Seth Payne on the Latest Board War

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Scratch, thank you for the correction. I will update my post.

Seth

ETA: My feelings about digging into Dan's personal life, including reading habits, still stand. I mean, I know he is somewhat of a "public person" but I think things can be taken too far.

I agree. Keep clean from collateral damage. However, when someone makes it personal, ad homs, and nastiness one can either ignore or engage on that level. Peterson has no expectation of civility when he behaves like a jackass (which he almost always does).

Personally, I like when he is misbehaving. It's more interesting, make the corp look bad, and above all shows the world what kind of a person he is (that is when he's not name dropping and listing travel destinations like anyone gives a crap). by the way, making peace with Peterson and company isn't the same as making peace with the church.

[_lulu]

You seem to be a good guy, BC. I have to admit I'm surprised by your response.

Seth

You're new here?

[_Kishkumen]

,

I like your list very much. Thank you for posting this.

Seth

Thank you for blogging on all of this. Your posts were very interesting and thoughtful.

[_sethpayne]

You seem to be a good guy, BC. I have to admit I'm surprised by your response.

Seth

You're new here?

Hi lulu,

I've been around a while. I'm mostly a lurker but will occasionally chime in to keep BCspace in line! :)

Seth

[_lulu]

You seem to be a good guy, BC. I have to admit I'm surprised by your response.

Seth

You're new here?

Hi lulu,

I've been around a while. I'm mostly a lurker but will occasionally chime in to keep BCspace in line! :)

Seth

I figured you had been. I was being snarky. I've learned a thing or two off of bcspace. But don't tell him.

I don't know if he would be fun for a beer, though.

[_sethpayne]

You seem to be a good guy, BC. I have to admit I'm surprised by your response.

Seth

You're new here?

Hi lulu,

I've been around a while. I'm mostly a lurker but will occasionally chime in to keep BCspace in line! :)

Seth

I figured you had been. I was being snarky. I've learned a thing or two off of bcspace. But don't tell him.

I don't know if he would be fun for a beer, though.

Now that I'm not half-asleep I can see that you were being snarky! BC talks big but I suspect he has a good heart underneath the Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine and the "Mormons can't be Democrats" silliness.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch, thank you for the correction. I will update my post.

Seth

ETA: My feelings about digging into Dan's personal life, including reading habits, still stand. I mean, I know he is somewhat of a "public person" but I think things can be taken too far.

Seth,

I think you're missing my point. No one went "digging," as you put it. Dan invited people to go and look at his Amazon account. I agree with you thank "things can be taken too far," but I also think that, if you want to cite a specific example, you should cite one that's accurate.

[_lulu]

Now that I'm not half-asleep I can see that you were being snarky! BC talks big but I suspect he has a good heart underneath the Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine and the "Mormons can't be Democrats" silliness.

I don't have any problem with looking at the available evidence and trying to come up with a unified theory. And I'm paraphrasing bcspace here. I think that's what scholars do.

I just think bcspace has a very narrow perspective. Garbage in, garbage out.

As a sociological factor, you probably do have to be a conservative US Republican to be consider a good Mormon by most US Mormons. But that's pretty narrow. But in bcspace's view, the program has been written, the data entered, garbage out.

Like many IT people, when a bizarre result it obtained, bcspace either denies that there is a problem or goes into hiding.

And I think many message board posts work better when you are half asleep.

[_beefcalf]

When there is an attack on a belief, no matter how subtle or couched in friendly (condescending) words, it is a personal attack on the one who carries that belief. So in this context, it is impossible for an attack not to be personal.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen you post.

Do not missionaries couch their insistence that their prospective converts hold incorrect beliefs in the friendliest of terms? To approach a person and attempt to convince them they hold incorrect beliefs may be an attack on those beliefs but, contrary to your assertion, it is NOT an attack on their person. You imply that there is something deeply wrong with this.

If you attempt to dissuade a serial rapist from believing that his victims actually crave his brutal savagery, is that an attack?

You want to call it an attack so you can play the role of victim when you are shown evidence that clearly proves that the Mormon Church cannot be what it claims itself to be.

[_Drifting]

Good standing with the Church is not an indication of standing with God...

Really?