Tvedtnes: Author of "more than 300" articles?

[_Tom]

I'm more than a bit impressed that Tvedtnes has published six books and approximately 200 articles since 1994.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is obviously a huge embarrassment for a senior Mopologists to be caught engaging in such petty and ridiculous resume padding.

Whatever.

You can continue to try and evade the issue, Daniel. But I think that reasonable readers, and folks who are familiar with apologists' antics, will clearly see the problem here.

Tell me, what do you think of Tvednes's SHIELDS pieces, or his scripture quizzes?

IWould you ever advise a student to include such things as "SHIELDS spoofs" and "scripture quizzes" on his/her CV?

It depends on what the CV is for. On the whole, I don't much care.

It's a simple yes/no question, Professor P.

You are here on this thread because Tvedtnes's resume padding reflects very, very badly on LDS apologetics.

I don't think what John Tvedtnes includes or doesn't include on his resume strengthens or weakens a single apologetic argument. It's irrelevant.

Is B. Metcalfe's educational attainment somehow "relevant"? Is James White's doctorate?

The fact that a senior, extremely important figure in the world of Mopologetics has seriously distorted his claim of "300 articles" seems to me very substantive.

What's weird is that you may actually think so.

Come on, Professor P. *I* know that you know better. You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

Also substantive is the fact that Chief Apologist Daniel C. Peterson cannot figure out a way to spin this.

?????

Precisely. Score another point for me.

This is all substantive in much the same way that finding out the truth about Paul Dunn was "substantive."

LOL. I'm inclined to agree with you on that.

Yes. The "Dunn Incident" was remarkable in terms of what it told us about the character of certain LDS leaders---and the people who follow them.

[_harmony]

Come on, Professor P. *I* know that you know better. You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

*wondering whose slip is showing*

[_Mister Scratch]

Come on, Professor P. *I* know that you know better. You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

*wondering whose slip is showing*

Rofl! Yes, sadly, as has been shown on the "20 Years Later" thread, "friends of the family," as it were, are given a free pass within Mopologetic circles.

[_JustMe]

Come on, Professor P. *I* know that you know better. You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

*wondering whose slip is showing*

I can see Scratch's, how come you can't?

[_JustMe]

harmony

Wait a minute. he's a senior resident scholar and he's only Master's level? What the heck? He's not even a PhD?

Well, the next time an apologist pulls the 'my degree is higher than your degree', I'm going to point out that my degree is equal their senior resident scholar's degree.

Good grief.

He has 2 Masters degrees, and the equivilant of Ph.D knowledge, many times over. That's at least 3 more degrees than you have harmony. Playing the degree game is irrelevant to intelligence. John's intelligence has been displayed in his myriads of articles and at least 6 books he has authored and co-authored. You're fishing in empty waters here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You can continue to try and evade the issue, Daniel. But I think that reasonable readers, and folks who are familiar with apologists' antics, will clearly see the problem here.

Even if, for purposes of fruitless "discussion," we grant the existence of a "problem" with the listing of certain items on John Tvedtnes's resume, what on earth would that earthshaking matter have to do with any apologetic argument or any other apologist?

Tell me, what do you think of Tvednes's SHIELDS pieces, or his scripture quizzes?

They're fine.

It's a simple yes/no question, Professor P.

No it's not.

You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

I've never seen his on-line resume, and didn't know it existed.

That, I suppose, is what malignant busybodies like yourself are for.

Score another point for me.

More jungle chest-thumping.

You're a loon, Scartch.

[_Mister Scratch]

You can continue to try and evade the issue, Daniel. But I think that reasonable readers, and folks who are familiar with apologists' antics, will clearly see the problem here.

Even if, for purposes of fruitless "discussion," we grant the existence of a "problem" with the listing of certain items on John Tvedtnes's resume, what on earth would that earthshaking matter have to do with any apologetic argument or any other apologist?

See below, for at least one thing.

You should have advised him against including the "fluff." That's what friends do, you know?

I've never seen his on-line resume, and didn't know it existed.

Well, then, what's going on here? Tvedtnes used to be some important researcher at FARMS, right? And you were Chair of FARMS---or a high-ranking administrator--during that time, right? Which means, presumably, that you would have seen Tvedtnes's resume/CV at some point in time, right? (Or did you give him a "free pass," ala FARMS Review?) So: did he include his SHIELDS pieces and his scripture quizzes on his resume at that time? Or is he only counting them now, as a means of telling the Saints that he has published "over 300 articles"?

That, I suppose, is what malignant busybodies like yourself are for.

Actually, I am sad to say that I can't really take credit for this one. I owe this thread to an "informant."

Score another point for me.

More jungle chest-thumping.

You're a loon, Scartch.

Is that the best you've got? Pity. Another point for me.

[_JustMe]

scratch

Actually, I am sad to say that I can't really take credit for this one. I owe this thread to an "informant."

Your "informant" is an ignoramous also.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Pity. Another point for me.

Keep adding up your "points," Scartch.

I don't care, and I doubt that many others do, either.

This is silly nonsense, and you're a loon.