SMPT in Claremont in Less Than Two Weeks

[_Gadianton]

Since Liz and Doctor Scratch appear interested in hearing what I have to say about this, I'll oblige. I wasn't really planning on responding, I mean, who cares if my character is blackened for a few lurkers?

I don't recall ever saying that I intended on exposing Hamblin and Midgley or DCP for that matter. I'm a little hurt that DCP would think I was planning to present a speech attacking him.

I could ask, rhetorically, what would be the point, even if I wanted to write such an attack piece, of trying to convince anyone at the SMPT to let me present it?

From the beginning, my plan has been to expose the weaknesses of apologetics by touring its deep structure. I refuse to "dumb it down" as this is a society of professional theorists.

[_Yoda]

From the beginning, my plan has been to expose the weaknesses of apologetics by touring its deep structure. I refuse to "dumb it down" as this is a society of professional theorists.

So....for those of us who won't be able to attend.....What is your specific topic?

[_EAllusion]

I haven't asked him, but from the comments he's made, it always seemed to me that Gadianton wanted to Alan Sokal the affair. I can't distinguish a decent % of the abstracts at the SMPT from parodies already, so if he's there, I wouldn't be able to point him out.

[_Gadianton]

From the beginning, my plan has been to expose the weaknesses of apologetics by touring its deep structure. I refuse to "dumb it down" as this is a society of professional theorists.

So....for those of us who won't be able to attend.....What is your specific topic?

My specific "topic", Liz, is the failures of apologetics. It's a devastating critique. Well, it would be better to say that such failures would follow from the meaning of my talk.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My specific "topic", Liz, is the failures of apologetics. It's a devastating critique. Well, it would be better to say that such failures would follow from the meaning of my talk.

So . . . are you Richard Bushman, Philip Clayton, or John Cobb?

I'm acquainted with Professor Cobb, and Professor Bushman is a friend, so I'm betting that you're Professor Clayton, the process theologian.

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1058.asp

I have to admit that this surprises me.

[_Bond James Bond]

Makes me wonder what he could write, if he gave his subject some more time. Two weeks seems kinda... short. I mean... other people have been preparing for months.. Daniel is Super Apologist! He only needs a little bit more than a week.

Depending on how long the paper is (10? 15? 20 pgs? less?) going to be I would assume it doesn't take someone like Dan who writes a lot very long to hammer out a paper, particularly if it's anecdotal.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Makes me wonder what he could write, if he gave his subject some more time. Two weeks seems kinda... short. I mean... other people have been preparing for months.. Daniel is Super Apologist! He only needs a little bit more than a week.

Depending on how long the paper is (10? 15? 20 pgs? less?) going to be I would assume it doesn't take someone like Dan who writes a lot very long to hammer out a paper, particularly if it's anecdotal.

A good point, especially if he just cuts-and-pastes from his various SHIELDS and saved-email exchanges. On the other hand, I would imagine that it is going to take some finesse, and some wrenching of context in order for him to paint himself in a positive light. It is hard to see how this will in any way be an honest, or academically scrupulous presentation. But we'll see.

[_Gadianton]

I've received a number of PMs over the last couple days from people wanting to know which presentation is mine at the upcoming SMTP conference. There has even been couched suggestions that I could be "outed". Well, that's the risk I take, I suppose.

But, please people, linking my moniker to a presentation will -- guess what -- link to my in real life information so you know darn well I'm not going to tell you.

Is there some professional jealousy my presentation was accepted substantially earlier than the "standard fare" presenters' material was? *shrug* I can only speculate.

I suppose someone with the requisite education will figure it all out. well, as God said to Joseph Smith about fac no. 3 , "If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is there some jealousy my presentation was accepted substantially earlier than the "standard fare" presenters' material was? *shrug* I can only speculate.

As of the end of February -- by which time you had already been boasting of your sure place on the program -- only three presenters had been invited: Professors Bushman, Clayton, and Cobb. You are unlikely to be either Dr. Bushman or Dr. Clayton or Dr. Cobb.

You were claiming that your presentation proposal had been accepted long before any presentation proposal had been accepted, and substantially before the presentation proposals had been reviewed by the SMPT selection committee.

You may actually be on the program, but I doubt it.

[_simulated simulacra]

Dr. Bloviology says:

A reminder of the annual conference of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, to be held in a couple of weeks (21-23 May) at Claremont Graduate University in California: blah blah blah blah blah

Where does such a monotonously bellicose ego begin and end? Does this guy have a professional or home life?