The Art of Anti-Mormon War

[_Kishkumen]

You're completely ignoring an assumption that we started with which is that the church is led by savvy men who understand what Delhin's motives are, and won't be tricked into making bad decisions by apostate members. Your rage always comes back at these men. You're assuming a really naïve GA got duped by Delhin and an opportunistic Bradford used it as an excuse to sack Peterson. You have absolutely no understanding of the church and BYU if you think this is accurate. BYU managers can't even go to the bathroom without asking the Board of Trustees for permission.

You aren't telling us that Droopy claims to know better than the General Authorities are you?

[_Mayan Elephant]

i have an ad hominem for ya - droopy is dumb. there. it has been said.

[_Rufus]

Face it, Droopy. You can't leave us alone. In another week or so you'll be writing another late-night song about us.

As I said, I came back to deal with this issue and this issue only.

After that, I will leave you to your own devices again.

Droopy: It is obvious to me that you are trying to salve your wounds, (DCP being demoted), by attacking John Dehlin. It does little good to rehash what may have started the battle in the first place.

Move on, nothing to see here

[_Droopy]

Droopy, I'll take my knowledge of scholarly book reviews over your bumpkin autodidact's experience any day of the week.

Typical. You've lost the argument and now we slip easily into ad hominem high school cut-down contest mode.

There is a whole thread devoted to the topic of the standards of scholarly book reviews. The Review violated the basic etiquette and function of scholarly book reviews so often that it should have been shut down or its editor replaced long ago. Its past issues are a stain on BYU's academic reputation.

I'm not as yet convinced, given what you've said here, and your longstanding posting history, that you have the slightest idea what constitutes and comprises a legitimately scholarly book review. I know you want me to think you do, but after dealing with the denizens of the Trailerpark for some seven years, I know better than to take much here at face value. I've read enough serious book reviews, however, to know that questions and examination of an authors intellectual background, biases, and related activities surrounding the content, thesis, claims, intentions, and public aims of a book (if a author's work is, indeed, aimed at the public) is common in such reviews.


Keep making things up as you go along, and hope for the best.

[_Droopy]

Hey Droopy is it just that you and Danial and all the DCP worshipers are pissed that John Dehlin has a GA in his corner and your team doesn't?

Is it that simple?

That's Dehlin's story, thus far.

I'll wait for the facts and documentary evidence before assessing the entire scenario at any greater length.

[_Droopy]

Oh, so when you said:

See my disclaimer at the beginning of this thread.

You actually meant:

It was in my first post on the "What motivates a man like John Dehlin" thread

So in your world, "this thread" doesn't really mean "this thread." What other things do you say that we need to assume are at 180° variance with reality?

I see that you too, Slim, can smell blood in the water - even if it is only stage blood - and are all in a tizzy comtemplating the possibilities.

Sorry for the unintended misstatement on my part, and that it ground the cogs and wheels and windmills of your mind to a screeching halt. I should have learned by now that when dealing with the Mormos (combination of "Morlock' and "Mormon," or "Morlock Mormons," otherwise known as "Exmos") I must dot every I and cross every T when dealing with those who offend for a word at extremely high levels of sensitivity.

We'll see when the unknown GA in question publicly acknowledges his support of the lycanthropic Mr. Dehlin, when Dehlin coughs up the tape of Midgley's blistering personal brow beating, the original letter written to Daniel that produced his stern response, and the 100 page ad hominem slugfest that "someone" told Dehlin was a 100 page ad hominem slugfest; the testimonies of the "several people" ("faithful" Mormons) who approached Dehlin at UVU to offer tears of support, and other aspects of his personal narrative that, as of yet, stands alone as nothing more than that.

[_Kishkumen]

Typical. You've lost the argument and now we slip easily into ad hominem high school cut-down contest mode.

You haven't presented an argument to take issue with. You haven't engaged the entire thread I posted on the nature of scholarly book reviews. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not as yet convinced, given what you've said here, and your longstanding posting history, that you have the slightest idea what constitutes and comprises a legitimately scholarly book review. I know you want me to think you do, but after dealing with the denizens of the Trailerpark for some seven years, I know better than to take much here at face value. I've read enough serious book reviews, however, to know that questions and examination of an authors intellectual background, biases, and related activities surrounding the content, thesis, claims, intentions, and public aims of a book (if a author's work is, indeed, aimed at the public) is common in such reviews.

In other words, you ignore the entire thread I devoted to the topic, and merely state in vague terms how you aren't convinced that I know what I am talking about. We have two threads here that show what the general standards of such reviews are, and how many MI reviews have failed to adhere to them. You haven't engaged either thread, but merely want to say you don't agree without offering any substantive rebuttal.

I understand perfectly well that an author's point of view can be part of a review, but MI reviews often go way beyond simply discussing the author's point of view to making accusations/insults, or they distract by quibbling over the meaning of the term "insider" and the like. I have a couple of threads in which I address these practices, and you are welcome to read them and rebut them at your leisure. I am not inclined to cover the same territory over again simply because you are too lazy to engage them or failed to grasp the contents.

Keep making things up as you go along, and hope for the best.

Which is what you do on a regular basis. All you are basically doing is parroting the Peterson party line. It is transparent.

[_Droopy]

You haven't presented an argument to take issue with.

I've presented quite a few arguments, points, and assertions. You have no answer for them but to repeat, repeat, and repeat again your own personal opinions regarding NMI scholarship.

You haven't engaged the entire thread I posted on the nature of scholarly book reviews. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Great red faced, self satisfied talk, but without substance. You never linked to the thread of which you speak. I have no idea of its title, when it was posted, or where to look for it.

I somehow suspect, however, that your conception of what constitutes "ad hominem" content has been highly processed to reflect your vitriolic, emotion laden bigotry toward the Church of Jesus Christ, and that once approached with fair and critical eye, most, if not all of your claims here would evaporate.

In any case, this will be my last post here for now, as I tested the Dehlin waters and have a pretty good idea what the general narrative and perspective is at this juncture among the Mormos.

Fin.

[_Kishkumen]

I somehow suspect, however, that your conception of what constitutes "ad hominem" content has been highly processed to reflect your vitriolic, emotion laden bigotry toward the Church of Jesus Christ, and that once approached with fair and critical eye, most, if not all of your claims here would evaporate.

In any case, this will be my last post here for now, as I tested the Dehlin waters and have a pretty good idea what the general narrative and perspective is at this juncture among the Mormos.

Fin.

Droopy, I did not use the phrase "ad hominem." This is just further evidence that you are typing to read your own verbal diarrhea on the board. If you can't engage what people actually write, you look like an idiot. Just a word to the wise, and completely gratis.

[_moksha]

Hey Droopy is it just that you and Danial and all the DCP worshipers are pissed that John Dehlin has a GA in his corner and your team doesn't?

Is it that simple?

That's Dehlin's story, thus far.

I'll wait for the facts and documentary evidence before assessing the entire scenario at any greater length.

Would any of you like to see a war in the Quorum over this issue, with Dr. Peterson acting in the role of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?