The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_GoodK]

I've attacked nobody's family.

You sir, are a liar.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You sir, are a liar.

I passed on a link to this public board, where you were mocking your stepfather, with whom I've been acquainted for something like twenty years.

That's it.

I realize that you object to what I did, and I realize that most here think what I did was wrong.

I don't agree.

But, in any event, that's scarcely "attacking a family."

I wish you well.

[_GoodK]

You sir, are a liar.

I passed on a link to this public board, where you were mocking your stepfather, with whom I've been acquainted for something like twenty years.

That's it.

I realize that you object to what I did, and I realize that most here think what I did was wrong.

I don't agree.

But, in any event, that's scarcely "attacking a family."

I wish you well.

You really do equivocate on everything, don't you? You are the master of half truths.

You didn't simply pass on a link, and everyone here knows it.

The thread is titled "Why I am not A Mormon" for interested parties.

I wish you... would stop fibbing so I wouldn't have to keep correcting you. I'm busy.

[_Mister Scratch]

Unlike DCP and his ilk, I don't attack people in terms of their family (as he did to GoodK), nor do I go after anyone's career (as FARMS has done to Quinn and others).

I've attacked nobody's family.

Cf. GoodK's remarks.

I've attacked nobody's career.

But you have allowed such articles to appear in the FARMS Review, which makes you an accomplice. Furthermore, you have accused Quinn of "untrustworthy" history, which amounts to an assault on his career.

The real "watershed moment in Mopologetics" will come when you live up to your own words and engage in "humble apologetics." You can start by eating a slice of humble pie and apologizing to Quinn and GoodK.

I would never do either of those things.

Just for the record.

Yes, I know. You are terrified that your grand hobby---apologetics---might suffer some harm. I actually, genuinely believe that you would more readily allow a direct attack on the LDS Church itself than you would your precious apologetics.

Think about it for a moment: Did you comment on any of the Prop 8 threads? Have you commented yet on Jersey Girl's new thread? You have already admitted that you won't discuss certain doctrinal subjects, such as Adam-God. While it's true that you do defend some aspects of the Church, the real truth seems to be that apologetics itself has become more of a "church" to you. I asked you earlier in this thread why you "believed" that you needed to do apologetics. You didn't answer, which is find, since I guess I have answered my own question: you have replaced your faith in the LDS Church with faith in the Church of Mopologetics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You didn't simply pass on a link, and everyone here knows it.

I passed on a link to a public board where you were mocking your stepfather, with whom I've been acquainted for something like twenty years.

That's it.

I bear no ill will toward you, and absolutely none toward your family.

But you have allowed such articles to appear in the FARMS Review, which makes you an accomplice. Furthermore, you have accused Quinn of "untrustworthy" history, which amounts to an assault on his career.

Oh come on.

It's simply ridiculous to describe theater critics and book critics and music critics as deliberately and maliciously seeking to destroy the careers of directors, actors, authors, composers, and performers simply because they write, as they often do, negative reviews. There's nothing whatsoever illegitimate about writing and publishing reviews.

A critic can fault an actor's acting ability or a director's directing style or dispute a scholar's thesis or criticize a researcher's use of evidence or critique an author's novels without plausibly being accused of malevolently "assaulting" the person's career. That's what movie and theater and music and book reviews do all the time -- and sometimes rather harshly. (I just read a good example of this last night, in the latest issue of The New Criterion, where the critic says some extremely negative things -- far harsher than anything ever published in the FARMS Review -- about Gérard Mortier, until recently more or less of the New York City Opera, and Peter Gelb, of the Metropolitan Opera.)

Did you comment on any of the Prop 8 threads?

I've commented on Prop 8 elsewhere. Am I required to have commented here? (I don't believe that I was posting here, at all, on any topic, during the heyday of such threads.)

Have you commented yet on Jersey Girl's new thread?

No, but so what? Do I have to? I haven't seen the article yet.

You have already admitted that you won't discuss certain doctrinal subjects, such as Adam-God.

I discuss them happily and freely when and where I feel like discussing them.

While it's true that you do defend some aspects of the Church, the real truth seems to be that apologetics itself has become more of a "church" to you. I asked you earlier in this thread why you "believed" that you needed to do apologetics. You didn't answer, which is find, since I guess I have answered my own question: you have replaced your faith in the LDS Church with faith in the Church of Mopologetics.

With regard to me, you answer most if not all of your own questions. To your own evident satisfaction, at least.

[_GoodK]

I passed on a link to a public board where you were mocking your stepfather, with whom I've been acquainted for something like twenty years.

That's it.

(emphasis mine)

Absolutely false.

Besides, on March 28, 2008 you wrote to my step-dad:

It seems that your son is posting as “Chap” now, rather than as “GoodK.”

What I admit that I don’t understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I’m wrong but that I’m either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who’ve never met their patient, they’re discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It’s really pretty funny.

Care to equivocate some more?

Or will you just stop your fibbing? It's rather tiresome. I would love to forgive and forget your trespasses towards me, if you'd just let me.

[_Mister Scratch]

But you have allowed such articles to appear in the FARMS Review, which makes you an accomplice. Furthermore, you have accused Quinn of "untrustworthy" history, which amounts to an assault on his career.

Oh come on.

It's simply ridiculous to describe theater critics and book critics and music critics as deliberately and maliciously seeking to destroy the careers of directors, actors, authors, composers, and performers simply because they write, as they often do, negative reviews. There's nothing whatsoever illegitimate about writing and publishing reviews.

No, there's not. But what you guys have done goes far beyond just the reviews. In Quinn's case, you guys were also involved in barring him from presenting at the Yale conference, and, plus, you were blabbing about him on the FAIR/MADboards and saying negative things practically every chance you got. This includes private information that was "leaked" to you by Quinn's SP. We are all familiar with the story by now, and we are familiar with your rancid methods.

A critic can fault an actor's acting ability or a director's directing style or dispute a scholar's thesis or criticize a researcher's use of evidence or critique an author's novels without plausibly being accused of malevolently "assaulting" the person's career. That's what movie and theater and music and book reviews do all the time -- and sometimes rather harshly. (I just read a good example of this last night, in the latest issue of The New Criterion, where the critic says some extremely negative things -- far harsher than anything ever published in the FARMS Review -- about Gérard Mortier, until recently more or less of the New York City Opera, and Peter Gelb, of the Metropolitan Opera.)

Did the critic also spread gossip? Did the critic teach a class in which he encouraged his students to ridicule Mortier's work? Did this review fit into a larger scheme to discredit and damage the reputation of Mortier? Was The New Criterion in any way threatened by Mortier?

I'm sure you understand my point. For you to try and compare what appears in FARMS Review (a journal which you yourself characterized as "sui generis") with other, more normal "reviews," is utterly absurd. The tightly-wound network of people who are involved in Mopologetics makes this a whole different ballgame.

I discuss them happily and freely when and where I feel like discussing them.

Yes, that's obvious, and it has established a pattern.

While it's true that you do defend some aspects of the Church, the real truth seems to be that apologetics itself has become more of a "church" to you. I asked you earlier in this thread why you "believed" that you needed to do apologetics. You didn't answer, which is find, since I guess I have answered my own question: you have replaced your faith in the LDS Church with faith in the Church of Mopologetics.

With regard to me, you answer most if not all of your own questions. To your own evident satisfaction, at least.

Are you going to answer my question, or not?

[_harmony]

No, there's not. But what you guys have done goes far beyond just the reviews. In Quinn's case, you guys were also involved in barring him from presenting at the Yale conference, and, plus, you were blabbing about him on the FAIR/MADboards and saying negative things practically every chance you got. This includes private information that was "leaked" to you by Quinn's SP. We are all familiar with the story by now, and we are familiar with your rancid methods.

You could have left out "rancid" and still made your point, Scratch.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am not sure I agree. Peterson is the one who is being attacked. And not only that the attacks by some, especially one, are particularly viscous, full of hyperbole, fallacious conclusions that always assume something nefarious and underhanded, include the worst spin doctoring I have ever seen and all under the cloud of an alias.

I think it makes a lot of sense that most his posting is in defending his own name from the endless smear campaign.

This is complete nonsense, Jason.

Do you really deny that your posts are not full of unnecessary hyperbole and that you make the absolute worst conclusions, often with a few tid bits. Things like "lavish" incomes for DCP from apologetics is a fine sample.

First of all, as usual you supply no real evidence or analysis.

Your own post are the evidence of hyperbole, and nefarious conclusions.

Really if you dropped this I would not have near the problems I have with what you post.

Second, you are constantly overlooking the fact that all of my criticism centers on apologetics and online behavior.

Ok...I am not sure I follow.

Unlike DCP and his ilk, I don't attack people in terms of their family (as he did to GoodK),

Yes, so DCP did a silly thing with outing Goodk. I have never defended that.

nor do I go after anyone's career (as FARMS has done to Quinn and others).

Another issue I have never complained about you complaining about.

As DCP himself has pointed out: if he were to totally stop doing apologetics, it would not affect his salary by a single penny.

This as evidence that he is not receiving lavish compensation.

Thus, it is rather hard to see how or why your complaints have any real merit.

As noted, my complaints are mostly about your over the top spinning as well as often making wild leaps like you did on the Midgely thread.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But you have allowed such articles to appear in the FARMS Review, which makes you an accomplice. Furthermore, you have accused Quinn of "untrustworthy" history, which amounts to an assault on his career.

Disagreeing with a historian, or finding large flaws in their work and then pointing them out can be a good thing to do.