Getting "Comped," Mopologetic Style?

[_maklelan]

I tried to apologize and get this thread back to the topic, but you're not willing. Rather than respond with why I think you're not listening to a word I'm saying, I'm going to drop it. I will, however, provide a link to the latest issue of my journal, just so you can get a look at what we're doing. You're welcome to try to point out "second tier apologetics," but you won't find any. If you take an honest look you'll see we're not a bunch of knuckle draggers who have shrines to Hugh Nibley in our apartments. I think you're incredibly misinformed about Latter-day Saints. I know you're incredibly misinformed about me, but you're not going to listen if I just tell you that, so just take a look, and if you have something to say, start another thread so we don't have to keep this one so far off topic.

http://studiaantiqua.BYU.edu/Studia6.pdf

[_Trevor]

http://studiaantiqua.BYU.edu/Studia6.pdf

Nice job on the journal, maklelan. I am glad to see BYU students produce such a thing. I wished there had been something like it when I was there.

[_Mister Scratch]

I probably shouldn't have brought up this meta-debate, and I apologize for derailing the thread. I withdraw my accusations and hope those involved will forgive me. I'd like to bring it back on track.

Thanks, Maklelan, I appreciate that.

If anyone has anything that actually substantiates the suspicions of those who got this thread going about Dr. Peterson taking advantage of his "mopologist" status for devious discounts on literature, please provide it.

Mak, this is what I wrote:

Was this a 50% discount given over to all symposium participants, or did The Good Professor receive a special, Mopologetic discount, as it were, due to his special "connections"?

You'll notice that this is a *question*. Why, I have to wonder, are you automatically reading "suspicion" into this honest question?

Otherwise I think we're all comfortable just recognizing that this is a particularly asinine assumption cooked up by people who evidently have nothing better to do than invent reasons to belittle others for their beliefs.

Wow! This seems really hostile. First of all, let me say that I see nothing wrong in receiving a discount on books. I see nothing with having friends who give discounts. I see nothing wrong with having a network of pals who work towards getting books published, and I see nothing wrong with trumpeting the fact that such books by such friends have been published.

So: I am kind of wondering what you are objecting to here, and I'm wondering why you regard some very simple questions as "asinine assumption" and the "belittle[ment] of others for their beliefs". Think about it, Mak: Do your words really make a whole lot of sense here, or are you getting all bent out of shape for no good reason?

As you'll notice in my OP, I observed that it was very well possible that DCP received the discount simply for attending the conference. On the other hand, I also felt that it was possible that he'd been given the discount by way of his various "connections" and his Mopologetic status. And I do think there is good evidence to wonder about this, or to at least allow for the possibility of it being true. There is at least as much evidence here as there is for an ancient setting for the Book of Mormon.

[_maklelan]

Mak, this is what I wrote:

Was this a 50% discount given over to all symposium participants, or did The Good Professor receive a special, Mopologetic discount, as it were, due to his special "connections"?

You'll notice that this is a *question*. Why, I have to wonder, are you automatically reading "suspicion" into this honest question?

Because all the posts after that question presupposed the "Mopologetic discount" without much actual investigation. My criticisms rest on that proclivity for presupposing the negative. For instance, (1) you assume the manuscript wasn't published because it was "unpopular," not because the author just wasn't trying. The book had been self-published a decade ago by the author, and he was obviously happy with that arrangement. (2) You reference "price gouging," which to me indicates you're just not familiar with academic literature. $125 is not a particularly hefty sum for an academic book by a deceased author. You're more than happy to just assume it's an exorbitant amount, though. (3) You reference "behind-the-scenes deal-making," as if other academic books are negotiated in public arenas. This, again, illustrates to me your lack of familiarity with the publishing process, and your eagerness to couch everything you possibly can in negative terminology. With that kind of opening post, I'm a little shocked you're actually trying to insist you were being fair.

Wow! This seems really hostile.

I think the accusations are particularly juvenile, and this kind of attitude seems to be the only way to elicit a response. Just explaining what happened didn't work.

First of all, let me say that I see nothing wrong in receiving a discount on books. I see nothing with having friends who give discounts. I see nothing wrong with having a network of pals who work towards getting books published, and I see nothing wrong with trumpeting the fact that such books by such friends have been published.

Then what particular issue to you take with the events as you thought they transpired?

So: I am kind of wondering what you are objecting to here, and I'm wondering why you regard some very simple questions as "asinine assumption" and the "belittle[ment] of others for their beliefs". Think about it, Mak: Do your words really make a whole lot of sense here, or are you getting all bent out of shape for no good reason?

I want people to be objective and honest, and from what I can tell of the opening post and most of the subsequent ones, most of the people here are simply looking for a reason to say, "Bad form, Dr. Peterson. Shame, shame." If that's not the case, please point to a sincere desire to find the truth devoid of any implicit or explicit condescension and belittling in any of your posts in this thread.

As you'll notice in my OP, I observed that it was very well possible that DCP received the discount simply for attending the conference.

But you quite hastily dismissed that possibility as you continued on from there documenting the "astonishing coincidences." The only indication I saw that someone seriously entertained the possibility that it was simply a discount common to all the attendees was Rollo's post.

On the other hand, I also felt that it was possible that he'd been given the discount by way of his various "connections" and his Mopologetic status.

And that was the conclusion you played up and seemed to be most content giving your tacit endorsement.

And I do think there is good evidence to wonder about this, or to at least allow for the possibility of it being true. There is at least as much evidence here as there is for an ancient setting for the Book of Mormon.

No. He got the discount because it was the national SBL. Gorgias Press couldn't give two turds about Daniel Peterson's connections to the author. I've walked around the show room floor with Dr. Peterson at SBL before. I know how this kinda thing works.

[Guest]

I realize you're probably being facetious, but mak's "harsh mistress" comment is a fairly common expression, ultimately derived from Harvard law professor Joseph Story's famous line that "the law is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship" (1829). As such, it does not normally indicate a veiled admission of deviancy.

I never said that he was admitting to deviancy. I said that linking what I saw to be his career as an apologist to a deviant metaphor was interesting. It's further perplexing that his metaphor involved two mistresses, given the connections to polygamy and Mormonism.

Have you heard a similar metaphor from the General Authorities?

[_Gadianton]

I tried to apologize and get this thread back to the topic, but you're not willing.

But that was after you had already given a point-by-point response to my last post, forcing me to accept an apology and thereby forfeit my chance to respond.

I'm always willing to let a thread get back on topic. Let it be so.

[_maklelan]

I realize you're probably being facetious, but mak's "harsh mistress" comment is a fairly common expression, ultimately derived from Harvard law professor Joseph Story's famous line that "the law is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship" (1829). As such, it does not normally indicate a veiled admission of deviancy.

I never said that he was admitting to deviancy. I said that linking what I saw to be his career as an apologist to a deviant metaphor was interesting. It's further perplexing that his metaphor involved two mistresses, given the connections to polygamy and Mormonism.

Have you heard a similar metaphor from the General Authorities?

But it's so absolutely clear to everyone that you're just being patronizing. You know as well as everyone else that the connections you're trying to paint are utterly meaningless. Why is that necessary?

[_maklelan]

I tried to apologize and get this thread back to the topic, but you're not willing.

But that was after you had already given a point-by-point response to my last post, forcing me to accept an apology and thereby forfeit my chance to respond.

I'm always willing to let a thread get back on topic. Let it be so.

You'll notice I did it again after you responded.

[_harmony]

I think this thread is very unclear.

1. Did Daniel get discounts on all the books he purchased at the conference, or just this one?

2. Was Daniel's discount because he is who he is, or in spite of who he is?

3. Was the same discount available to all apologists, or just to Daniel?

Without this information, we don't have enough to make any kind of declaration about this purchase or the relationship of Daniel's status to this purchase.

[_maklelan]

I think this thread is very unclear.

1. Did Daniel get discounts on all the books he purchased at the conference, or just this one?

2. Was Daniel's discount because he is who he is, or in spite of who he is?

3. Was the same discount available to all apologists, or just to Daniel?

Without this information, we don't have enough to make any kind of declaration about this purchase or the relationship of Daniel's status to this purchase.

I've done my best to clarify. Hopefully these answers can quiet your concerns.

1. It depends. The show room floor at SBL is the largest gathering of academic publishers related to biblical scholarship in the world, with over 100 publishers, from Signature Books to Oxford University Press, there peddling their wares. They all offer different discounts based on the book, the day of the conference, and the publisher. You can find incredible discounts on American Bible Society publications during the week, but usually nothing special on the last day; but Brill and others offer minimal discounts during the week and huge discounts on the last day (the publishers want to haul as little back with them as possible). 50% off of a Gorgias Press book sounds like one of the better deals, and it would have been available to anyone attending, if that was the case (and I can't imagine it wasn't).

2. In spite of who he is.

3. The same discount would have been available to everyone attending the conference. This is the largest gathering of biblical scholars in the world, it's not something at all geared toward "apologists."