Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:54 am

You're a loon, Scartch.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:18 am

Scratch

Well, JustMe, you could always cite some actual text showing how the Compton article is as harsh and belligerent as the Hamblin piece. You know, that might be more effective than supplying zero whatsoever, and tossing in a piece of religious bigotry for good measure.

As I said, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence gathers speedily in their minds, cherry picking and choosing select quotes to make a case, especially when there are literally tens of thousands of pages of writings involved, is absolutely useless for coming to any viable or credible conclusions. Using a mere .0009% of available source material is simply stooooopid to come to conclusions with. That's like taking a poll of 1 person and using that opinion as what reality is.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:54 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
JustMe wrote:Picking and choosing a few selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Scratch you would make the perfect Evangelical Fundamental Christian.

Well, JustMe, you could always cite some actual text showing how the Compton article is as harsh and belligerent as the Hamblin piece. You know, that might be more effective than supplying zero whatsoever, and tossing in a piece of religious bigotry for good measure.

There is nothing *remotely* bigotted in the above quote. If you disagree, feel free to defend that accusation.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:57 am

For what little it's worth:

I may be mistaken, but I believe that this is the exchange in which, according to the Scartchmeister, I claimed that the FARMS Review treats "friendly" authors just as brutally and viciously as it supposedly treats critics:

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:In all likelihood, the "friendly" texts on Mormonism do not get reviewed in FROB because the FROB Mopologists (and the editorial staff) don't know how to do anything other than rip into people.

The gullible Master Scartch, who has recently revealed that his knowledge of FARMS publications is severely limited and very superficial, illustrates that fact again here by exhibiting his lack of awareness of the fact that the FARMS Review has often reviewed "friendly" texts on Mormonism and has often been critical of them -- e.g., of works by Hugh Nibley and Jack Welch and yours truly.

It's yet another watershed moment in the sorry history of Scartchoplexy.

Incidentally, the claim that "FROB Mopologists (and the editorial staff) don't know how to do anything other than rip into people" is rather rich, coming as it does from . . . Master Scartch.

LOL.

Post by **_Gadianton** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:58 am

quote wrote:He is far too determined not to see anything silly, ridiculous or idiotic in the massive amounts he spews about Peterson and FARMS and apologetics. It is pure entertainment of course, for thus of us who know through reading and learning and understanding for ourselves. I cannot possibly take anything Scratch says seriously about the Review

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you take him very seriously. Very, very seriously to the point of becoming very angry. Scratch isn't the first person to ever point out the underlying bad spirit of much of what constitutes the FROB. Quite simply, if all the critical articles read like those written by Hoskisson and a few others, it could be highly biased without anyone really taking notice of it.

Ok, it might also have to drop the "all encompassing" review every testimony that mentions "doctrine" on the shelf, it's a little tyrannical, don't you think?. Honestly, the sledge hammer blows these guys deliver to TBMs who are just sharing their thoughts, testimonies, or trying their best to do something for the church reads harsher, and more angry than the "positivists" they criticize (like Sagan) who take shots at the "sitting ducks" of the religious landscape. When Kerry Shirts expressed outrage at all the "crap" in Deseret Book, I took note. And that's just how they deal with their own countrymen. It's pretty amazing.

Scratch isn't really saying anything new, though he's adding significantly to a growing body of literature on the subject.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:01 am

Gad

When Kerry Shirts expressed outrage at all the "crap" in Deseret Book, I took note.

That's total BS, Gad. You didn't "take note". You simply mocked him.

Here's what you refer to as "taking note", Gad:

LOL. Oh man, you nailed him. If I didn't have anything to fear from going public, there would be a "ball-in-the-yard" parody coming up.

It is funny though he condemns all the "crafty junk", considering all of his wood work that he does for a living. Which, from what I've seen, represents the the pole opposite from his apologetics on his personal talent spectrum.

Spin much?

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:02 am

Gadianton wrote:Ok, it might also have to drop the "all encompassing" review every testimony that mentions "doctrine" on the shelf, it's a little tyrannical, don't you think?.

My Scartchian is a bit rusty, Gad. Could you translate the sentence above into English?

Gadianton wrote:Scratch isn't really saying anything new, though he's adding significantly to a growing body of literature on the subject.

And in deathless prose that will serve as a model to rising generations of writers, too!

Post by **_Trevor** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:11 am

Daniel Peterson wrote:And in deathless prose that will serve as a model to rising generations of writers, too!

A new bard is in our midst!

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:16 am

JustMe wrote:Scratch
Well, JustMe, you could always cite some actual text showing how the Compton article is as harsh and belligerent as the Hamblin piece. You know, that might be more effective than supplying zero whatsoever, and tossing in a piece of religious bigotry for good measure.

As I said, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence gathers speedily in their minds, cherry picking and choosing select quotes to make a case, especially when there are literally tens of thousands of pages of writings involved, is absolutely useless for coming to any viable or credible conclusions. Using a mere .0009% of available source material is simply stooooopid to come to conclusions with.

Sort of like what SHIELDS did with The Godmakers?

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:22 am

Scratch

Sort of like what SHIELDS did with The Godmakers?

Not even close.

DiscussMormonism.com

Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review