static wrote:Where's the evidence for a "hit piece?"
mormonstories himself said it was a
mormonstories wrote:multi-paged critique
that he hasn't seen.
Are critiques supposed to never exceed one page? Are critiques not to be written at all? What is the problem with a multi-paged critique?
Only Simon Belmont would be unable to comprehend that "hit piece" and "critique" are not mutually exclusive terms. And only Simon Belmont would post this same unfunny remark twice.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
static wrote:Where's the evidence for a "hit piece?"
mormonstories himself said it was a
mormonstories wrote:multi-paged critique
that he hasn't seen.
Are critiques supposed to never exceed one page? Are critiques not to be written at all? What is the problem with a multi-paged critique?
that's not a multi-paged critique. That's an opus. A freakin' book. That's an obsession.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Blixa wrote:Only Simon Belmont would be unable to comprehend that "hit piece" and "critique" are not mutually exclusive terms. And only Simon Belmont would post this same unfunny remark twice.
Words can be used to encourage a specific reaction. "Hit piece" and critique are not the same thing. Hit piece is an emotionally charged "shocking" word designed with a very specific manipulative purpose. Critique is not. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference. I prefer to be accurate in my usage of words, not shocking. I'm sorry you disagree.
harmony wrote:that's not a multi-paged critique. That's an opus. A freakin' book. That's an obsession.
What is? The non-existent document that no one has seen?
static wrote: Words can be used to encourage a specific reaction. "Hit piece" and critique are not the same thing. Hit piece is an emotionally charged "shocking" word designed with a very specific manipulative purpose. Critique is not. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference. I prefer to be accurate in my usage of words, not shocking. I'm sorry you disagree.
But that is not how you've been deploying the terms or suggesting their relation, is it now?
It's rich when a plagiarist pretends they can condescend to anyone else about "accuracy." Go read a book, Simon. I'm through tutoring you.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:But that is not how you've been deploying the terms or suggesting their relation, is it now?
It's rich when a plagiarist pretends they can condescend to anyone else about "accuracy." Go read a book, Simon. I'm through tutoring you.
I don't know who you believe me to be, or what sordid relationship you believe us to have, but I've never met you.
If you believe that equating "hit piece" with "critique" is accurate, then you have some serious learning to do. If you believe, for one second, that these two terms invoke the same emotional reaction in the reader then you are sorely mistaken. Accuracy is important in literature of any type, and calling something what it is, rather than what you believe will get the most "shock" out of people is the mark of a good writer. Anything else is just a tabloid.
static wrote:Words can be used to encourage a specific reaction. "Hit piece" and critique are not the same thing. Hit piece is an emotionally charged "shocking" word designed with a very specific manipulative purpose. Critique is not. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference. I prefer to be accurate in my usage of words, not shocking. I'm sorry you disagree.
This issue was discussed many pages ago. Juggler Vain explained it cogently. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23760&start=168+
static wrote:What is? The non-existent document that no one has seen?
So you are staking out the position that the document does not exist?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
The document probably doesn't exist. If it does, it's probably a mild critique, not a hit piece the shock therapists want to make it out to be. mormonstories said so himself.
static wrote:The document probably doesn't exist. If it does, it's probably a mild critique, not a hit piece the shock therapists want to make it out to be. mormonstories said so himself.
On what do you base your assertion that the document probably doesn't exist? If it were a "mild critique" why would FARMS not publish it? Why would a GA put the kibosh on it?
And why did you lie about what brought you to this board?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo