Jersey Girl wrote:As I'm reading the recent replies on this thread, I'm getting a clear "who the hell cares any more" kinda feeling. Anyone else?
Nope. Like Beastie, I still care. That Murphy/Midgley/Echohawke thread on ZLMB was, quite literally, the grandest, most epic thread in the entire history of LDS debate on the Internet. That thread is where the Mopologists and their modii operandi were laid bare for all the world to see, with no escape routes--or even plausible deniability--left available to them.
Bond...James Bond wrote:Edit: And I'm actually really suprised that this thread didn't even earn a rebuttal beastie.
I think Mister Scratch made the same observation much earlier. I, too, was eagerly waiting to see if they could cook up any sort of defense for their fiasco over there, but nope--nothing but crickets chirping.
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, I thought that A Light in the Darkness's apparently stunned reaction was quite telling. S/he seem pretty shocked that juliann, DCP, and et. al. would behave in this way.
That sentiment was expressed by more than one person so far, wasn't it? Who was it that said they had previously thought rather highly of Jan, Calmoriah, et. al., only to have their impression utterly shattered?
Okay, let's not blow this up out of proportion. Maybe others were there for the greater good, to make some sort of earthshaking statement about the state of Mormon apologetics, but I wasn't. I fully acknowledge that my sole purpose on that thread was to back Juliann, who has always been a pain in everyone's glutimus maximus but mine especially, into a corner of her own making, stuff her words down her throat, and make her admit that she'd lied. And between the bunch of us, we accomplished that. I'm not sure it was a watershed event, but it was danged satisfying to finally, at last, no matter how she tried, slip the noose on Juliann and tie her up with her own words.
As far as Jan and Cal were concerned, I was never of the group that thought they were any better or any worse than the average apologist, so their behavior didn't surprise or disappoint me.
Dr. Bishop Peterson......You keep bringing this up as you did here....
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Scottie wrote: At least here you can attack back without fear of the mod's suspending you.
Which doesn't make for very substantive or very interesting conversation, actually.
Do you really find Scratch One and Scratch Two's interminable admit-that-you-ran-a-campaign-to-smear-Mike-Quinn threads gripping, beyond the first seventy pages or so?
Dr. Bishop Peterson:
You are being totally unFAIR to yourself here, you owned just as much responsibility to the derailment of that thread as #1 and #2 as you choose to call them. The original thread was about the Origins of FAIR. You chose not to address the OP out of your supposed lack interest in reading 28 pages of you and your friends embrassing yourselves to no end. You would rather go for 28 pages in a go around with #1 and #2 rather than defend yourself and your friends, Why because that interested you? No, because it allowed you to avoid answering anything about the OP.
What kind of campaign are you are you running here? Did you just now suddenly gain an interest in the "Comments on FAIR/MAD" thread but still have no interest in the "Origins of FAIR" thread?
Pokatator
So I'll raise the issue again as promised:....
Pokatator wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:"The good professor"! What an ironic character assassin you are!
You're going to wait a long, long time. And I doubt that you'll do it patiently.
As I've said before, I have absolutely no interest in reading through twenty-eight pages of old internet stuff. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You're the dirt-digger, Scratch One. Not I.
As I've also already said before, if somebody was being deliberately deceptive, I disapprove. I disapprove of deliberate deception.
I am glad you disapprove of deception and especially deliberate deception. It is obvious that the reason you have "Zero Zip Zilch Nada" interest in reading the 28 pages and responding is because all that the 28 pages contain is deliberate deception and in which you participated in but I agree your participation was to a lesser degree than your cohorts.
I've said that before. In a week or two, after you've patiently waited by raising the issue a few dozen times more, I'll say it again.
From the spud field
I raised the issue not Mister Scratch
and in a week or two maybe I'll do it again
Pokatator
SO answer the OP or quit bringing up the derailment of the OP!!!
Bishop Dan wrote:I don't care about your opinions.
Or anyone else's, of course.
Bishop Dan wrote:That seems to me a pretty good formula for proceeding with life.
Most TBM's would tend to agree, I'm sad to say.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Juliann was caught lying about a critic, publicly. It must have been humiliating for her.
That is why she went off and started her own FAIR board, and the war just kept going, until she banned all of us. Thank god Dr. Shades created a place for all of us to reside. ;)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Buffalo wrote: Juliann was caught making up stories about a critic, publicly. It must have been humiliating for her.
In defense of Mormon Apologetics, they feel that what they do is necessary to defend the Church.
There may come some future point where instead of what transpired, non-apologetic Church members may say something like, "We have no firm answer against Dr. Murphy's findings, but rather than introduce any false accusations as a form of rebuttal, we will simply reaffirm our belief that American Natives are the descendants of the Lamanites".
This alternate approach does not leave a foul taste in your mouth afterward.