The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Calculus Crusader]

Sure. And I'm the Tooth Fairy.

I'd sooner believe that than believe you were a Nephite.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I also never promised to follow every thread -- I'd never, until now, even opened that one -- let alone to read and respond to every post.

Sorry. This isn't my job.

I assumed that was the case .. just trying to draw your attention to it ...

Sorry, will not bother you futher

I didn't mean that to be as snippy as it may have come across.

The fact is, though, that I don't even open most threads, and that I ignore most posts. Even as it is, I waste far too much time here. I simply can't respond to everything. Not even to everything that might interest me.

[_The Nehor]

As a Scratch-Certified Key Apologist™ I feel it my duty to weigh in on this crucial and emotive issue.

The OP's assumptions, thoughts, and conclusions are all utter crap. Thank you for your time and good day.

[_harmony]

Harmony writes:

I don't have to be either, Ben. Do you really divide people up into just 2 camps?

Yes I do. People either belong to the group of people who divide people into two groups ... or they don't. I simply was using the two labels because the OP used the two labels. I wasn't trying to infer something by it (although I apparently did). My point is simply that participants of these kinds of forums frequently engage in these behaviors on all sides of any discussion. And I provided examples.

I think it's difficult to divide people into groups, and then to actually expect them to stay there. I prefer to move from group to group, depending on the subject of the discussion. I think there are lots of people here like me... who owe no loyalty to either side, and move from one to the other dependind on the subject.

I do not believe that these behaviors are necessarily bad. If we always stuck exactly on topic for everything, we wouldn't have most of the meaningful discussions that occur in these forums. However to label these behaviors as being specifically characteristic of a particular group when you engage in them yourself seems to be a bit much, don't you think? It doesn't matter if we want to say that this person or that person may be particularly guilty of this tactic or that tactic - creating stereotypes as a way of dealing with an argument isn't a very good way to promote real discussion.

Which is why I was surprised to see my post used in your example, since I'm not stereotypical of either side.

I think if you want to single out Dr. Peterson as a guilty party then perhaps we should have a different discussion. Otherwise, it is merely a distraction to the issue laid out in the OP. Do you think that making threats is somehow a trait that is peculiar to Mormon Apologists in these forums?

I don't threaten people. I can't control what others do.

I prefer to not single out Daniel at all, unless it suits my own agenda. He gets altogether too much bandwidth here, most of which he either doesn't deserve (like much of the attack threads) or because he deliberately turns the discussion so it focuses on him instead of whatever the real topic was (which he does whenever he's on a thread with Trixie).

[_Daniel Peterson]

he deliberately turns the discussion so it focuses on him instead of whatever the real topic was (which he does whenever he's on a thread with Trixie).

So, when I sin against the cosmos by indicating that Trixiebeastie is exasperating, I'm really wanting to talk about me!

[_rcrocket]

Now, this is odd. You seem to be saying that the process is *not* rigged. Then, R. Crockett insists that *all* peer review is rigged. Don't you think that the two of you need to get on the same page?

Why should I? He thinks it isn't rigged; I think that virtually all private journals with a peer review process "rig it." When I was a peer reviewer for a legal publication, the editors "rigged" it with reviewers like me -- big firm, previous experience as editors and litigators.

And, having been through FARMS Review's peer reviewing process as a writer, I can see how it was rigged -- peer reviewers who were LDS and university professors.

And, in any case, you essentially admitted that you carefully select your peer reviewers to uphold Mopologetic dogma.

All private journals with a peer review process "carefully select" their peer reviewers as opposed to sloppily select. How silly to suggest that a private journal "sloppily select" peer reviewers.

You have said this many times before, and it's extraordinarily misleading. It's one thing to solicit scholarly book reviews for an academic journal; it's something entirely different to produce an entire journal that is devoted to "book reviews" that slander, smear, and attack the authors, sometimes over the course of hundreds of pages.

I don't like or agree with everthing I read in FARMS Review. I tend to be more of a liberal, live-and-let live type. But I am very curious. Which "entire journal" is devoted to book reviews which slander, smear and attack the authors? Or is this just rhetorical overstatement.

What particular "slander" (is is "libel", by the way; any writer who publishes for a living knows the term is "libel) in the past few issues do you consider most provocative? I am really curious as to which article you find most offensive.

[_harmony]

he deliberately turns the discussion so it focuses on him instead of whatever the real topic was (which he does whenever he's on a thread with Trixie).

So, when I sin against the cosmos by indicating that Trixiebeastie is exasperating, I'm really wanting to talk about me!

There you go again, exaggerating in order to deflect the slightest criticism.

You don't sin against the cosmos. And yes, I can see where Trixie would exasperate you--she doesn't give an inch when she thinks she's right. Neither do you. She presents her argument and expects you and everyone else to address the argument. Then you don't, because she exasperates you... probably because you're so much like her. It's natural that she would exasperate you; I suspect you exasperate her to an equal level. She's still willing to engage you on the topic, though. You're the one who engages her only by saying how exasperated she makes you. Not on topic at all; rather it's an attempt to change the focus of the thread to yourself, instead of the topic of the thread.

You're really very good at it. And exasperating to some people.

[_StructureCop]

Man, this is way better than the MAD board. There's no good fights there anymore.

[_harmony]

Man, this is way better than the MAD board. There's no good fights there anymore.

We're the Wild Wild West...

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can see where Trixie would exasperate you--she doesn't give an inch when she thinks she's right. Neither do you. She presents her argument and expects you and everyone else to address the argument. Then you don't, because she exasperates you... probably because you're so much like her. It's natural that she would exasperate you; I suspect you exasperate her to an equal level. She's still willing to engage you on the topic, though. You're the one who engages her only by saying how exasperated she makes you. Not on topic at all; rather it's an attempt to change the focus of the thread to yourself, instead of the topic of the thread.

Trixiebeastie demands that I converse with her. I say No. She insists. I say No. She complains and whines. I say No. She goes on and on about my lack of interest in conversing with her. I say No, and explain why. Thus, I make the thread about me.

Right, harmony.

Clever. Sophistic, but clever.