Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Dr Moore]

Progress? Or nothing better than me sitting around navel gazing?

DanielPeterson 16 minutes ago
"Dr. Moore": "It would mean so much if you would be so kind as to apologize for calling me a liar on this thread regarding my assessment of the Prying article as an example of a “counterproductive and harmful” character assassination of Grant Palmer."
I would very much like to have you contribute $1000 to a good charity, and I hope you will do so.
However, I'm at a bit of a loss here, as, in fact, I never called you a liar on this thread (or, for that matter, anywhere else) because of your opinion that the Pry article was a “counterproductive and harmful” character assassination of Grant Palmer. Mistaken though I believe that opinion to be, I have no reason to believe that you don't actually hold it.
So I'm not sure how or whether I can actually fulfill the conditions that you set for following through on your very generous offer of $1000.
Reply View


Dr. Moore
Dr. Moore a few seconds ago
Dr. Peterson.
It was at the outset of the thread when you warned me not to tell baldfaced lies. Subsequent references to me having “falsely” stated things about the article in question (I am on a mobile device at the moment, making it hard to look up the precise quote) supported the accusation that my thesis was a lie, falsely representing the text.
In fact, there was no deception on my part when I made that assertion about the article representing a counterproductive and harmful character assassination.
Additional clarification on the background of the article, posted here, only supports that not only was my assessment of the article’s primary aim (or at least A primary aim, together with the Golden Pot discussion) NOT a lie, but that my hunch was indeed correct.
That the article held back the most damning evidence against Mr. Palmer is moot; the methods, means and motives of the article have been demonstrated here on this thread to have focused intently on tearing down Palmer’s credibility.
So yes, I am asking you to apologize for accusing me of telling baldfaced lies, of being false, on this matter, when clearly I was not.

[Guest]

[SNIP]
But the inconvenient truth is that software driven change is not only not slowing, it is not even a constant slope change, it is actually accelerating. And this is causing real trauma for every business on the planet.

The church as an institution looks a lot like a business - it has many of the same operational and governance issues for instance - and it will have no choice but to adapt likewise.

The Mormon Church is a business, and that's one of its main problems as it tries to masquerade as a religious institution. It has no real theology. Among top management (or anywhere else) there's not a professional theologian in sight. It's a corporation that serves mainly as a real estate holding company which happens to have a legacy religion division that operates on volunteer labor as an auxiliary source of revenue on which no taxes are paid. It has been so poorly operated in recent years that it now finds it necessary to re-brand. Unfortunately, this latest effort is likely to be no more than lipstick on a pig.

[_Dr Moore]

The first $1,000 has been claimed by Kiwi57!

Here's the relevant exchange between you and Dan:
"[Moore] By your own admission, the essay was a character assassination on Grant Palmer."

[DCP] Don't post baldfaced lies here.

The naughty words were, "By your own admission." You don't believe me? Here's the next exchange between you two:
Moore "in my honest reading and analysis, the essay's content and its stated objective, the paper is primarily a character assassination on Palmer."

[DCP] That's a different claim than the one I termed a baldfaced lie. It's also wrong, but it's not a lie.

Dan, Louis and I vehemently disagree with your view that "Prying" was "a character assassination." But it's not lying to say that, because it's a matter of opinion; people of good will do, and will, disagree about such things. It's the "By your own admission" that remains problematic. I would venture to say that it's the sole sticking point. If you can reconsider that, then we're not far from a more gentlemanly disagreement on this.
If it helps any, I apologize for accusing you of lying about being banned. You were wrong, but your error was justifiable.
Reply View

Dr. Moore
Dr. Moore a few seconds ago
I think the textual evidence does speak for itself Kiwi. The author’s own admission within the text identified the article as a character assassination.
1. It identified reader concern of this outcome as a likelihood.
2. It claimed the book and man cannot be separated, justifying the title itself “Prying” into Palmer’s life decisions.
3. Lastly it further justified the take down by equating an attack on Palmer with Palmer’s attack on Joseph Smith.

And Kiwi...
Thanks for your apology about the ban-glitch ordeal! Sincerely appreciated. It didn’t feel like I was mistaken, but that doesn’t matter.
As promised, and as a show of entirely good faith, I will begin the process of acquiring and sending a cashier’s bank check for $1,000 to a charity of your selection this week. Kindly supply the name and mailing address of a qualified 501(c)(3) organization.

[_Philo Sofee]

Then I will gladly admit I was incorrect. Some of them beat the odds. I do hope in the future they can continue this much more appropriate kind of discussion and analysis and as such I will also begin giving benefit of the doubt instead of immediately pouncing and accusing.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's interesting, Dr. Moore. It's been so long since I've seen them go this route--i.e., being forced to deal with specific evidence. Normally, they just deal in generalities: e.g., they'll call MDB a "cess pool," but won't supply specific examples as to why they think that. (And I *did* wonder if they'd try to say that they weren't taking the deal because they *actually* called you a "liar" over the alleged banning.) In any case, yes, Kiwi has apologized, which means, in effect, that your challenge was met, though of course it was met by an "underling," and not by either of the principal, BYU Mopologists--who, it must be said, post under their own names. I don't think that either of them is going to apologize. Peterson is already digging in his heels and insisting that he was justified, since he and Midgley don't "believe" that the article was a "hit piece." (Of course it was, though: I'm sure that this was "ordered up" in much the same way as Sorenson's articles on the LGT.)

[_Lemmie]

If it helps any, I apologize for accusing you of lying about being banned. You were wrong, but your error was justifiable.

well, baby steps, I suppose. He still feels you were wrong, but he apologizes for SAYING it. why? Because the error was yours. Can I roll my eyes any harder?!!!!

Seriously though, that's not an apology. Negotiating like that erodes accuracy in my opinion, but whatever.

[_Dr Moore]

Baby steps. You know what though, worth it. I feel like Kiwi57 and I could be friends. He's a tough nut for sure. One smart cookie.

[_Lemmie]

Worth it to you, maybe. Not me. Being smart doesn't excuse being mean.

[_Dr Moore]

No, it doesn't Lemmie.

[_Lemmie]

So you agree with me then. That makes the position of negotiating a middle ground seem even less tenable.