent to back up Daniel's claim.
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... ecularism/
Page XX
That’s odd…providing some footnotes, but not all…lazy? nefarious? Why didn’t Interpreter’s rigorous peer review process pick that up prior to publication?
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:04 pm
by drumdude
Because the footnote doesn’t say what Daniel claims it says. Isn’t it strange that every time you follow an apologist footnote it is misrepresented? I’m sure it’s just an honest mistake, and phD level academics always have a hard time distinguishing between “He said X” and “she said he said X.”
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:43 am
by Everybody Wang Chung
drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:04 pm
Because the footnote doesn’t say what Daniel claims it says. Isn’t it strange that every time you follow an apologist footnote it is misrepresented? I’m sure it’s just an honest mistake, and phD level academics always have a hard time distinguishing between “He said X” and “she said he said X.”
DCP is misrepresenting his sources? I find that hard to believe.
Just kidding. Of course DCP is misrepresenting his sources. He always does that. Camus anyone?
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:53 am
by drumdude
Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:43 am
drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:04 pm
Because the footnote doesn’t say what Daniel claims it says. Isn’t it strange that every time you follow an apologist footnote it is misrepresented? I’m sure it’s just an honest mistake, and phD level academics always have a hard time distinguishing between “He said X” and “she said he said X.”
DCP is misrepresenting his sources? I find that hard to believe.
Just kidding. Of course DCP is misrepresenting his sources. He always does that. Camus anyone?
I'm a believer in the
two sources theory. Every time we think we have caught DCP lying, it's actually because we didn't find the
correct source.
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:07 am
by Moksha
Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:43 am
Of course, DCP is misrepresenting his sources. He always does that.
Clearly, this is a case of misrepresenting for the Lord. There is a special subsection requiring apologists to do this in
The Unwritten Rules of Order.
Re: "My Witnesses are Better Than Yours!": DCP Attacks the Strangites
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:14 am
by Marcus
drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:04 pm
Because the footnote doesn’t say what Daniel claims it says. Isn’t it strange that every time you follow an apologist footnote it is misrepresented?
It is strange for articles purported to be peer-reviewed. But for Mormon apologists? It is routine. i think this is what shocked me most of all when i started reading Mormon apologia.