Internet vs Chapel Mormons and Mormon Apologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

Repeating that seething hyperbolic quote of mine in a display of high dudgeon, as you put it - like a rape victim - isn't going to make me feel chagrined. Not even slightly.

I realize that. It's what interests me about your behavior here.

Could you have reacted to an apt [sic] assessment of your sept of stamp collectors[/url] any more predictably?

Sure. I could simply have denied it and termed it ridiculous. (Which seemed to me too obvious, too easy.)

I think you have published some truly ridiculous things. Like this:

I think it's a pretty good book.

If you've published a substantive and reasoned critique of it somewhere, though, with supporting evidence, I would be interested in reading what you've written. Please let me know.

For those who may want to examine the book with their own eyes, there are a few copies available through Amazon.com, at http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Evidences- ... 217&sr=1-1

Name calling now, eh?

No.

On a side note, I am noticing that the moderators are giving Mormonism's biggest apologist (no pun intended) a pass when it comes to the new moderating standards.

Are you?

Ah... take it in folks. More of the scholastic rigor we all can feast upon in the pages of the FARMS Review.

Which can be accessed via http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/ .

Suggest that Richard Dawkins is blunderingly unqualified to vocalize on the subject of theology

Actually, that was Professor Terry Eagleton, the eminent British Marxist intellectual.

and then try and reinforce that innuendo with a bizarre personal attack towards me ignoring the irony all the way home.

???

Again, is anything else to be expected from the editor of the FARMS Review?

Actually, yes. I was unusually devastating in the wallyball game we played this morning at our extended-family Christmas party. And I know a lot more than some here might expect about classic rock music.

Again an example of why I believe certain moderators here are catering - no pun intended - to the editor of the FARMS Review*

Shades is in my hip pocket.

There's no point in struggling. You too will be assimilated.

More steamy goodness from the brains behind the Mormon version of The American Stamp Dealer.

As I've said, the GoodKid is really angry, and seems to be growing increasingly so as the weeks and months go by.

yip yip yip yip yip!

[_GoodK]

If you've published a substantive and reasoned critique of it somewhere, though, with supporting evidence, I would be interested in reading what you've written. Please let me know.

I kicked the idea around when I first got the book, only I hit a few roadblocks.

First - the commentary is so unbelievably banal, even for FARMS prose - it's hard to stay motivated.

Two - the market for reviewing unnoticed and inconsequential religious hobbyist literature isn't exactly ripe.

Third - I don't want my name anywhere near that literary snake oil you peddle.

Fourth - How many words can you knead out of confirmation bias?

For those who may want to examine the book with their own eyes,

Or the inside of their eyelids...

As I've said, the GoodKid is really angry, and seems to be growing increasingly so as the weeks and months go by.

As if a full grown man, a professor, flailing about calling names isn't strange enough, the editor of the FARMS Review* queerly continues to accuse me of being angry. I guess he likes my automated response:


I would offer an alternative hypothesis. One that posits I am simply and steadily reminding the crowd here - each time you insist otherwise - of your passive aggressive trampling through my family life. If you are ever insulted in the process, I am all the more pleased.

I, like a few others here, am not fooled by the benign and victimized persona you parade online. I've had the benefit - like Quinn - of really feeling the weight (no pun intended) of your presence in my life.

*FARMS Review of Authors

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you've published a substantive and reasoned critique of it somewhere, though, with supporting evidence, I would be interested in reading what you've written. Please let me know.

I kicked the idea around when I first got the book, only I hit a few roadblocks.

First, the commentary is so unbelievably banal, even for FARMS prose - it's hard to stay motivated.

Two - the market for reviewing unnoticed and inconsequential religious hobbyist literature isn't exactly ripe.

Third - I don't want my name anywhere near that literary snake oil you peddle.

Fourth - How many words can you knead out of confirmation bias?

Thanks, GoodKid. It's instructive to read something that you think can serve as a placeholder for a substantive and reasoned critique.

Or the inside of their eyelids...

And for a serious examination of the book.

a full grown man, a professor, flailing about calling names

LOL.

the editor of the FARMS Review queerly continues to accuse me of angry.

And what an obviously false suggestion that is!

ROTFL.

I guess he likes my automated response:

It's grammatically sound. That certainly puts it in the top quartile of comparable prose. What's not to like?

[_GoodK]

Thanks, GoodKid. It's instructive to read something that you think can serve as a placeholder for a substantive and reasoned critique.

You wouldn't know a substantive and reasoned critique if it was sugar-glazed and served hot in a box of twelve. Look at your response to this original thread.

And what an obviously false suggestion that is!

It certainly is. I don't know how you can arrive at that conclusion. Ask Dr. Shades if I seem like an angry person. May I remind you:

I am simply and steadily reminding the crowd here - each time you insist otherwise - of your passive aggressive trampling through my family life. If you are ever insulted in the process, I am all the more pleased.

ROTFL.

I know.

That certainly puts it in the top quartile of comparable prose. What's not to like?

I think I'll join you on the floor, if you don't mind.

I'm clearly a better writer than you - your prose being most comparable with Ketamine- and I don't even have to try. You always leave our exchanges bruised, with your ego hurt, and mud on your face. It started at that intellect stifling stink pile known as the Mormon Apologetic Discussion Board and has continued here. I think you did yourself a disservice by outing me - it was probably in your best interest to let people assume that a more credentialed (and aged) critic is having his way with the brains behind that lousy leaflet you peddle.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You wouldn't know a substantive and reasoned critique if it was sugar-glazed and served hot in a box of twelve.

Good thing you weren't on my doctoral committee. I sure snowed them!

Along with the book review editors at the International Journal of Middle East Studies, the Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic, al-Masaq, Muslim World, The Medieval Review, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, etc., etc.

LOL.

I don't know how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Why, I just don't know where the idea that you're angry might come from.

Ask Dr. Shades if I seem like an angry person.

Have you asked Shades whether I seem like an unethical monster of cruelty?

If you are ever insulted in the process, I am all the more pleased.

Which is an infallible sign that you're not -- repeat, not -- angry.

Insults are what you wish for in the case of people toward whom you feel no anger.

I'm clearly a better writer than you

Oh, undeniably! I would have to put you up there in the pantheon of Lancelot Andrewes, William Tyndale, Joseph Addison, T. S. Eliot, Winston Churchill, John McPhee, and Joseph Epstein.

You always leave our exchanges bruised, with your ego hurt, and mud on your face.

Indeed. Why, just last night my wife commented, when I came to dinner, "Dan, you're bruised all over, your ego's in pain, and there's mud on your face. Have you been engaged in titanic but doomed intellectual struggle with Polygamy Porter and Some Schmo again?"

It started at that intellect stifling stink pile known as the Mormon Apologetic Discussion Board and has continued here. I think you did yourself a disservice by outing me - it was probably in your best interest to let people assume that a more credentialed (and aged) critic is having his way with the brains behind that lousy leaflet you peddle.

I'm so grateful that you're not angry with me! Given your intimidating prose, if you ever decided to treat me with disrespect I'm not sure I could endure it.

[_harmony]

In the GoodKid's case, though,

Name calling now, eh?

Calling someone a good kid isn't usually considered an insult.

On a side note, I am noticing that the moderators are giving Mormonism's biggest apologist (no pun intended) a pass when it comes to the new moderating standards.

I haven't noticed any of us giving Daniel a pass. And my PM box is noticably empty of any complaints from you, requesting moderation.

For instance, if I say that the editor of the FARMS Review* is a "gutless old ward-heeler" (HST's assessment of Hubert Humphrey) that would certainly beget a red stamp.

Only if I can figure out what a ward-heeler is.

[_harmony]

Indeed. Why, just last night my wife commented, when I came to dinner, "Dan, you're bruised all over, your ego's in pain, and there's mud on your face. Have you been engaged in titanic but doomed intellectual struggle with Polygamy Porter and Some Schmo again?"

Are you sure she didn't attribute the bruises, the pain, and the mud to the basement full of water?

[_cksalmon]

I'm clearly a better writer than you.

I wasn't aware that you'd been published, GoodK.

Do tell.

cks

[_GoodK]

I wasn't aware that you'd been published, GoodK.

Do tell.

cks

Okay.



I have.

[_GoodK]

Calling someone a good kid isn't usually considered an insult.

Wow. Really? Calling an adult a kid in a pejorative way doesn't register on your radar? Okay. I hope you don't mind being called little girl from here on out.

Or maybe I should just band together with a couple of friends, make exaggerated lists of people who are true to my cause, and hold Dr. Shades hostage with demands of changing the board until it fits my liking. I've seen that work before.

I haven't noticed any of us giving Daniel a pass. And my PM box is noticably empty of any complaints from you, requesting moderation.

Well keep checking... I don't want you to moderate his posts. I'm just making an observation.

Only if I can figure out what a ward-heeler is.

Dictionary's are good for that sort of problem. Presumably you have Internet access.