Chalk Up Another MAD-Influenced Apostasy

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Catch this logic: Juliann OWNS MAD. But she wanted to shut it down.


She never really wanted to shut it down, even though she said she did. But yes, she has made it clear that that is her forum.

But some higher up than the OWNER decided to keep it up despite her objetions.


According to Juliann, that is. If you have problems with the logic, then your problem is with her. I suggest she shut it down like she said she wanted to. But she won't, because then where would that leave her? This is why I said they keep it up for selfish reasons. They have to know it is counterproductive, but ultimately are doing it for themselves. The only people who consistently yap in TBM mode are people who don't need any testimony support to begin with. So why are they thre? The rest of them who are struggling rarely benefit from the forum. If they do, it is because they pop in on one discussion, find an apologetic answer to one particular issue that concerned them, and then are never heard from again. Those that linger at MAD for years do so because they are constantly waiting for a miraculous apologetic campaign to come forth that will reasonably answer all their concerns.

I mean, if it is going to happen, the internet forums are where they will take place, right? It isn't like you're going to get it from LDS leaders speaking at conference.

So now she it belongs to her, but she can't quit even though she wants to because. . . . why?


Exactly my point. Once upon a time Juliann said she voted to shut it down. But that was when it was owned by FAIR. It was on the FAIR website so she had to have their approval. They denied her that she said. But later FAIR divorced itself from the forum, so she should have been able to do with it whatever she wanted without approval from the other FAIR directors.

So why is it still up? Did Juliann change her mind, or did she never really mean what she said to begin with?

Your remarks about Peterson and Bokovoy are dripping with envy.


They are drippiing with reality. I was never one to rely on the mods to save me from embarrassing posts, so your psychoanalysis is just rhetoric. Dan depends on this. He expects it, and above all, he requires it.

You know, if you worked hard, produced sterling results, earned the respect of your non-LDS peers, you could enjoy their elevated status, too.


ROFL!!

And you think Dan and David have an entourage of moderator support because their "non-LDS peers" respect their "sterling results"? Exactly which planet are you posting from today? What results?

What "sterling" apologetic has Dan Petsron produced in say, the past five years? Ten years? If and when he does produce something worth debating, he'll refuse to debate and then give us a longwinded excuse about how his agenda won't allow it. OR he'll say he doesn't like discussion forums. Whichever excuse he happens to fancy at the time.
Dan refuses to debate anything of substance, and he has essentially admitted this. He picks only the battles he knows he can win - very few - which means he never deals with critics who can mop the floors with him. Ever. He wrote off Brent Metcalfe many years ago, yet Brent is apparently well respected at MAD. So why won't Dan debate him? Oh yea, because Dan chose to defer to his partner in crime, John Gee, on all things Book of Abraham.

Dan shows up at MAD for the same reasons Sly and Arnold made sporadic Hard Rock café appearances. They don't go there to do anything productive. It is just show. Dan provides good traffic for MAD and receives plenty of ego massage in the process. It is hilarious how he and Hamblin are constantly starting up threads that advertise their recent academic successes, as if to say, "don't forget we're celebrities here!!" They are relatively unknown in the academic community as it is. Their true fame is due to their various internet appearances on discussion forums, where they are given a venue to post in God mode.

Dan knows he can say whatever he wants because he is above reproach. He was promised this when Juliann managed to lure him away from ZLMB. That was part of the bargain. That is why he hangs out there. And that is why ZLMB died. Dan knows this. It is an ego trip for the whole lot of them. With the mods tinkering with virtually every thread Dan is in, and reprimanding virtually any poster who dares stand up to his "arguments," it makes his arguments appear invincible, which in turn, serves the extended purpose of giving hope to fence straddlers out there.

In reality, the best debates that have ever taken place on the web, are found in the ZLMB archives, where apologist and critic were both given an even playing field. But the apologists were getting creamed, and folks like Juliann knew it. So they set up their own environment where they could control the tempo, the level of support, and most importantly, the outcomes.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

We all had our own personalities. Some had learned more than others. Some were more obedient than others. There were noble and great ones. That means there were others who weren't as noble or as great. On the same team, but second stringers, maybe.


LOL! You gotta love the arrogance of Mormons.

My opinion on why MAD continues is because it is comprised of a core of believers who can't leave "anti Mormons" alone.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

beastie wrote:
We all had our own personalities. Some had learned more than others. Some were more obedient than others. There were noble and great ones. That means there were others who weren't as noble or as great. On the same team, but second stringers, maybe.


LOL! You gotta love the arrogance of Mormons.


I know. The noble and great ones. By their own self-congratulatory standards.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Hey, we were all raised, I assume, on Saturday's Warrior, weren't we? We were taught that we were the cream of the crop, saved until the Last Days because we would have what it took to survive all the trials that beset believers in this wicked world and still be able to stay true and advance the work. We were numbered among the nobel and great ones mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price, absolutely. They aren't just making this stuff up. They're parroting the stuff Joseph Smith made up. ;-)
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

harmony wrote:Since none of us know anything about Scratch, this is completely out of left field. For all you know, Scratch is Peterson's boss.


You mean Scratch is DCP's wife? (Well that would explain the friction between them)

OH>>>>you mean boss as in the academic sense. *Giggle*
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Mister Scratch wrote:Something that occurs to me: How is it that any right-minded TBM can continue on, in good conscience, to justify participating on the MADboard when s/he knows that it harms struggling members? Do they figure that "it's the thought that counts"? Or do they imagine themselves receiving some kind of "spiritual brownie points" for being defenders?


Not all Mormon posters are of the Pahoran/Hammer type. Some give caring and sensitive answers that can help those who are stuggling.
I think the problem is too may get caught up in an adversarial attitude and cannot stop themselves from framing what is being said in an Us versus Them context.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

dartagnan wrote:
The only people who consistently yap in TBM mode are people who don't need any testimony support to begin with. So why are they thre? The rest of them who are struggling rarely benefit from the forum.

If they do, it is because they pop in on one discussion, find an apologetic answer to one particular issue that concerned them, and then are never heard from again. Those that linger at MAD for years do so because they are constantly waiting for a miraculous apologetic campaign to come forth that will reasonably answer all their concerns.

I mean, if it is going to happen, the internet forums are where they will take place, right? It isn't like you're going to get it from LDS leaders speaking at conference.

So now she it belongs to her, but she can't quit even though she wants to because. . . . why?


Exactly my point. Once upon a time Juliann said she voted to shut it down. But that was when it was owned by FAIR. It was on the FAIR website so she had to have their approval. They denied her that she said. But later FAIR divorced itself from the forum, so she should have been able to do with it whatever she wanted without approval from the other FAIR directors.

So why is it still up? Did Juliann change her mind, or did she never really mean what she said to begin with?
dartagnan wrote:lationship with FAIR or MA&D is as a really rude poster, who kept being warned time after time to cut out the insults, and when you wouldn't do it you were banned. Then you tried to sneak back in as a sock puppet, on more than one occasions. So, now you are saying your are privy to internal discussions and decisino making meetings, etc? And you can read Juliann's mind. Wow. What strange claims.

dartagnan wrote:
Your remarks about Peterson and Bokovoy are dripping with envy.


They are drippiing with reality. I was never one to rely on the mods to save me from embarrassing posts, so your psychoanalysis is just rhetoric. Dan depends on this. He expects it, and above all, he requires it.

You know, if you worked hard, produced sterling results, earned the respect of your non-LDS peers, you could enjoy their elevated status, too.


ROFL!!

And you think Dan and David have an entourage of moderator support because their "non-LDS peers" respect their "sterling results"? Exactly which planet are you posting from today? What results?


I thought you probably hadn't kept up on what David is doing. Too bad. It is good stuff.

And then follows over 400 words (and no, I didn't count them by hand. I have a WP feature that does that.) only about Dan. You don't say one word about David. And so why is it you included David in your rant in the first place. You aren't even funny any more, Kevin. You are showing yourself increasingly bitter.

For those of you who aren't already familiar with him, David Bokovoy is a real up and comer. He is still working on his Ph.D. at Brandeis. Even in advance of his degree, he is being invited to present the results of his work at non-LDS conferences. I spent some time in conversation with David at the fair conference last summer, and he is one brilliant man.

Oh, yes, and when he posts at MA&D, his posts are on point, he doesn't engage in run and shoot insult contests. Kevin's envious comments to the contrary.
_Pokatator
_Emeritus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm

Post by _Pokatator »

charity wrote:I think it is a sad fact, that once a person has lost his/her testimony and the arguments of anti's becomes attractive, it will take lot to keep that member from falling completely away.

Do you ever wonder why they lose their testimony? Or wonder why the argument is attractive? Truth and knowledge has a funny way of doing that to people.

charity wrote:People are agents unto themselves. They make the choices. No missionary converts a person. No anti-Mormon "missionary" de-converts a person. Dr. Terryl Givens had it right. There is evidence to lead to a life of belief or a life of denial.

There is absolutely no objectivity in this statement, if the statement was a life of belief or a life of unbelief, the statement might have a little objectivity to it.

charity wrote:The person makes a choice based on who they are, not on the evidence. And it isn't pride or laziness. It is just a matter of who the person is.

You often claim it is pride and laziness. Charity, this is just more of your self-righteousness and holier than thou statements.

charity wrote:We were all different before we came here. We had all made choices while there. Our personalities do not change from there to here.

So no one can change, no one converts, no one betters one's self? So the church should give up according to you. Why try or do anything? Sorry I think people change.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

charity wrote:I thought you probably hadn't kept up on what David is doing. Too bad. It is good stuff.

And then follows over 400 words (and no, I didn't count them by hand. I have a WP feature that does that.) only about Dan. You don't say one word about David. And so why is it you included David in your rant in the first place. You aren't even funny any more, Kevin. You are showing yourself increasingly bitter.

For those of you who aren't already familiar with him, David Bokovoy is a real up and comer. He is still working on his Ph.D. at Brandeis. Even in advance of his degree, he is being invited to present the results of his work at non-LDS conferences. I spent some time in conversation with David at the fair conference last summer, and he is one brilliant man.

Oh, yes, and when he posts at MA&D, his posts are on point, he doesn't engage in run and shoot insult contests. Kevin's envious comments to the contrary.


Personally, I like David. He's much more open to ideas that are contrary to his own than some of our more illustrious apologists, and much less likely to insult or hit and run. I have learned from him.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

And so why is it you included David in your rant in the first place.


Because like Dan, David is escorted by an entourage of moderators every time he posts. So I included him. I suppose I could also include Bill Hamblin, our erstwhile Butthead expert.

You aren't even funny any more, Kevin.


Well, looks aren't everything.

You are showing yourself increasingly bitter.


Of course that is the answer for everything over there right? When the arguments by critics cannot be refuted, just call them bitter.

For those of you who aren't already familiar with him, David Bokovoy is a real up and comer. He is still working on his Ph.D. at Brandeis.


Are you kididng? Who doesn't already know this when Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin are already including him in their little circle of self-congratulatory endorsements?

But this doesn't have anything to do with anything I just said now does it?

Even in advance of his degree, he is being invited to present the results of his work at non-LDS conferences. I spent some time in conversation with David at the fair conference last summer, and he is one brilliant man.


Oh but they are all brilliant men, right? Gee is brilliant, even though he cannot fork up the decency to be honest in his apologetics. Dan Peterson is "brilliant" even though he lets ignorant fools like me refute him on issues in which he is supposed to be the expert (Islam).

But how does Bokovoy's brilliance change the fact that MAD escorts David and Dan whenever they post, paving they way for them to bloviate in criticism-free zones? You see it is easy to persuade the naïve when the other side is not permitted to rebut.

Oh, yes, and when he posts at MA&D, his posts are on point, he doesn't engage in run and shoot insult contests. Kevin's envious comments to the contrary.


Unfortunately for you, David has a history posting on this forum as ennumaelish, where any poster can review his history and see just what kind of bunk you're truly pushing. David has insulted me and others on numerous occassions, but he has since cooled down so I cut him some slack lately. There is still an open debate between the two of us in the celestial forum. No insults, just informative posts.

Anyway, I expect you'll avoid trying to tell me how his "up and coming" status among the apologists is supposed to change the fact that he still can't explain how Joseph Smith could misunderstand a biblical passage like Rev 1:6?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Post Reply