jon wrote:Hi Doc, I can agree with you that Mr Peterson boasts rather too much to be described as a humble man. I think the website is a non-event. The number of posts, the actual content, it's purpose - I would hazard a guess that it's true purpose is in currying favour for its originator with people higher up the Mormon foodchain.
That said, I didn't think you needed to stoop to being misleading about the targets and you quite rightly got shot down for that. Perhaps you should have targeted the content of some of the scholars testimonies...
Let's move on.
Jon:
Where was I "misleading about the targets"? DCP provided numbers, we extrapolated out the totals from those numbers, and that was that. Yes: DCP (and his supporters, like Simon B.) have long tried to claim that they "never had that number as a goal," but do you believe them? Do you really think the Grand Master Plan for MST all along was to have it post testimonies at an increasingly dwindling rate? If so---fine. My personal inclination is to think that they have always had huge ambitions for the site, and that they failed in this regard. Though I'd be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I mean, *maybe* they assumed from the outset that they'd have to deal with "peak oil."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Molok wrote:Again, websites are usually judged to be successful based on the number of visitors they receive, not the rate they post new material.
You may be right, Molok. And if you are---why do you think Dr. Peterson has made such a fuss over the posting rate?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I think the site is truggling in terms of 'quality'. Here is an extract from one of the Scholars testimonies: 'Church History is not so much about debates or facts, myths or dates, books or historiographies. For me it is less about the past and more about the present and future.'
Church history is about the present and future...hmmm...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:I think the site is truggling in terms of 'quality'. Here is an extract from one of the Scholars testimonies: 'Church History is not so much about debates or facts, myths or dates, books or historiographies. For me it is less about the past and more about the present and future.'
Church history is about the present and future...hmmm...
Yeah, it's about how they present it in the future so they don't lose more members.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Molok wrote:Again, websites are usually judged to be successful based on the number of visitors they receive, not the rate they post new material.
You may be right, Molok. And if you are---why do you think Dr. Peterson has made such a fuss over the posting rate?
Because that is the one thing he directly controls and it is important when starting out a website to get content on it quickly.
However we should be clear that DCP never "made such a fuss". You have by making up projection numbers and assigning him goals.
So why have you "made such a fuss"?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo