Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

HI?

Among my favorite movies of all time!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

To reiterate, you're mistaken. I'm aware of several FARMS associates who received their copies (Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Scott Faulring, Brent Hall, you[?], among others). What I am referring to is a run-of-the-mill FARMS subscriber.

But you again misrepresent the facts. "[F]I've or six or so... were printed and bound"?! I know from multiple sources that many were printed and bound. Are you seriously disputing this?

Thanks for the additional information, Brent. Once again, Dan has been exposed as manipulating/embellishing the facts, and been busted. He still doesn't get that his OWN words reveal his true character, as opposed to any claim of "character assasination."

[_Trevor]

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.

My understanding of the use of [sic] in a quote is that it assures the readers that the author quoting the text has not inadvertently added errors to it. The errors are identified as having been thus in the text where the quoting author found them. It is not so much an intentional knock on the original author as an assurance that the quoting author is careful and attentive to detail. I do see, however, how it might be possible to seek out errors to quote and use [sic] to point out that this is a text riddled with errors. It strikes me as a gesture hardly worth the effort.

[_Trevor]

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

To me this is clear evidence of a maturity and realism that is hardly ever credited to Dr. Peterson. That is an attitude I would love to cultivate toward my own work.

[_John Larsen]

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.

My understanding of the use of [sic] in a quote is that it assures the readers that the author quoting the text has not inadvertently added errors to it. The errors are identified as having been thus in the text where the quoting author found them. It is not so much an intentional knock on the original author as an assurance that the quoting author is careful and attentive to detail. I do see, however, how it might be possible to seek out errors to quote and use [sic] to point out that this is a text riddled with errors. It strikes me as a gesture hardly worth the effort.

However, the source texts for Mormonism are riddled with grammar and spelling "errors". I can't think of an instance where the apologists, quoting the sources, pepper them with [sic]. If they are equally judicious in [sic]-ing Joseph Smith and the critics, I will believe they have good intentions. Otherwise...

And like it has been said, using [sic] on a message board just means you are an ass.

[_Trevor]

However, the source texts for Mormonism are riddled with grammar and spelling "errors". I can't think of an instance where the apologists, quoting the sources, pepper them with [sic]. If they are equally judicious in [sic]-ing Joseph Smith and the critics, I will believe they have good intentions. Otherwise...

When a source text is riddled with errors, it is not necessary to point out your awareness of each one. No one is likely to think that you made a dozen errors in a single short quote.

And like it has been said, using [sic] on a message board just means you are an ass.

Well, having committed the offense, I gladly concede that I have been known to act like an ass on occasion.

[_The Nehor]

LOL

Man, this thread really makes me admire Mormons. The ones here are just so grown up and mature. How could I not admire the example they set for the rest of the world...? (<-insert massive doses of sarcasm, in case there was any doubt)

Too funny.

Grown up and mature Mormons would take one look at this board and realize it's not worth their time. Since only the borderline insane would voluntarily come here you really shouldn't complain when we're the only ones who show up.

[_Some Schmo]

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

To me this is clear evidence of a maturity and realism that is hardly ever credited to Dr. Peterson. That is an attitude I would love to cultivate toward my own work.

Well, it would be evidence if:

- it was believable
- he demonstrated that desire through what he writes

However, given the flavor of his posts, I can see why he is "hardly ever credited" with "maturity and realism."

[_Doctor Steuss]

LOL

Man, this thread really makes me admire Mormons. The ones here are just so grown up and mature. How could I not admire the example they set for the rest of the world...? (<-insert massive doses of sarcasm, in case there was any doubt)

Too funny.

I like bubbles.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

However, the source texts for Mormonism are riddled with grammar and spelling "errors". I can't think of an instance where the apologists, quoting the sources, pepper them with [sic].

I've seen a ton of LDS stuff taken from texts created before spelling and punctuation standardization. They use "sic," or sometimes just note "spelling in original."

I've also seen Brant Gardner "[sic]" other Mormon authors, even those with whom he agrees. In his excellent Second Witness.