"I Hate This Board"

[_Inconceivable]

Is it the entertainment value for you then, Dan?

Partly.

..I really do find it mesmerizing to observe.

A lurker would be an observer. You are neither.

Nice try at damage control once again.

Not even subtle. Why don't you step outside at noon (the next day it isn't overcast) and let us know whether you still don't notice that warm yellow thing the rest of us call the sun.

[_Inconceivable]

Daniel C. Peterson: Observer

(3350 posts later)







'

[_Daniel Peterson]

I love it when people who post on this board think the fact that others post on this board discredits those others. They're probably right, of course. Posting here is neither a virtue nor a worthwhile accomplishment.

A lurker would be an observer. You are neither.

A lurker would be an observer, but that doesn't entail that all observers are mere lurkers.

Logic 101. It would really help.

Nice try at damage control once again.

LOL. Then again, maybe it wouldn't be enough.

Not even subtle. Why don't you step outside at noon (the next day it isn't overcast) and let us know whether you still don't notice that warm yellow thing the rest of us call the sun.

If I didn't read boards like this one, where would I be able to observe such high-quality discourse?

I can assure the audience here that rigorous thinking like this simply cannot be found in writers like Avicenna, Aristotle, or Plantinga.

[_harmony]

It's really disconcerting that all of the Mormon statisticians and historians and specialists in the Spalding/Rigdon theory who post here have so signally failed to rebut the Criddle paper and Uncle Dale's ruminations.

We can hold out, hoping for the best, of course.

Their failure to post such a rebuttal on MDB, the premiere venue for such matters (and, indeed, the center of the Mormon intellectual universe), surely demonstrates that they have nothing whatever to say.

Well, it's not like there's much going on over at MAD about it. The original thread is on their page 8. Unlike here, which has had an ongoing discussion for over a month. And I don't find any threads there that have 30+ pages of interesting information pertaining to the thread subject. Amazing how that works.

I wonder how the Brethren reacted.

There's no indication of any reaction whatsoever, as far as I can tell. There's no indication, so far as I can see, that they know about it or care.

I agree, more's the pity.

If they just kicked it to Daniel and Co, I'm going to be disappointed once again.

An article is published in an academic journal, arguing for its conclusion on the basis of evidence and scholarly analysis. How very disappointing -- shocking, even -- if one or more academics end up critiquing it on the basis of evidence and scholarly analysis. (And, certainly, the thought of replying to the article would never occur to them on their own; they would need to be ordered to do it by their ecclesiastical leaders.) Wouldn't the more appropriate, credible, and convincing response be testimony-bearing by Church leaders who lack training in the relevant mode of scholarly analysis? That's what would win the critics over!

You haven't read Pres Benson's 14 points lately, have you?

[_Yoda]

Daniel, I think that your take on the Book of Mormon authorship thread would be very interesting.

Is there a reason you have chosen not to participate in that particular thread?

[_harmony]

Daniel, I think that your take on the Book of Mormon authorship thread would be very interesting.

Is there a reason you have chosen not to participate in that particular thread?

Oh, let me answer first. I'm sure that will get a rise out of him.

1. He has no answer to it.

2. He hasn't read it.

3. It's not his field and he has no interet in it... he already knows the answer.

4. He doesn't post anything of substance on this board.

#4 is the most important.

Now, let us await...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, it's not like there's much going on over at MAD about it.

And that proves what, exactly? I'm not aware of any professional Mormon historians or professional Mormon statisticians who participate over there, either.

Internet message boards are not the center of Mormon intellectual life -- nor of any other intellectual life, either, to this point in history.

Daniel, I think that your take on the Book of Mormon authorship thread would be very interesting.

Is there a reason you have chosen not to participate in that particular thread?

As I've said, I've never found the Spalding/Ridgon thesis at all interesting, and I have no special expertise in it, let alone in statistics. I defer, on this matter, to those with the relevant training and interests. Moreover, since the matter doesn't interest me much, patience on this is very easy for me. And I know something about what's coming. I can wait. I can even enjoy waiting.

[_harmony]

Well, it's not like there's much going on over at MAD about it.

And that proves what, exactly? I'm not aware of any professional Mormon historians or professional Mormon statisticians who participate over there, either.

Then there's no reason to assume that one of those folks won't come here and add to the discussion... since it appears to be the only relevant open and free discussion of the subject currently going on.

Internet message boards are not the center of Mormon intellectual life -- nor of any other intellectual life, either, to this point in history.

Silly Daniel.

Daniel, I think that your take on the Book of Mormon authorship thread would be very interesting.

Is there a reason you have chosen not to participate in that particular thread?

As I've said, I've never found the Spalding/Ridgon thesis at all interesting, and I have no special expertise in it, let alone in statistics. I defer, on this matter, to those with the relevant training and interests. Moreover, since the matter doesn't interest me much, patience on this is very easy for me. And I know something about what's coming. I can wait. I can even enjoy waiting.

#3 wins! Ding Ding Ding! (I wonder if I get a prize for that?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then there's no reason to assume that one of those folks won't come here and add to the discussion... since it appears to be the only relevant open and free discussion of the subject currently going on.

So far as I know, none of those people participates on internet message boards. Which, I remind you again, are not the center of contemporary intellectual life.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, I think that your take on the Book of Mormon authorship thread would be very interesting.

Is there a reason you have chosen not to participate in that particular thread?

Oh, let me answer first. I'm sure that will get a rise out of him.

1. He has no answer to it.

2. He hasn't read it.

3. It's not his field and he has no interet in it... he already knows the answer.

4. He doesn't post anything of substance on this board.

#4 is the most important.

Now, let us await...

So you're saying that I haven't posted anything substantial about either the Criddle paper or the Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory. And that condemns me.

Yet, on the other thread, Danna says I have posted on those subjects, and you agree with her that I have. And that condemns me, too.