Getting "Comped," Mopologetic Style?

[_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.

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."

If the same discount is available to anyone who attended, then there is no conspiracy.

[_maklelan]

If the same discount is available to anyone who attended, then there is no conspiracy.

Exactly.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

None, Mak. That's what makes your histrionics so bizarre.

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,

No, you don't. If you did, you would ask that the Church open its financial documents, and that it allow scholars---all scholars---to review documents such as the minutes from the Council of 50, and the Clayton journals. You'd also request that the temple ceremony be made public. You would also demand "objective" evidence for the truthfulness of the Church. But, of course, you don't. You have extraordinarily unfair standards, and all the while, you support an organization which hopes one day to take over the entire world.

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.

I know you can't see it, Mak, but I am pointing. And, did you know that when you point an accusatory finger at someone, you are actually pointing three fingers (and possibly a thumb) back at yourself?

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.

Do you know with 100% certainty that that precise discount was available to all attendees, and can you prove that assertion with documentary evidence? I mean, I'd just like you to be fair and objective here.

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 there's nothing wrong with that. Curiously, you seem to be very upset at the thought of DCP getting "comped."

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.

Can you supply some more objective evidence, beyond your undeniably "subjective" assertions and observations? After all, simply following DCP around isn't exactly "objective," unless you somehow manged to read both his and the booksellers' minds.

[_Mister Scratch]

If the same discount is available to anyone who attended, then there is no conspiracy.

Exactly.

I have a question for you, Mak: Did DCP pay his own way out to this conference, or was it paid for by BYU/MI? I mean, not all of us have that kind of petty cash lying around. Not all of us are able to afford flights out to Boston in order to shop around for discounted, very expensive academic books.

[_harmony]

I have a question for you, Mak: Did DCP pay his own way out to this conference, or was it paid for by BYU/MI? I mean, not all of us have that kind of petty cash lying around. Not all of us are able to afford flights out to Boston in order to shop around for discounted, very expensive academic books.

1. How Daniel gets to a conference is your business why?

2. It's not Daniel's fault that you can't afford his lifestyle.

3. When was the last time you bought books for a class? $250 per book isn't unusual, if you're an art major (it may not be the norm, but it isn't all that unusual either). Other books routinely run into the high $100's.

4. Why do Daniel's spending habits interest you so much?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

An astute summation, mak. The problem is that Mister Scratch's questions rest on assumptions that betray his own lack of understanding on the subject he is questioning in general. Now, this in and of itself is not really a problem, as we generally ask questions in order to learn things we didn't already know. The trouble comes in when it is easily seen that Scratch intends the questions as an indictment. If he doesn't receive explicit and detailed answers he can then assume the worst, note the "veil of conspiracy" and move along to the next criticism. If he does receive an answer he can bully the respondent with accusations of dishonesty. The vast majority of Scratch's rhetoric is framed as simple "heads I win, tails you lose" gaming. Of course, when this is pointed out prepare to feel the barbs. It will quickly be shown that the coin you just flipped in pointing it out landed heads up; you lose anyway.

As you shown, Scratch is either clueless about the operations of the conferences and book selling in the academic setting generally, or he's just being incorrigible.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And there's nothing wrong with that. Curiously, you seem to be very upset at the thought of DCP getting "comped."

Note also this tactic: when it is demonstrated, quite convincingly so, that the original implication or question was stupid, you are painted as an attacking and angry fiend. Quite a nasty tactic, that!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I have a question for you, Mak: Did DCP pay his own way out to this conference, or was it paid for by BYU/MI? I mean, not all of us have that kind of petty cash lying around. Not all of us are able to afford flights out to Boston in order to shop around for discounted, very expensive academic books.

1. How Daniel gets to a conference is your business why?

2. It's not Daniel's fault that you can't afford his lifestyle.

3. When was the last time you bought books for a class? $250 per book isn't unusual, if you're an art major (it may not be the norm, but it isn't all that unusual either). Other books routinely run into the high $100's.

4. Why do Daniel's spending habits interest you so much?

It seems, from what I have gathered from Scratch's posting history, that he has some sort of agenda regarding Dan Peterson. My best advice to Dan is for him to simply ignore it. Scratch appears to feel empowered by "besting" someone who presumably holds a higher rank, academically speaking. Scratch has felt slighted or attacked by Dan in the past, and feels such a thing is a part of Dan's very makeup; he quite literally is an evil person in Scratch's view; though they've never really met and Dan knows nothing more about Scratch than he presents in a fake internet persona. So for all this time Scratch has taken a strange and hostile interest in whatever he can find out about Dan. He has "informants" (people like Rollo Tomasi, for example) who send him private messages and news updates. He feels that with an "ace in the hole" he can expose and ruin Peterson, much like he believes Peterson "ruined" Michael Quinn, for example. Oddly, much of what he accuses Peterson of doing, he himself does. Such is the life of a Californian college student named Mister Scratch.

[_maklelan]

I have a question for you, Mak: Did DCP pay his own way out to this conference, or was it paid for by BYU/MI? I mean, not all of us have that kind of petty cash lying around. Not all of us are able to afford flights out to Boston in order to shop around for discounted, very expensive academic books.

I don't know the details of his travel expenses. You'd have to ask him. I do think it's funny, however, that you've been reduced to groping for some way to accuse him of being elitist just so you can feel justified in resenting him.

I'm curious how you respond to the fact that the US government gave his Middle Eastern Texts Initiative $1M. I guess if he were a "real scholar" instead of just an apologist he'd have gotten $10M. After all, he's obviously translating medieval Islamic philosophical texts just to support Book of Mormon historicity.

[_maklelan]

None, Mak. That's what makes your histrionics so bizarre.

That doesn't square with you starting an entire thread to hint at sinister goings-on. Don't equivocate on my account.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

If you did, you would ask that the Church open its financial documents, and that it allow scholars---all scholars---to review documents such as the minutes from the Council of 50, and the Clayton journals.

Full disclosure and objectivity are two different things. The church can do whatever it wants with its finances. And since you bring up "scholars," what criteria would you use to decide of someone were allowed to see such rare historical documents?

You'd also request that the temple ceremony be made public. You would also demand "objective" evidence for the truthfulness of the Church. But, of course, you don't. You have extraordinarily unfair standards, and all the while, you support an organization which hopes one day to take over the entire world.

I think you need to look up the word "objective."

I know you can't see it, Mak, but I am pointing.

You are correct, I cannot see you physically pointing. Since you aren't providing a quote or a link, though, that means nothing to me.

And, did you know that when you point an accusatory finger at someone, you are actually pointing three fingers (and possibly a thumb) back at yourself?

If we were in kindergarten, where people aren't supposed to make accusations, then I wouldn't have a problem with agreeing with you, but since you do nothing but lob accusations at others, I find it kinda hypocritical for you to whine about being picked on.

Do you know with 100% certainty that that precise discount was available to all attendees, and can you prove that assertion with documentary evidence? I mean, I'd just like you to be fair and objective here.

No, you just want to try to create an evidentiary standard that provides the smallest possibility that you'll actually have to admit you're wrong. Stop being a child.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Curiously, you seem to be very upset at the thought of DCP getting "comped."

I couldn't care less, but I happen to know that wasn't the case, and I'm not convinced letting you and your ilk cackle uninterrupted about those dirty "Mopologists" and their elitist connections is the best thing for people out there who don't know any better. Don't throw the accusation out there and then whine about how I'm not allowed to care about correcting you.

Can you supply some more objective evidence, beyond your undeniably "subjective" assertions and observations? After all, simply following DCP around isn't exactly "objective," unless you somehow manged to read both his and the booksellers' minds.

And what evidence would suffice? A receipt? An affidavit? Perhaps a deposition? Shall I travel to Boston (on my own dime!) and dig through the trash? Would that earn me your respect? Can't I please have your respect? Pretty please?

I told you how it went down. You're just incapable of losing a point to a dirty little Mormon. Such a ridiculous point, too.