MDD Board Gloats over Ruination of Texas Prof's Job

[_maklelan]

I guess Schryver isn't the only one who knows how to use these special words. I just love it when message boards expose the real person underneath the holy mopologist veneer.

What's wrong with my use of the word? Are you trying to insist that if I use one semantic field of a specific word that I am responsible for having appealed implicitly to all semantic fields and perspectivations of that word? Is that really your contention?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think you've misunderstood my central point, Dan. As I noted in my OP: if your reportage is accurate, then the guy surely deserved to be given his walking papers. My main point is this: Why turn up on the MDD board to announce this?

Because numerous people there have had direct interaction with PaulD in the past, and I knew that they would like to be updated on any significant developments in his campaigns against religions he doesn't like. Are you trying to say there's something inappropriate or suspicious about my having posted that information on that board?

Frankly, yes. C'mon, Mak: you're Oxford-educated. If your goal was to speak out against "bigotry," did you really think that it was wise to put up a thread in a place where folks like Pahoran, CQUIRK, Dan Peterson, morgan.deane, and Jeff K would be right there to drool all over it?

Further, if *this* kind of bigotry merits this degree of proactive commentary from you, why are you silent on things like Prof. Hamblin's k-word-laced rant?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Here you go:

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

"I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count 'em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts."

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/The ... space.html

Or his using the classroom to trash Mike Quinn's reputation? (And this in light of the FARMS Review publishing articles label homosexuals "traitors" and "Korihors"). How is that "okay"?

I don't think that would be ok, but I don't know what you're talking about, and so don't feel it's my place to start criticizing.

Part I:

381. I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=364

Part II:

Reflecting upon the development of the characters in Forster's long-suppressed book, Maurice, Jones notes that, "In the world of this novel it's hard to tell whether declining religious faith fosters homosexuality or whether homosexuality kills faith. At any rate Forster sees a connection. . . . As their involvement in sodomy increases, so also does their opposition to Christianity."56 That denial of the truths one can know about God should lead to sodomy is in some sense a mystery," concludes Jones. "However, it is a mystery that can be fairly well documented, from Paul's epistle to the Romans to any objective view of modern British history."57 In any event, it seems clear that immorality (not merely of the homosexual variety) and intellectual apostasy are, and always have been, frequent (though not invariable) companions. (Joseph Smith's famous announcement of a link between adultery and sign-seeking is apropos here.)58 Sodom and Cumorah are apparently not compatible.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147

(This, by the way, was the essay that quotes so heavily from anti-semitic author E. Michael Jones.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know. If I had a hand in getting rid of a bigoted professor, I might gloat a little.

Of course, the trouble is, Mak had virtually nothing to do with it.

[_Carton]

I guess Schryver isn't the only one who knows how to use these special words. I just love it when message boards expose the real person underneath the holy mopologist veneer.

There is nothing wrong with using the word, "bitch", in the fashion he used it.

TIC, liz. TIC.

Even so, it is true that these message boards tend to expose the vulgarity and bigotry lurking beneath the "holy" mopologetic veneer.

They are especially inclined to lower their guard when Doctor Scratch exposes their hypocrisy.

[_Yoda]

I think you've misunderstood my central point, Dan. As I noted in my OP: if your reportage is accurate, then the guy surely deserved to be given his walking papers. My main point is this: Why turn up on the MDD board to announce this?

Because numerous people there have had direct interaction with PaulD in the past, and I knew that they would like to be updated on any significant developments in his campaigns against religions he doesn't like. Are you trying to say there's something inappropriate or suspicious about my having posted that information on that board?

Frankly, yes. C'mon, Mak: you're Oxford-educated. If your goal was to speak out against "bigotry," did you really think that it was wise to put up a thread in a place where folks like Pahoran, CQUIRK, Dan Peterson, morgan.deane, and Jeff K would be right there to drool all over it?

Further, if *this* kind of bigotry merits this degree of proactive commentary from you, why are you silent on things like Prof. Hamblin's k-word-laced rant?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Here you go:

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

"I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count 'em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts."

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/The ... space.html

Or his using the classroom to trash Mike Quinn's reputation? (And this in light of the FARMS Review publishing articles label homosexuals "traitors" and "Korihors"). How is that "okay"?

I don't think that would be ok, but I don't know what you're talking about, and so don't feel it's my place to start criticizing.

Part I:

381. I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=364

Part II:

Reflecting upon the development of the characters in Forster's long-suppressed book, Maurice, Jones notes that, "In the world of this novel it's hard to tell whether declining religious faith fosters homosexuality or whether homosexuality kills faith. At any rate Forster sees a connection. . . . As their involvement in sodomy increases, so also does their opposition to Christianity."56 That denial of the truths one can know about God should lead to sodomy is in some sense a mystery," concludes Jones. "However, it is a mystery that can be fairly well documented, from Paul's epistle to the Romans to any objective view of modern British history."57 In any event, it seems clear that immorality (not merely of the homosexual variety) and intellectual apostasy are, and always have been, frequent (though not invariable) companions. (Joseph Smith's famous announcement of a link between adultery and sign-seeking is apropos here.)58 Sodom and Cumorah are apparently not compatible.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147

(This, by the way, was the essay that quotes so heavily from anti-semitic author E. Michael Jones.)

Scratch...I agree that these examples are awful. But what do they have to do with Mak? I'm confused.

[_maklelan]

Frankly, yes. C'mon, Mak: you're Oxford-educated. If your goal was to speak out against "bigotry,"

What did I say my goal was? Do I need to repeat it for you? It's quoted in the section of your post just above your comments. I'll repeat it for you:

Because numerous people there have had direct interaction with PaulD in the past, and I knew that they would like to be updated on any significant developments in his campaigns against religions he doesn't like. Are you trying to say there's something inappropriate or suspicious about my having posted that information on that board?

I spoke out against bigotry on my blog. I posted it on MDD because it is news that is relevant to a lot of people there. Stop making up motivations for me, especially when I've rather clearly delineated them in the post you're quoting.

did you really think that it was wise to put up a thread in a place where folks like Pahoran, CQUIRK, Dan Peterson, morgan.deane, and Jeff K would be right there to drool all over it?

So I am not allowed to report relevant news in a context where someone might be too happy about another person's misfortune? Tell me, where on the internet might I be able to find a forum where that rule can be obeyed?

Here you go:

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

"I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count 'em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts."

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/The ... space.html

I don't think it's that appropriate to use a term that far down the spectrum of ethnic slurs, but as an illustration of how emotive that kind of rhetoric is (and I must assume that that's what it is, since you've not really provided any context) it is simply nowhere near the level of bigotry I'm highlighting. What exactly do you think I should do in order to show you that I'm not just a raging hypocrite? Should I start a thread where I misrepresent someone's actions in the thread title and pronounce judgments in the post about what I assume to be their motivations? That seems to be your MO, and you're the one lecturing me about why I need to be as righteous and fair a person as you.

Part I:

381. I once used Quinn's first edition of Early Mormonism as an assigned reading in my undergraduate senior seminar in history as an example of how not to write history. Even those undergraduate students were easily able to discover the flaws of evidence and analysis that abound in Quinn's book.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=364

Part II:

Reflecting upon the development of the characters in Forster's long-suppressed book, Maurice, Jones notes that, "In the world of this novel it's hard to tell whether declining religious faith fosters homosexuality or whether homosexuality kills faith. At any rate Forster sees a connection. . . . As their involvement in sodomy increases, so also does their opposition to Christianity."56 That denial of the truths one can know about God should lead to sodomy is in some sense a mystery," concludes Jones. "However, it is a mystery that can be fairly well documented, from Paul's epistle to the Romans to any objective view of modern British history."57 In any event, it seems clear that immorality (not merely of the homosexual variety) and intellectual apostasy are, and always have been, frequent (though not invariable) companions. (Joseph Smith's famous announcement of a link between adultery and sign-seeking is apropos here.)58 Sodom and Cumorah are apparently not compatible.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=147

(This, by the way, was the essay that quotes so heavily from anti-semitic author E. Michael Jones.)

I certainly wouldn't approach any class or publication like that, but I hardly know any of the context to start declaring condemnation on anyone, if that's really what you're looking for.

Now, you left the majority of my post alone. I'd appreciate a response to my direct questions and my challenges to your assertions.

[_maklelan]

TIC, liz. TIC.

Even so, it is true that these message boards tend to expose the vulgarity and bigotry lurking beneath the "holy" mopologetic veneer.

They are especially inclined to lower their guard when Doctor Scratch exposes their hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy has Scratch exposed? Please be specific and provide quotes. I've asked for specification from a number of posters, but I've gotten none. Can you buck that trend?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Frankly, yes. C'mon, Mak: you're Oxford-educated. If your goal was to speak out against "bigotry,"

What did I say my goal was? Do I need to repeat it for you?

I guess not. Rather than being motivated out of a desire to stand up in the face of bigotry, you wanted instead to "update" folks at MDD of the fact that PaulD was pressured out of his job in embarrassing fashion. Well, Mak: I had wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems instead that you're now admitting that it really was all about schadenfreude.

So I am not allowed to report relevant news in a context where someone might be too happy about another person's misfortune?

Oh, of course you're allowed, Maklelan. Have at it.

I don't think it's that appropriate to use a term that far down the spectrum of ethnic slurs, but as an illustration of how emotive that kind of rhetoric is (and I must assume that that's what it is, since you've not really provided any context) it is simply nowhere near the level of bigotry I'm highlighting. What exactly do you think I should do in order to show you that I'm not just a raging hypocrite?

Well, you might try asking the FAIR operators to remove the material. Or you might do as you did in this instance and run both a blog entry and a thread at MDD, criticizing Dr. Hamblin for this behavior.

But, then again, if your goal was just to gloat and feel nice about the fact that the bigoted Mr. PaulD skulked off from his teaching position in shame--as you seem to be suggesting--then it's probably not worth the effort.

I certainly wouldn't approach any class or publication like that, but I hardly know any of the context to start declaring condemnation on anyone, if that's really what you're looking for.

Well, you're in luck, then, because I posted links to the full-text of all three examples. I'm sure those will provide you with all the context you need.

[_maklelan]

I guess not. Rather than being motivated out of a desire to stand up in the face of bigotry,

Which is what I did on my blog.

you wanted instead to "update" folks at MDD of the fact that PaulD was pressured out of his job in embarrassing fashion.

He resigned himself. He was not forced out, and he was the one who publicized the issue far and wide. Other than those misrepresentations (that I have already addressed), yes, I was just updating people.

Well, Mak: I had wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems instead that you're now admitting that it really was all about schadenfreude.

No, it wasn't. I know much better than you what my motivations were, and I'll thank you to stop insisting otherwise.

Oh, of course you're allowed, Maklelan. Have at it.

Then why this thread?

Well, you might try asking the FAIR operators to remove the material.

Why? It's not bigotry, it's just rhetoric for shock value. I wouldn't do it, but there's nothing about it that violates any standards they have. Shall I ask the producers of American History X to remove all the N-words from the movie? We've got a long list of movies to go through if that's the case. I know the Kids in the Hall use slurs designating gay people all the time, especially the gay member. Shall I write them and tell them that's inappropriate?

Or you might do as you did in this instance and run both a blog entry and a thread at MDD, criticizing Dr. Hamblin for this behavior.

It's not bigoted, and it's not a horrific violation of public university standards.

But, then again, if your goal was just to gloat and feel nice about the fact that the bigoted Mr. PaulD skulked off from his teaching position in shame--as you seem to be suggesting--then it's probably not worth the effort.

Again, Paul certainly wasn't ashamed of anything, and he resigned on his own. How many times do I have to explain this to you before you stop misrepresenting the events and my purpose for sharing them?

Well, you're in luck, then, because I posted links to the full-text of all three examples. I'm sure those will provide you with all the context you need.

Fair enough. I've read the eighteen year-old article, and while I disagree with much of it, I don't see anything bigoted or that violates any state or university standards. Now that we've seen that you really have nothing at all comparable to Paul's behavior to sling in the face of the Mormons, and you've been shown to be entirely and completely mistaken about why I posted that thread, would you mind apologizing for this misleading and manipulative thread? You know as well as everyone else here that you're being dishonest, so don't waste everyone's time with your asinine attempts to tell me what's motivating me and just apologize like a decent human being.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I guess not. Rather than being motivated out of a desire to stand up in the face of bigotry,

Which is what I did on my blog.

Yes, and good for you. But this thread isn't about your blog. It's about your thread at MDD.

you wanted instead to "update" folks at MDD of the fact that PaulD was pressured out of his job in embarrassing fashion.

He resigned himself. He was not forced out, and he was the one who publicized the issue far and wide. Other than those misrepresentations (that I have already addressed), yes, I was just updating people.

Who are you kidding? You did your post as a kind of invitation for your fellow Mopologists to revel in the fact that he's now being forced to eat his bitter just desserts.

Well, you might try asking the FAIR operators to remove the material.

Why? It's not bigotry, it's just rhetoric for shock value. I wouldn't do it, but there's nothing about it that violates any standards they have.

What are their standards, exactly? And might I point out that, thanks to Kerry Shirts, you are now to a certain extent "associated" with FAIR as an organization. Thus...

Well, never mind. I pretty much figured that you would regard this sort of behavior with a shrug.

Or you might do as you did in this instance and run both a blog entry and a thread at MDD, criticizing Dr. Hamblin for this behavior.

It's not bigoted, and it's not a horrific violation of public university standards.

Hmmm, yes, I see: to your mind, it's really not much of a big deal at all--a mere "use of rhetoric for shock value." I guess Bill Hamblin is the Howard Stern of Mopologetics, forever crossing the lines of decency for the sake of scoring a point? I'll have to remember to always credit you for inspiring this realization.

But, then again, if your goal was just to gloat and feel nice about the fact that the bigoted Mr. PaulD skulked off from his teaching position in shame--as you seem to be suggesting--then it's probably not worth the effort.

Again, Paul certainly wasn't ashamed of anything, and he resigned on his own. How many times do I have to explain this to you before you stop misrepresenting the events and my purpose for sharing them?

So what if he himself wasn't "ashamed"? The rest of us sane folks know perfectly well that he left amidst a cloud of shame. You and your Mopologist pals know this too, and you knew that they would know, and you knew that they've relish it with great glee. Hence your thread. We actually don't disagree, Maklelan.

Fair enough. I've read the eighteen year-old article, and while I disagree with much of it, I don't see anything bigoted

You don't think that comparing homosexuals to "traitors" and "Korihors" is in any way "bigoted"?

Okay.

or that violates any state or university standards.

Oh, I feel confident saying that statements like that would land you in serious trouble at a typical university. Perhaps it doesn't violate any "standards" at BYU, but it would most other places.

But it's fine, Maklelan: shrug your shoulders, yawn, and carry on your way. Enjoy your schadenfreude. After all, in this case, the guy seems to actually have deserved it.