Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_SUAS]

But you did say you had your very own lawyer ..oh no he studied stupidity law, law that is right stupidity for dummies...no no how to be a lawyer for a stupid Mormon..probably cost him or you ZERO dollars//so yes indeed you had your very own stupidity lawyer which means no lawyer with a real name would dare say they represent you..

[_Daniel Peterson]

MDB POST OF THE WEEK!

But you did say you had your very own lawyer ..oh no he studied stupidity law, law that is right stupidity for dummies...no no how to be a lawyer for a stupid Mormon..probably cost him or you ZERO dollars//so yes indeed you had your very own stupidity lawyer which means no lawyer with a real name would dare say they represent you..

[Anonymous]

Incidentally, do you support Scartch's legal threat?

No, I don't. Mr. Scratch has his reasons for doing what he does, but they are his reasons, and I don't happen to share them. I really don't know what else to say.

I have to say, regarding the use of "[sic]", when I run into it again I'll have to make note of it and bring it to your attention. I've seen it used in a manifestly sneering way in FARMS material before, and thought it was a little below the belt.

I would regard the insertion of "[sic]" in a quote "... 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" as a sort of sneer. It's a cheap shot, sort of like fart jokes in a movie are cheap laughs. In a review of material one is hostile to, I think it's a form of poisoning the well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would regard the insertion of "[sic]" in a quote "... 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" as a sort of sneer. It's a cheap shot, sort of like fart jokes in a movie are cheap laughs. In a review of material one is hostile to, I think it's a form of poisoning the well.

I don't.

[_harmony]

Then, I suppose, you perceived the manifest threat to have been illegal, eh?

The porridge thickens.

You're not helping any, but that was funny. ;-)

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure, I'd be glad to arrange that. As soon as you do the same, following the legal threats you made against Rollo Tomasi and myself (over your [mythical] Quinn gossiping), and later against myself, Gadianton, and Dr. Shades (over FARMS finances).

I've never consulted with "my lawyer" about these matters, and have never claimed to have done so.

Sure you did, back around April of 2007, or thereabouts. Perhaps you forgot about it in the wake of Professor Gee's rather reckless threat to sue anyone who questioned his Book of Abraham theories. Feel free to search the archives at the aptly named MADboard. I'd love to do it for you, but, as you no doubt know, the iron-fisted control freaks at MAD have made it so that no one but registered, un-banned members can search the site.

You, by contrast, claim to have spoken with your lawyer about my supposed homocidal threats, and you claim that I've now been warned. But your warning me on a message board doesn't seem to constitute a warning from your lawyer. Indeed, I have no actual reason to believe that you've spoken with a lawyer at all. (Candidly, I strongly doubt it.)

If you really want me to believe that a lawyer is monitoring my "behavior" here and that I've been "warned," evidence would be helpful.

No, I think your stunningly dramatic emotional meltdown will suffice. Or, to put it another way, you seem to have gotten the message. I would imagine that I'll no longer have to put up with your incredibly disgusting and offensive "joke" death threats.

Good for you. This is a "watershed" moment. Into the sig-line it goes.

I certainly hope so.

So long as it remains there, that truncated and de-contextualized quote will serve as a clear illustration of your malignant crusade's reliance upon spin and misrepresentation.

So, then... You don't apologize for gossiping about Quinn's sex life, and for insinuating that Dr. Ritner acted inappropriately in some way?

[_harmony]

I would regard the insertion of "[sic]" in a quote "... 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" as a sort of sneer. It's a cheap shot, sort of like fart jokes in a movie are cheap laughs. In a review of material one is hostile to, I think it's a form of poisoning the well.

I don't.

Of course you don't. Good grief, Daniel, could you be any more predictable?

Seth makes an applicable astute point about your publication and you immediately disagree. DUH!! You make no allowances for any viewpoint but your own, you consistently react on the defensive, and you have yet to acknowledge the legitimacy of any criticism of the publication, no matter how accurate. Quite frankly, the whole thing makes you look very pedestrian, ordinary even. And it's sad, because it keeps the publication from becoming what you so obviously wish it already was: respected by the nonLDS world.

He's not attacking you or FROB. He's offering a valid opinion that might help you in your task as editor. If you aren't able to internalize his constructive criticism, and make applicable improvements, he can't be faulted for what is lacking in your publication.

Not everyone here wants to attack you. Try to get past your immediate response to such a small criticism and gain some insight from the opinion of someone who doesn't worship at the apologists' altar. In a purely altruistic move, Seth is trying to help you.

Good grief.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Of course you don't. Good grief, Daniel, could you be any more predictable?

You'd prefer me to be wildly inconsistent?

Seth makes an applicable astute point about your publication and you immediately disagree. DUH!! You make no allowances for any viewpoint but your own, you consistently react on the defensive, and you have yet to acknowledge the legitimacy of any criticism of the publication, no matter how accurate. Quite frankly, the whole thing makes you look very pedestrian, ordinary even.

You think I ought simply to concede every criticism, or to concede some respectable percentage of criticisms, in order to demonstrate that I'm open-minded?

What percentage would you suggest?

Golly. In disputes, Peterson has a position, and, when inclined, expresses it or even (shudder!) defends it! What a predictable cad! (Unlike everybody else here on the Mormon Unanimity Board, who immediately agrees with every criticism and abhors disagreement.)

And it's sad, because it keeps the publication from becoming what you so obviously wish it already was: respected by the nonLDS world.

You're wrong. I just want it to be good. Whether it's "respected by the nonLDS world" is beyond my control.

He's not attacking you or FROB. He's offering a valid opinion that might help you in your task as editor. If you aren't able to internalize his constructive criticism, and make applicable improvements, he can't be faulted for what is lacking in your publication.

Why do I have to agree to criticisms even when I don't think they're on target? What kind of obligation is that? Do you do it? Can you point me to some examples of disputes where you've silenty surrendered and agreed with a position you don't actually agree with in order to demonstrate your largeness of soul?

Not everyone here wants to attack you. Try to get past your immediate response to such a small criticism and gain some insight from the opinion of someone who doesn't worship at the apologists' altar. In a purely altruistic move, Seth is trying to help you.

Good grief.

Good grief yourself, harmony. Your complaint makes no sense.

Is there a certain size of criticism where it becomes legitimate to disagree, but below which I'm obliged to agree with it?

Please advise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, my involvement in one of the most nefarious of all conspiracies -- the sinking of the Titanic -- has still not been discovered, even by the most rigorously scientific investigator working on the subject:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

Mwahahahahaha!

[_The Nehor]

Well that was disappointing. I was looking forward to an imaginary lawyer throwdown.

P.S. Scratch, I have my pistol aimed through your window. Let's play Russian Roulette. Pick a number between 1 and 5.