Mormon Egyptologist Debunks the Book of Abraham

[_Runtu]

As someone who once studied a substantial amount of psychology myself, and who has given it a great deal of hard reflection, it appears to me that those with a need to interpret my writing in this way (ignoring its substance and attempting to read "read between the lines" into the dynamics of my personality) are going to do so. I know from long experience that any number of others do not see it that way.

I also suspect - very highly - that if I was on Metcalf's, Smith's, and Graham's side on the Book of Mormon issue, as well as on other issues (such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon), my prose style would never come up at all.

Nah. I just dislike verbosity. That explains why I don't read Bob McCue, who couldn't put together a simple paragraph or sentence if his life depended on it. Can't stand his stuff. Same goes for Tal Bachman.

I suspect that the papers you wrote for school were less verbose and bombastic than what you post here. All I have to go on is what you write here.

Again, you think I'm just being mean for the hell of it. If I have been mean, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. I sincerely believe that your writing style gets in the way of your message. At least it has with me.

[_Droopy]

Sigh. I don't debate you because my experience tells me that there's no upside to it.

My perception as well of you and most (but not all) people around here.

Endgame.

As for my writing style and my professional opinion about it, I make no apologies. I write for clarity, not for effect.

And I write for clarity as well, but even more important, at least when dealing with subjects that I consider to be very serious and in need of thought and reflection at depth, I write in a pedagogic style, which is to say I write, if I'm writing for an audience I consider to be above average in education and given to serious reflection on serious subjects, to try to stimulate thought and to grab intellectual lapels and shake them; I try to incite further thought by not being too simple and obvious in thought, but by providing creative, original, and penetrating insights that probe under the surface film that is most human discourse and peel back the petals of the flower.

In fact, in writing for any audience, I want to stimulate, evoke, and challenge the reader to think, ponder, reflect, and then think harder. On serious subjects, I want to give you a bit of a headache; I want to set fire to the imagination and intellect to the degree that one is up late at night thinking about what one has read, and seeing new connections, insights, and possibilities on a given issue one has not seen before.

I aim for depth, nuance, and innovative or unfamiliar perspectives and observations of whatever phenomena is at hand. I like to bore to the center at first, and then work outward, if possible, rather then looking only at the surface or apparent aspects of a social, political, or psychological phenomena and going to the core only as an afterthought and then only in standardized, culturally formatted terms.

But I've said enough. None of this is going to be understood here.

Why waste my time?

[_Droopy]

I suspect that the papers you wrote for school were less verbose and bombastic than what you post here.

On the basis of what it would be interesting to know. You really should see the final paper I wrote for the post-undergraduate course in contemporary French social philosophy I took. It's called "A Critique of Foucaultian Critique," and its everything you and the other seventh graders here hate.

Too bad you'll never see it though.

Its not for the squeamish.

[_Runtu]

I get it, Droopy. You have a profound dislike for me, and there's nothing I can do about that. I would love to read your paper on Foucault; please send it to me, and I will give you my assessment privately.

It would be nice to have a conversation with you that didn't involve your taunts and insults, but I've stopped hoping for it. I've said before that I have been impressed with your efforts at education and self-improvement; I will never understand why you've never had anything but contempt for me, but that's what it is. I don't even dislike you. I just don't understand the constant hostility and condemnation.

[_Buffalo]

Nope...

Yup. None of my philosophy or political science professors seemed to have any problems with it. You're editing experience appears to have been focused in some other venue.

:)

[_Droopy]

I get it, Droopy. You have a profound dislike for me, and there's nothing I can do about that. I would love to read your paper on Foucault; please send it to me, and I will give you my assessment privately.

Frankly, I'd rather send Hugh Hefner my Patriarchal blessing.

[_Runtu]

Frankly, I'd rather send Hugh Hefner my Patriarchal blessing.

You honestly don't believe I could either understand or critique your paper without trashing you? Again, I don't know why you have this level of animosity. I am sorry you do.