Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Seventy years ago today, the Nazi concentration camp at Mauthausen, Austria, opens its gates.

Forty-five years ago today, Martin Luther King Jr, delivers his famous "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Tonight, the first black man ever to be nominated for the presidency by a major political party accepts that nomination.

This afternoon, Master Scartch threatens to sue Dan Peterson over a joke, to destroy Peterson and to wipe out Peterson's life savings and the inheritance of his children.

28 August 2008 -- a watershed day in the history of Mopologetics.

Brought to you by Master Scartch.

Woohoo OBAMA

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The government is trying to help people like Scratch. Here's a panel discussing new ways to aid them: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... government

Aren't they already doing this with Bishop Dan?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Brackite likes both Mister Scratch and DCP.

DCP, who likes virtually everybody (including Dr. Shades, Richard Abanes, Runtu, etc.), can think of no reason why he should like Master Scartch. Really, literally, none,

Maybe sometime in the far future, the three of us can have a nice dinner together.

DCP has absolutely zero interest in such a scenario at the present time, and finds it difficult to imagine ever being interested. DCP has been at the receiving end of Scartch's virtually ceaseless character assassination for at least two years now.

May we all forgive each other, and the three of us get along well now, and be good friends now?

Scartch would have to suspend his campaign of spin and personal defamation for at least a year or two for such a possibility to be even remotely realistic, although publicly repudiating his crusade and apologizing for it might shorten the waiting period.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

DCP, who likes virtually everybody (including Dr. Shades, Richard Abanes, Runtu, etc.), can think of no reason why he should like Master Scartch. Really, literally, none.

Rollo is curious: is Rollo part of the "etc."?

Maybe sometime in the far future, the three of us can have a nice dinner together.

DCP has absolutely zero interest in such a scenario at the present time, and finds it difficult to imagine ever being interested.

I can't believe you're passing on a threesome.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Rollo is curious: is Rollo part of the "etc."?

Alas, as his name indicates, Mini-Scartch is joined at the hip to Master Scartch.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo is curious: is Rollo part of the "etc."?

Alas, as his name indicates, [Rollo] is joined at the hip to Master Scartch.

Damn! Woe is me!

[_Sethbag]

Dan, can you deny that the use of "[sic]" in FARMS reviews is never intended in a sneering way at the person being quoted? And please, let's not parse "sneer" here and nitpick it, I think we both know what I'm talking about. That is, the use of "[sic]" in quotes of LDS critical writing with the intent to highlight the fact that the error is there, and sneer at the person being quoted. Will you agree or disagree that it is ever used this way in FARMS reviews?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all say we want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion, patrolled by the occasional lawyer. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here, and monitored by the occasional lawyer.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here, and, perhaps, in court. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard -- and even, maybe, used as Prosecution Exhibit A.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, can you deny that the use of "[sic]" in FARMS reviews is never intended in a sneering way at the person being quoted? And please, let's not parse "sneer" here and nitpick it, I think we both know what I'm talking about. That is, the use of "[sic]" in quotes of LDS critical writing with the intent to highlight the fact that the error is there, and sneer at the person being quoted. Will you agree or disagree that it is ever used this way in FARMS reviews?

The FARMS Review, by this point, totals well over 10,000 pages of printed matter. Do I wish to deny that the term sic is sometimes used, in those 10,000+ pages, as a shorthand way of indicating that a given author is not particularly good and/or that a given publisher is not very careful or reputable? No. Do I deny malice? Yes. Absolutely. Do I deny "sneering"? Yes, on the whole I do. (And, sorry, "parsing" is not a bad thing. Equivocation is.)

Incidentally, do you support Scartch's legal threat?

[_harmony]

Damn! Woe is me!

I hesitate to confirm it, but I suspect I am lumped with you, Rollo. And Dartagnen. He has absolutely no use for Dartagnen either.