http://runtu.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/l ... or-a-five/
Wyatt's first salvo is an attack on Runtu's familiarity with "academic publishing":
The Slug wrote:When you say “you may be wondering why Midgely is responding nearly a year after the issue’s publication,” you fail to take into account the difference between traditional academic publishing and publishing in the blogosphere. One is, by nature, more measured and requires longer lead time and the other, well, is not and does not. Apples to oranges; that sort of stuff.
Maybe, though bear in mind that much of the Interpreter is a word-for-word rehash of another article he wrote and published much closer to "the issue's publication."
Next, Wyatt complains about Runtu's complaints that Midgley uses too much ad hominem attack:
Second, I sense from the OP a touch of “you wouldn’t be mean to C.L. if you knew her as I know her.” That would be a bit of ad hominem at work. As you know, ad hominem means to bring up things of a personal nature which have nothing to do with the arguments being made. You engage in a small amount of it by bringing up matters which have nothing to do with her arguments, just as you do when you bring up things about Lou’s personality which have nothing to do with his arguments. C.L. can be the sweetest, nicest, and most moral person on the planet, but that shouldn’t be used to bolster her arguments. Conversely, Lou can be the meanest, nastiest, most vile guy on the planet (and according to some people he is), but that shouldn’t be used to dismiss his arguments as your tangential jaunts through his history and personality seem calculated to do. If you want C.L. to be evaluated ONLY on her arguments, and chide others for not doing so, then you need to evaluate Lou based ONLY on his arguments, by the same measure.
The problem here being, of course, that C.L. wasn't really writing argumentative prose in the first place. Midgley went fishing around on her rather personal blog, going so far as to sniff out sexual material from her days as an undergraduate. What "argument," exactly, does Wyatt think we should be focusing on? Unsuprisingly, Runtu's reply to "The Slug" was even-handed, polite, and sensitive to all the problems in Wyatt's dunder-headed comment.
Next up, though, was the feisty up-and-comer, Steve Smoot, who, oddly enough, bears a striking resemblance to the well-meaning but somewhat oafish character called "Donkey Lips" from the off-beat 1990s Nickelodeon program, Salute Your Shorts. Smoot can barely restrain his rage as he unloads with both barrels on Runtu, even going so far as to quote from The Daily Show:
Allen Wyatt said it a little more nicely, but I’m going to be a little more blunt. (And since John is a comedian, I’m sure he’ll appreciate the cut of my jib.)
Ex-Mormons around these parts suffer from a bad case of what Jon Stewart calls “Ballsheimer’s”, which is: “A terrible illness that attacks the memory and gives its victims’ the balls to attack others for things they themselves made a career of…There is no known cure.”
Don’t believe me? I dare anyone here to go to the ever lovely Mormon Discussions Board and the read the attack thread currently focused on Scott Gordon and tell me with a straight face that it isn’t anything but sheer, unmitigated, glaring, vulgar ad hominem attacks. (These are the same folks that John used to be real chummy with back in the day.)
But you don’t even have to go there to see it. “[Louis is] a boring, pompous ass. he must still be trying to kiss the right behind to have his calling and election made sure.” “I wonder if there is a single Mormon apologist who isn’t, at heart, a cowardly bastard.”
Are you equally outraged at these attacks, John?
Smoot seems well on his way to being "set apart" as a full-blown Mopologist. That said, what is he talking about re: the Scott Gordon thread? I saw a couple of people calling Scott names, and expressing disapproval over the fact that he was basically being a "rat," but was the entire thread a series of "sheer, unmitigated, glaring, vulgar ad hominem attacks"?
This pair of posts from Team Smoot/Wyatt are bizarre: they seem at heart to be defending Lou Midgley's penchant for ad hominem attack--e.g., "Hey! Don't criticize Mopologist ad hominems! Criticize your own!" It's the usual [i]tu quoque[/u]-style response that we see so often from lower-tier Mopologists.
In any event, I bet Runtu is hugely disappointed that it's only now--after they were booted out of the Maxwell Institute--that the Mopologists have decided to attack him.
