DCP's First "MI" Article is a Flop

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wouldn't surprise me if, at some point, the reviews of his articles have a larger readership than the articles themselves. Certainly the reviews are shorter, more informative, and make for better reading.

I wouldn't be surpised in the least if Dr. Scratch's reviews have a much larger readership than DCP's articles.

That's an interesting thought, Everybody Wang Chung. I bet it would be quite easy for Haymond to add something to the MI site that would show everyone how big of an audience they've got. The fact that they haven't done this does tend to raise a few suspicions. And for what it's worth, their YouTube Channel has virtualy no audience at all--most of those videos have less than 100 views. What do you want to bet that a significant percentage of those viewers were the MI board members, watching their own stuff?

[_Shulem]

And for what it's worth, their YouTube Channel has virtualy no audience at all--most of those videos have less than 100 views. What do you want to bet that a significant percentage of those viewers were the MI board members, watching their own stuff?

Indeed, the apologists do have a problem. It’s the Rosy-palm Syndrome. I'm sure their faces are red.



Paul O

[_Pahoran]

So tell us, Scratch: Can you foresee any time between now and the day you die when you will be able to give up your obsession with Dan Peterson?

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that your one and only claim to fame is that you are the worthless cur who yaps at his heels? That those who know of you for that reason vastly outnumber those who know you, in your in real life identity and otherwise, for every other reason put together?

Dr. Peterson has finally--some two months after the "launch" of this latest Mopologetic venture--plopped out something resembling an "article" for the MI.

Thank you for drawing our attention to this, Scratch. Of course I would have come across it eventually, but thanks to your (heh heh) "review," I saw it a few minutes sooner than I would have.

As he notes at one point:

There can be no question that scholars, and especially reviewers, who seek to be and behave as Christians, walk a very difficult line. And this is particularly true when the issues at stake involve religion, contentious, disputed matters of ultimate [Page viii]concern and value. Such writers must be fair, and they must not be abusive. But they must tell the truth. And sometimes the truth is that evidence has been deliberately or inadvertently misused or misrepresented, that an argument is invalid, that a thesis doesn’t hold water, that an agenda is misguided, that something is poorly written. And, if a reviewer is committed to seeking and telling the truth, such things must be pointed out where they seem to occur.

I can tell you that I'm very much "committed to seeking and telling the truth," dear readers,

Sorry, but no, you're not. You're an obsessive hater and a compulsive liar; and those are your good points.

and so, with great sadness, I must inform you that Dr. Peterson's article is a rambling mess. Yes, it's true: the piece is "poorly written."

No, that's not "true;" it's merely your worthless opinion. Given your monomaniacal hostility to Dan, you certainly formed that opinion before you clicked the link.

As for it being a "rambling mess," anyone who bothers to read it -- instead of stupidly swallowing your verdict -- will realise that it is quite well-organised.

Since you clearly missed the entire point of the article, I invite you to read it again.

In any case: that's my "review." I've sought to maintain high standards of fairness and charity here, and I hope I've succeeded.

I'll agree that it's as good an effort as you've ever made. Which is to say, you failed completely.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that your one and only claim to fame is that you are the worthless cur who yaps at his heels?

I've never seen an apologist put himself in his proper place so deftly in one sentence. Pahoran sees himself as one who yaps at curs who yap at the heels of Daniel Peterson.

Kudos, sir. Kudos.

[_Pahoran]

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, that your one and only claim to fame is that you are the worthless cur who yaps at his heels?

I've never seen an apologist put himself in his proper place so deftly in one sentence. Pahoran sees himself as one who yaps at curs who yap at the heels of Daniel Peterson.

Kudos, sir. Kudos.

So what does that make you?

You know, it's heartening to know that, whatever I say to the worthless Scratch, his own personal butt-kisser will soon be yapping at my heels.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Bob Loblaw]

So what does that make you?

You know, it's heartening to know that, whatever I say to the worthless Scratch, his own personal butt-kisser will soon be yapping at my heels.

Regards,
Pahoran

Why am I reminded of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

[_Kishkumen]

So what does that make you?

You know, it's heartening to know that, whatever I say to the worthless Scratch, his own personal butt-kisser will soon be yapping at my heels.

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, you do have snark, but you certainly lack for creativity.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Well, you do have snark, but you certainly lack for creativity.

I had heard of Pahoran's reputation. Among apologists, he's said to be a brilliant destroyer of bad criticism and especially of critics. Most critics I know tell me he's all about snark and vilification without a lot of substance. I'm going with the latter. In my limited time here, all I've seen from Pahoran is personal attack and vitriol, but no substantive defense of the church or its teachings.

[_Kishkumen]

I had heard of Pahoran's reputation. Among apologists, he's said to be a brilliant destroyer of bad criticism and especially of critics. Most critics I know tell me he's all about snark and vilification without a lot of substance. I'm going with the latter. In my limited time here, all I've seen from Pahoran is personal attack and vitriol, but no substantive defense of the church or its teachings.

I have yet to see Pahoran forward an idea or write anything that was of any lasting value. He simply gets his daily jollies by using the cause of defending Mormonism to have his fun of insulting people. Of the many apologists out there, I think he is one of the worst examples.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I have yet to see Pahoran forward an idea or write anything that was of any lasting value. He simply gets his daily jollies by using the cause of defending Mormonism to have his fun of insulting people. Of the many apologists out there, I think he is one of the worst examples.

That's what it looks like to me, too. I guess not everyone can be as intellectually serious as "Droopy."