Novak's Rule

[_Gadianton]

A fine demonstration of the fallacy of the complex question. If it must be known, my "conversion" to Mister Scratch came with his initial expose on the "missing transcript" debacle and the subsequent fall of ZLMB and rise of protectionist-based apologetics at FAIR. This lengthy and engaging masterpiece I don't even recall mentioned you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A fine demonstration of the fallacy of the complex question.

No it's not.

[_Pokatator]

DCP you are so quick with the labels and name calling and little rhymes and poems and boilerplate answers and little retorts. Sometimes you add substance but not often mostly the little boy band stuff. I respect you when you add substance. After all you are the Dr., the PHD, the Bishop, the Professor, the lecturer, the world traveler, the decorated one, the one with honors, the guy that rubs noses with the General Authorities and I am not.

You can't seem to see that this is what the OP is about. It is about labels and the meanings. The word, the label is anti-mormon. You use definitions and labels just like Novak. One way then an other to suit you.

You label everyone who responds on a Scratch thread by your little comical labels and names. But you are doing the same thing as Novak, call them a name and then play a word game and change the definition back and forth and try to make the poster seem less intelligent. Then you can push your chest out and beat it like Tarzan and say, "Oh what good little Mormon boy am I".

I like most of Scratch's thread, but some are in my view petty and some of your criticism has merit. But for the most. part I find them so entertaining. And that is because you are so predicable. It does not matter if the thread is about you, if you see the name Scratch in print you react. That is exactly my point with you and the OP. The thread wasn't about Scratch or his disciples or what other name you want to call them but you reacted to Scratch and anyone else that posted on the thread and not the OP.

That is why I asked you, "who controls who?" you or Scratch?. I see Scratch as the scissors grinder, grinding away and grind he does but no matter what he does as predictable as the sun rising in the east here comes DCP the monkey with his hand out and his mouth running with name calling and labels and the little boy games go on.

It is fun to watch you react. You can't seem to get it or stop it or understand who controls who, so carry on just for our entertainment.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP you are so quick with the labels and name calling and little rhymes and poems and boilerplate answers and little retorts.

Yes. It's one of my many endearing qualities.

Sometimes you add substance but not often mostly the little boy band stuff.

Sorry. I was attempting to respond at your level. I guess I missed all the depth and substance in your posts.

You can't seem to see that this is what the OP is about. It is about labels and the meanings. The word, the label is anti-mormon. You use definitions and labels just like Novak. One way then an other to suit you.

Can you point to a specific passage or place where I've done this?

You label everyone who responds on a Scratch thread by your little comical labels and names. But you are doing the same thing as Novak, call them a name and then play a word game and change the definition back and forth and try to make the poster seem less intelligent. Then you can push your chest out and beat it like Tarzan and say, "Oh what good little Mormon boy am I".

What astonishing insight into my depraved yet childish soul!

The thread wasn't about Scratch or his disciples or what other name you want to call them but you reacted to Scratch and anyone else that posted on the thread and not the OP.

The opening post was Scratchite to the core, in both method and substance (such as that was).

And, as I've said before, there really wasn't much in it that called for a response. I mean, once you've said "Novak is nasty" ten or twenty times, and maybe tossed in a dozen iterations or so of "Mopologetics is all just like that," or something analogous, what is there that's left to say?

That is why I asked you, "who controls who?" you or Scratch?. I see Scratch as the scissors grinder, grinding away and grind he does but no matter what he does as predictable as the sun rising in the east here comes DCP the monkey with his hand out and his mouth running with name calling and labels and the little boy games go on.

I realize that the paragraph above is a model of substantial posting and a night-and-day contrast to my personal name-calling, but I'm not sure whether to classify it as theological, philosophical, scientific, or historiographical.

It is fun to watch you react. You can't seem to get it or stop it or understand who controls who, so carry on just for our entertainment.

Golly. I think I'm being condescended to.

No.

Wait.

I'm being treated to yet another paragraph of meaty substance and deep reflection.

Yes.

That's it.

[_harmony]

Golly. I think I'm being condescended to.

And by a spud, at that. Funny how that works sometimes. The ol' "the first shall be the last and the last shall be the first" thing again.

[_Pokatator]

DCP

Harmony is right just a spud. As simple as that.

How simple is it to not play Scratch's game? Don't you have the ignore feature? With all your will power to stay away from tobaccy, coffee, immorality and live the church standard and etc...... why can't you "cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness" D&C 88:121? In other words, Why can't you have the will power to just ignore Scratch on your own and quit being so predictable?

If all I read from you was your posts of substance I do believe I would regard you on a much higher level.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I may well decide, one of these days, simply to ignore Mister Scratch and the Scratchettes. I've thought about doing so several times, and have, in fact, done so, for months on end at various points. And since, for reasons that would inflame the Scratches far too much to mention, I'm going to be away from my computer for the next week or so, it may shortly be a very good time to do just that.

In the meantime, I don't see that there's anything particularly wrong (except for the sheer time-wasting futility of it all) in contradicting them when they present warped or even wholly false accounts of my actions in order to brand me as a dishonest, mercenary, vicious, anti-Semitic, degenerate, slanderous, cowardly, vindictive, bigoted, greedy, callous, homicidal, racist, homophobic, exploitative gossipmonger. Although it's extraordinarily unlikely that a Scratch will ever see the error of Scratchite ways, there are, presumably, at least a few non-Scratch lurkers who read these threads. A failure to contradict Scratchite spin might leave them exposed to a greater risk of falling for it.

It seems rather strange for you to devote so much energy to criticizing me for responding to such allegations when you don't seem to criticize Mister Scratch and his back-up choir much, if at all, for making them in the first place. Again, I think of the wonderful French saying: Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque, il se défend: "This animal is very wicked; if you attack it, it defends itself."

In the meantime, that opening post is still there, crying out for you to discuss it.

[_Gadianton]

in contradicting them when they present warped or even wholly false accounts of my actions in order to brand me as a dishonest, mercenary, vicious, anti-Semitic, degenerate, slanderous, cowardly, vindictive, bigoted, greedy, callous, homicidal, racist, homophobic, exploitative gossipmonger. Although it's extraordinarily unlikely that a Scratch will ever see the error of Scratchite ways, there are, presumably, at least a few non-Scratch lurkers who read these threads. A failure to contradict Scratchite spin might leave them exposed to a greater risk of falling for it.

Could someone here point out where and how in this thread I've accused or insinuated professor peterson is anything he describes above? As he likes to clarify his position over and over on the same thing, I will clarify mine. I invite everyone, including DCP, to become angry with or condemn me for the things I say and not the things others are believed to have said.

[_Daniel Peterson]

in contradicting them when they present warped or even wholly false accounts of my actions in order to brand me as a dishonest, mercenary, vicious, anti-Semitic, degenerate, slanderous, cowardly, vindictive, bigoted, greedy, callous, homicidal, racist, homophobic, exploitative gossipmonger. Although it's extraordinarily unlikely that a Scratch will ever see the error of Scratchite ways, there are, presumably, at least a few non-Scratch lurkers who read these threads. A failure to contradict Scratchite spin might leave them exposed to a greater risk of falling for it.

Could someone here point out where and how in this thread I've accused or insinuated professor peterson is anything he describes above? As he likes to clarify his position over and over on the same thing, I will clarify mine. I invite everyone, including DCP, to become angry with or condemn me for the things I say and not the things others are believed to have said.

The passage below, from the opening post, plainly seems to suggest that, in cahoots with my Mopologist co-conspirators, I'm engaged in dishonest trickery:

Should I have guessed that "Novak's Rule" would be nothing more than a gratuitous cheap shot taken against anyone who opposes Mormonism in any way?

What I find most disquieting about "Novak's Rule" isn't its straightforward mean-spiritedness, but its wide acceptance by the apologists proves that for some time now they have been trying to "trick" critics into being OK with the label "anti-Mormon". Famously, professor Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University often writes -- the lattest incident of this writing being just the other day,

Anti- means "opposed to." As in anti-Semitic, antacid, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist, anti-abortion, anti-depressant, anti-Nazi, anti-allergen, anti-war, anti-antihistamine, and anti-discrimination. "Anti-" terms don't necessarily indicate evil. I, for example, am both anti-Communist and anti-abortion.

I suppose there is some semantic wiggle room here regarding the interpretation of the word "evil", but clearly, the intention is that it's not necessarily bad to be "anti-Mormon". The "setup" here turns on getting the critic to accept this dry exposition on logical necessity only to find herself snickered and laughed at as the butt of a joke as the apologists also hold tightly to their (supposed) certain though contingent "Novak's Rule".

Be careful then, my friends, when granting legitimacy to labels the apologists have contrived for us like "anti-Mormon", because the sales pitch may be misleading.

[_Gadianton]

I can see how you might read it that way, but, I disagree with your interpretation. I would only agree with you if you could point to me trying to paint you as in agreement with Novak, which I haven't. If you do agree with Novak, then yes, you are engaged in dishonest trickery. What my post does is show a contradiction within apologetics. Not that it's unthinkable for apologists to have different opinions, but, the apologists should recognize that people are reading more than just their own statements on things, and should be aware how terms like "anti-Mormon" are used in reality.