Meet the Mopologists

[_beastie]

Yes, you're absolutely right. There is a similar "disclaimer" over at SHIELDS. The funny thing is that these Mopologists are so anal about fair use and copyright and following the rules when it applies to their own stuff, or when it supports their agenda. But, when it comes to critics, or the actual protocol governing use of verbatim texts, they think the rules can be bent.

And might I point out for probably the billionth time (because that stupid claim irritates me to no end) - this assertion of copyright is void and not valid under current copyright law. You cannot assign a copyright to a person or entity via a "click through" - it must be a signed writing. This has been pointed out to MADB, but they ignore it and proceed.

It appears this copyright claim relies on a generous dollop of ignorance in its target audience. In that, it is not unlike Mormon apologia in general. ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

It appears this copyright claim relies on a generous dollop of ignorance in its target audience. In that, it is not unlike Mormon apologia in general. ;)

Says the girl who can go on and on and on about the liabilities and problems of the authors of a book she still hasn't seen.

Unbelievable.

[_harmony]

It appears this copyright claim relies on a generous dollop of ignorance in its target audience. In that, it is not unlike Mormon apologia in general. ;)

Says the girl who can go on and on and on about the liabilities and problems of the authors of a book she still hasn't seen.

Unbelievable.

The problems and liabilities still exist and are therefore fodder for discussion, whether Trixie has seen the book itself yet or not.

What are you going to do, after Aug 29? Cease with this nonsense? You only have another 5 days, you know, and then you will actually have to discuss the content and cease this useless wailing about an irrelevant side issue.

Unless you disappear again. Nothing unusual in that either.

[_Brackite]

It also was very nice to Put a Face to the name of Juliann/Dunamis/Orpheus. Thanks, Kerry and Mister Scracth!.

[_Jersey Girl]

It also was very nice to Put a Face to the name of Juliann/Dunamis/Orpheus. Thanks, Kerry and Mister Scracth!.

I totally loved seeing the videos and especially seeing Juliann with whom I clashed many times in the past. When I've read posters for any length of time (as I did Juliann back in the FAIR board days) I develop a mental picture of them in my mind.

Juliann looked nothing like I imagined. She was friendly and joking and that part of her personality rarely came across in her posts. When Kerry scooped his arm around her, she had such a cute look in her eye.

Okay, I admit it. She looks like somebody I could have a real life conversation with.

Watching the videos, I got a sense of "old home week". That is to say, people who bump into eachother from time to time in real life and on the boards and who look forward to their annual gathering.

In my former church, about this time of year we used to have a "Fall Round up" where members gathered after summer and such. The FAIR videos reminded me of that.

[_Mister Scratch]

Prove me wrong, then, Dan. Put your money where your mouth is. I'd be willing to bet that you would never, ever put a "correction" in the FARMS review which directs readers to this message board. It would involve to much risk for you, and for the Mopologetic agenda.

The Review routinely provides references to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Bertrand Russell, Grant Palmer, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, and numerous other atheists, anti-Mormons, countercult "ministries," etc.

You can either imagine that you pose a more potent threat to The Mopologetic Agenda than such people do, to the extent that we're simply too terrified to name your intimidating pseudonym, or you can face the rather deflating reality.

The fact remains: you are willing to cite folks such as Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al., but this simple courtesy seems not to apply when you are using an messageboard poster as a straw man. I guess we can take this as a sign of FARMS's academic ethics.

If you are a real man about this, and aren't afraid of whatever repercussions might fall, then you'd print the correction. I will wait patiently to see if you are man enough to do it.

I'm glad, though, that you have evolved to such a state of being whereby you think the rules everyone else has to live by don't apply to you.

I hold no such view.

You don't? See below:

Ultimately, Dan, you are bending the rules. I'd like to point out that you have failed to do the obvious thing, which would be to cite a passage from Chicago justifying your editorial decision. Of course, you already know that you violated the Chicago rules, so of course you won't be supplying anything but your own blather to support your faulty argument.

I've explained my position. We apply the Chicago rules quite faithfully when we think they're applicable. I didn't think that an on-line jibe by a pseudonymous critic that played no role in any argument and served no evidentiary function rose to the level of significance that it required a bibliographical reference. I still don't.

Uh huh. Right.

This isn't going to just go away, either, Professor P. You will go on looking like someone who takes cheap shots, and who fudges citation protocol. I'd like to urge you once again to issue a correction in the next issue of the Review. Unless you are scared, that is.

[_beastie]

Says the girl who can go on and on and on about the liabilities and problems of the authors of a book she still hasn't seen.

Unbelievable.

I've gone on about the conflict of interest inherent in the production of the book. The information required to make that assessment is available without reading the book. I've deliberately stated, over and over, that I was not making any judgment about the accuracy of the content of the book itself. But don't let that fact stop your spin, it certainly hasn't so far.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact remains: you are willing to cite folks such as Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al., but this simple courtesy seems not to apply when you are using an messageboard poster as a straw man.

It's rather amusing to see my malevolent stalker, more than two years into his campaign of perpetual spin and defamation, whining about my supposed discourtesy in failing to publicize his pseudonym for him.

I guess we can take this as a sign of FARMS's academic ethics.

You can take it as a very minor two-year-old editorial decision of mine.

If you are a real man about this, and aren't afraid of whatever repercussions might fall, then you'd print the correction. I will wait patiently to see if you are man enough to do it.

You can wait forever, so far as I'm concerned. I'm not so insecure in my masculinity as to need your validation of it.

This isn't going to just go away, either, Professor P.

Actually, I expect that it'll go away when I stop playing with you on this message board.

You may fantasize that an audience of thousands is hanging on your every word in this monumental battle, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I'd like to urge you once again to issue a correction in the next issue of the Review. Unless you are scared, that is.

Are you calling me a scaredy-cat, Scartch?

Well neener neener neener. You missed me. And your mother wears army boots.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've gone on about the conflict of interest inherent in the production of the book.

Without a single new fact to go on and on about.

It's perfectly fine to warn about a real or potential conflict of interest in the authors. But the next step is not to reiterate that for thirty-one pages, but to read the book.

A revolutionary thought, I know, on a board where harmony and Boaz & Lidia and Scartch and poor antishock8, among others, contribute so significantly to the overall intellectual tone.

[_Joey]

A revolutionary thought, I know, on a board where harmony and Boaz & Lidia and Scartch and poor antishock8, among others, contribute so significantly to the overall intellectual tone.

Do you know of one, or any other medium for that matter, where Clark, Sorenson, and now Welch, have contributed to such "intellectual" tone amongst their peers for their "claimed scholarship" work on Book of Mormon historicity? Outside of Provo, of course!!!!