DCP makes this board

[_Mister Scratch]

In fact, it got so bad that he turned his efforts to trying to out Obiwan (poster on MAD) as someone that once viewed porn. Sad, really.

What, that Obiwan himself admitted to his "porn problem"? Feel free to quote the thread, dblagent. I'm sure you'll do so, since you believe in honesty. Jesus will be angry if you don't follow through.

[_moksha]

He's not talking about RFM, he's not talking about Exmo-Social, he's not talking about Post-Mo, he's talking about Mormon Discussions. No matter how you view it, the truth is that DCP can't avoid this place for too long.

I expect that may be somewhat due to the fact that is board is precisely the place where an apologist should be posting. Those other boards are beyond the pale of reasoning. This should be the front line of apologetics, rather that some board that shakes their heads in unison - yea or nay.



.

[_Trevor]

I expect that may be somewhat due to the fact that is board is precisely the place where an apologist should be posting. Those other boards are beyond the pale of reasoning. This should be the front line of apologetics, rather that some board that shakes their heads in unison - yea or nay.

And yet the bulk of apologists hang out on another board. My hats off to the few who come here.

[_Some Schmo]

I ignore him and the threads that revolve around him.

Uh huh. And the name of this current thread is . . . what? (Hint: The correct answer is "DCP makes this board.")

Oh, my poor, self obsessed little Danny...

I don't pay much attention to threads about you either. In fact, the reason I came into this thread was dispute the claim that "DCP makes this board" because if that were the case, there would be nothing for me here. Could it be the Dude was here for the same reason, or is it because everyone cares about threads about you?

One day, I trust you'll grow past adolescence.

Substantive, serious, non-polemical discussions here are so rare as to be effectively non-existent.

Now there's an argument for "DCP makes this board."

When there's a serious, fair-minded discussion of something in which I'm interested, I'll be happy to join in. But I won't hold my breath in the meantime.

So... it seems you're not interested in anything?

Alrighty.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And yet the bulk of apologists hang out on another board. My hats off to the few who come here.

Actually, to be precisely accurate, the vast, overwhelming majority of apologists seldom if ever post on any board.

You won't find John Sorenson, Bob Millet, Andrew Hedges, Jack Welch, Camille Williams, Jim Faulconer, John Tvedtnes, Paul Hoskisson, Stephen Ricks, Louis Midgley, Blake Ostler, Matt Roper, David Seely, Richard Lloyd Anderson, David Paulsen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Noel Reynolds, John Clark, Don Parry, Shirley Ricks, Jordan Vajda, Kent Brown, Steve Harper, Catherine Thomas, or John Gee posting here or anywhere else. And even posts by Brant Gardner and Bill Hamblin only seldom appear.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And yet the bulk of apologists hang out on another board. My hats off to the few who come here.

Actually, to be precisely accurate, the vast, overwhelming majority of apologists seldom if ever post on any board.

You won't find John Sorenson, Bob Millet, Andrew Hedges, Jack Welch, Camille Williams, Jim Faulconer, John Tvedtnes, Paul Hoskisson, Stephen Ricks, Louis Midgley, Blake Ostler, Matt Roper, David Seely, Richard Lloyd Anderson, David Paulsen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Noel Reynolds, John Clark, Don Parry, Shirley Ricks, Jordan Vajda, Kent Brown, Steve Harper, Catherine Thomas, or John Gee posting here or anywhere else. And even posts by Brant Gardner and Bill Hamblin only seldom appear.

Technically, Jim Faulconer has blogged (I guess that is slightly different than a message board) in at least 2 places:

http://alma32.wordpress.com/
http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.ph ... mit=Search

Also, Blake Ostler is known to converse on several sites, one of them including:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/

Steven Harper showed up to comment a few times at:
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/forth ... h-history/

Through the mods John Gee once posted a challenge at MormonApologetics.org.

etc.

I think a lot of these people haver a presence on the internet but not on the more "bottom feeder" sites, in my opinion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think a lot of these people haver a presence on the internet but not on the more "bottom feeder" sites, in my opinion.

It was the "bottom feeder" sites that I had in mind.

They just don't come to places like . . . well, there are just certain kinds of places where you simply won't find them.

And, if you know these people, you know that you definitely can't attibute their absence to any fear of controversy. They like nothing better than a good argument. But good is very much the operative word.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I think a lot of these people haver a presence on the internet but not on the more "bottom feeder" sites, in my opinion.

It was the "bottom feeder" sites that I had in mind.

They just don't come to places like . . . well, there are just certain kinds of places where you simply won't find them.

And, if you know these people, you know that you definitely can't attibute their absence to any fear of controversy. They like nothing better than a good argument. But good is very much the operative word.

Yeah I was just talking about that with Ray A.

So why are you here, Dan!?

[_harmony]

You won't find John Sorenson, Bob Millet, Andrew Hedges, Jack Welch, Camille Williams, Jim Faulconer, John Tvedtnes, Paul Hoskisson, Stephen Ricks, Louis Midgley, Blake Ostler, Matt Roper, David Seely, Richard Lloyd Anderson, David Paulsen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Noel Reynolds, John Clark, Don Parry, Shirley Ricks, Jordan Vajda, Kent Brown, Steve Harper, Catherine Thomas, or John Gee posting here or anywhere else. And even posts by Brant Gardner and Bill Hamblin only seldom appear.

Then, for the vast majority of these folks, they aren't apologists. At least, not using modern media and tactics, they aren't.

The internet is the media of the present and the future. If these folks really do want to be counted among LDS apologists who really are apologists for the LDS church, then they'd best be showing up on websites like MDB. Because this is the trenches; this is where the battles are being fought, this is where the church needs them to be. Not at conferences, not at faith-promoting firesides speaking to the choir, not at church, not writing books no one reads... God needs them here, on the internet. And I'm wondering why Daniel and his friends like LoaP and Nehor are the only ones to heed God's call.

Good for you, Daniel! Make us proud!

[Guest]

Actually, to be precisely accurate, the vast, overwhelming majority of apologists seldom if ever post on any board.

I don't limit the total number of apologists to the "A Team." So, to be precise, you are incorrect.

I also tend to agree with harmony that some folks on your list are barely apologists. And I think she is on to something when she suggests that a refusal to engage critics where they are active is something of a dereliction of duty. Far more people do Google searches on Mormonism than subscribe to the FROB.