What is the Mopologetic "skinny-l" Listserve?

[_Gadianton]

I've been monitoring the flow of apologetic monies remotely today and some distrbing developments have been noted.

I do have an observation for this thread though. If "skinny l" has been around for many years and still has only 12 members then I think we can infer that it has a high regard for keeping it's contents secret. And new members must be thoroughly investigated before they are allowed to join.

Another point, Lou Migdley certainly has boasted a great deal. His very picture standing in front of UTLM is not of a man walking in humility. His dismissive comments about another man's Christianity are boastful, as was his derrision of the man's faith as "apostate".

Finally, it's a pretty harsh tactic to accuse someone of not having any friends. I consider Scratch a friend. I'm sure many others do as well.

[_cksalmon]

It's easily found:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_Min.htm

"Letters to a Mormon Elder, the Uncensored Version":

* Correspondence with James White
and Dr. William Hamblin (BYU):

* Letters One through Ten
* Letters Eleven through Twenty
* Letters Twenty-one through Thirty
* Letters Thirty-one through Forty
* Letters Forty-one through Forty-nine
* Letters Fifty through Sixty
* Letters Sixty-one through Seventy-five (Note: This file contains correspondence which James White refuses to place on his web site. James claims he wants to record to speak for itself, yet he has censored the record on his web site saying that this part of correspondence is "irrelevant." Apparently he believes that his readers are incapable of deciding for themselves.)

From: James White <orthopodeo@aomin.org>
To: William J. Hamblin <william_hamblin@BYU.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Unposted Letter 1

At 01:32 PM 6/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>>Post what letters you think were a part of this discussion that
>>have not been posted on our web page.
>
>Thanks for your kind offer to post the unposted letters I sent you.
>The first attached as an html file. It is letters 37 to 40 on the SHIELDS
>register.

I have no idea what is causing your confusion, Dr. Hamblin. I have posted the letters that were exchanged between us on the topic of Psalm 82. You sent me three letters, two of which were on a different topic (and to which I have not replied), and one that you wrote after I had already posted your final comments. Hence:

1) If you demand they be posted, it seems you believe that I have, for some reason, agreed to engage in unlimited e-mail debating with you, on any topic you so choose, for as long as you choose, for as nasty as you wish to get, and, further, I must post anything you send to me on any topic whatsoever on our web page. Which means,

2) That you believe you have been made honorary webmaster of our website.

Neither #1 nor #2 logically follows from engaging you in a discussion of Psalm 82 and its meaning, based upon your call to KTKK radio in April. The address to the SHIELDS page is on our own. If someone wants to read all the rabbit trails you might wish to present, no matter how interesting they may be, they can easily do so. We prefer to keep the conversation limited to what we *said* we were going to discuss at the outset.

James>>>

'

Really? So what?

Please provide the smoking gun evidence that JW was intentionally hiding material relevant to the Psalm 82 issue? That is the issue, right?

Let's see the specific material JW left out of the Psalm 82 correspondence with Hamblin that he refuses to let his readers see.

What's just incredibly ironic in all this is that White provided the direct link (which I initially missed) to the very same SHIELDS material you've adduced here--in the opening paragraph of his webpage!

We, in the biz, would label this sort of thing as "Poor Censorship."

So, we have JW's account. And, thanks to JW (and, now, you) we have the SHIELDS account.

But, please, clue me in to the material that White has censored re: his exchange with Hamblin about Psalm 82!?!

That was your charge, right?

Compare the Hamblin/White exchange on Psalm 82 as it appears on SHIELDS and the truncated version of it that appears on Mr. Whilte's site.

Indeed, compare away. I look forward to your analysis.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do have an observation for this thread though. If "skinny l" has been around for many years and still has only 12 members then I think we can infer that it has a high regard for keeping it's contents secret. And new members must be thoroughly investigated before they are allowed to join.

It's just some friends. No big secrets. No investigations.

Sheesh.

Another point, Lou Migdley certainly has boasted a great deal. His very picture standing in front of UTLM is not of a man walking in humility. His dismissive comments about another man's Christianity are boastful, as was his derrision of the man's faith as "apostate".

I've known Lou well -- actually known him -- for roughly twenty years. I've stayed with him and traveled with him and his wife twice in New Zealand, etc. He's modest and self-deprecating.

Finding "boasts" and "sneers" in his photograph seems to me pretty weak stuff.

Finally, it's a pretty harsh tactic to accuse someone of not having any friends. I consider Scratch a friend. I'm sure many others do as well.

I didn't accuse. I merely asked.

But I apologize. I hadn't realized how wholely inappropriate it is to come within light years of "harshness" on this message board, and most particularly in the vicinity of Mister Scratch, whose kindness and charity are the stuff of legend.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But, please, clue me in to the material that White has censored re: his exchange with Hamblin about Psalm 82!?!

That was your charge, right?

Why the accusatory tone? I simply said that I wanted to make sure that people saw the whole exchange, because I thought Mr. White might post only a truncated version, as he had done in the case of the correspondence on Psalm 82 -- which he plainly did.

Compare the Hamblin/White exchange on Psalm 82 as it appears on SHIELDS and the truncated version of it that appears on Mr. Whilte's site.

Indeed, compare away. I look forward to your analysis.

The compare in my sentence was an imperative directed to you. It's your issue. You demanded "evidence" for my "accusation." I supplied it.

[Guest]

But, please, clue me in to the material that White has censored re: his exchange with Hamblin about Psalm 82!?!

That was your charge, right?

Why the accusatory tone? I simply said that I wanted to make sure that people saw the whole exchange, because I thought Mr. White might post only a truncated version, as he had done in the case of the correspondence on Psalm 82 -- which he plainly did.

Compare the Hamblin/White exchange on Psalm 82 as it appears on SHIELDS and the truncated version of it that appears on Mr. Whilte's site.

Indeed, compare away. I look forward to your analysis.

The compare in my sentence was an imperative directed to you. It's your issue. You demanded "evidence" for my "accusation." I supplied it.

"B-List Academic"

"But, I pointed you to many words. Surely, that is enough to substantiate my claim!" You provided a hyperlink; you didn't provide any evidence of suppression.

That's good enough elsewhere, I suppose.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Finally, it's a pretty harsh tactic to accuse someone of not having any friends. I consider Scratch a friend. I'm sure many others do as well.

I didn't accuse. I merely asked.

But I apologize. I hadn't realized how wholely inappropriate it is to come within light years of "harshness" on this message board, and most particularly in the vicinity of Mister Scratch, whose kindness and charity are the stuff of legend.

Anyone who gets Daniel Peterson in a huff is a friend of mine! You, Doc, Scratch, Dude, Runtu, KA, CK, and many others on this and other boards.

[_William Schryver]

You know, Dan, I understand my morbid fascination with the goings on here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. I more or less grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and so I have a soft spot in my heart for snotty-nosed, shabby bastard children like Mr. Scratch and his cohorts here in the Circle Jerk Suite.

What's your excuse?

;-)

[_beastie]

Is there some other email group behind the MAD scenes? I recall it being mentioned previously, but my impression was that it is a larger group including people such as Juliann.

willie's phrase

Circle Jerk Suite

Quite an ironic and amusing description, given the particular topic of this thread.

[_Yong Xi]

You know, Dan, I understand my morbid fascination with the goings on here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. I more or less grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and so I have a soft spot in my heart for snotty-nosed, shabby bastard children like Mr. Scratch and his cohorts here in the Circle Jerk Suite.

What's your excuse?

;-)

DCP is trying out his new cilice.

[_Gadianton]

Now that isn't true, I would be friends with Scratch if he never were to get another response from you. The world, including my friendships does not revolve around you.

I don't dislike you or have anything against you personally. I will admit that some of the friends you've chosen I feel are a bad influence on you. Hamblin, Novak, Migdley; I think are angry people and do not inspire the best traits in Dr. Peterson. What about Roper? He seems like a polite fellow. Hang out with him more.