Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Doctor Scratch]

"Dr. Moore": "in my reading of the article, which was honest in the sense that I read it, internalized the messages, and combed through some of the text for clues, I came away feeling that it was distinctly a character assassination on Mr. Palmer."

I have no reason to doubt that you felt that.

"Dr. Moore": "You're entirely in the right by claiming a position that no admission was ever made."

Which directly contradicts your claim that an admission HAD been made. Right?

"Dr. Moore": "So I can obviously and willingly grant that neither you or Dr. Midgley have acknowledged any such thing."

Excellent.

Alright. Since you concede that, in fact and contrary to what you wrote, Dr. Midgley has not "admitted" that he was engaged in "character assassination," I have no problem in withdrawing my statement that you were telling a baldfaced lie. Especially if it will result in $1000 going to a worthy charity.

Translation: "Since you admit you're a liar, I have no problem 'withdrawing' my claim that you lied. (Because, actually, I was justified in claiming that you lied, because you did.)" My goodness. This is really who the apologists are: it's all about scoring points, and being vicious towards others. This isn't an apology by any measure, and it needs to be said: there is a very distinct difference between an apology and a retraction. Normally, responsible authors/publications--such as the NY Times--will do both. "We regret the error." Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I think, Dr. Moore, that this is a case where you are going to need to insist on an actual, legitimate apology--i.e., where DCP actually says, "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" (and uses those exact words) and admits what it was--exactly--that he did wrong.

It's not going to happen.

[_Dr Moore]

I believe people can change too, Lemmie.

[_Dr Moore]

I think, Dr. Moore, that this is a case where you are going to need to insist on an actual, legitimate apology--i.e., where DCP actually says, "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" (and uses those exact words) and admits what it was--exactly--that he did wrong.

I'm insisting on the apology. Not to be mean, but because I believe it is fundamentally a good thing to do, and I believe that Dan wants to do good things. Maybe he won't do it. But I would love to see what could happen if that door opened a little.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think, Dr. Moore, that this is a case where you are going to need to insist on an actual, legitimate apology--i.e., where DCP actually says, "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" (and uses those exact words) and admits what it was--exactly--that he did wrong.

I'm insisting on the apology. Not to be mean, but because I believe it is fundamentally a good thing to do, and I believe that Dan wants to do good things. Maybe he won't do it. But I would love to see what could happen if that door opened a little.

Great choice. I've never seen him do this in the entire 35+ years of his Mopologetic career. He just doesn't "do" humble.

[_Lemmie]

Translation: "Since you admit you're a liar, I have no problem 'withdrawing' my claim that you lied. (Because, actually, I was justified in claiming that you lied, because you did.)" My goodness. This is really who the apologists are: it's all about scoring points, and being vicious towards others. This isn't an apology by any measure...

That’s my view as well. It’s great to be magnanimous, but when you know that the other party is not acting in good faith, then magnanimity quickly collapses into vulnerability. Wait for a more legitimate response with which to declare success.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What's so goddamned hard about, "I apologize and acknowledge you're not a liar. I was wrong. Please donate to this x-y-z charity. I appreciate what you're doing."? Instead we get these ego-filled non-apologies that were just... full of hubris.

It's pathetic. BYU professor. Priesthood leader. Mormon.

- Doc

[_Physics Guy]

"By your own admission" is not a completely clear issue. If Midgley admitted to having done things that amounted to writing a hit piece then it would be reasonable to say that he had admitted to writing a hit piece even if he never said so explicitly in so many words. "I shot the sheriff" is an admission of attempted murder even though it doesn't say, "I attempted murder."

So I don't think Dr Moore has any need to acknowledge his "by your own admission" as objectively false. Whether Midgley's descriptions of his own actions were tantamount to admission to writing a hit piece or not is a judgement call upon which people can honestly differ.

[_Philo Sofee]

LOL Philo.

[SNIP!]

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.

Wow someone with brains is doing some incredibly interesting things! I hope this pans out, it sounds fascinating!

[_Dr Moore]

It came close, but it does appear that Dr. Peterson is refusing to take the final step and combine the words "I'm" and "sorry" followed by "for wrongly calling you a baldfaced liar."

My last post to that particular comment thread is below.

| [Kiwi57] However they might work in your mind, they don't represent an admission from Professor Midgley's pen. That's the point.

That is your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

Dr. Midgley has also made it clear that he has made no such admission. So has Dr. Peterson. I acknowledge as sincere all 3 of your statements. And I respectfully disagree.

As this topic appears to hold no room for constructive discussion or learning, this will be my last post to the thread. I maintain my position that the Prying article was a hit piece, and you maintain that my position is utterly invalid. Noted.

Lastly, by your silence on the terms, am I to assume that you are opting out of the $1,000 charity donation offered as a reward for your apology on the matter of the banning glitch?

Cheers,
Dr. Moore

To the skeptics, I concede your experience beat my hopes for a bridge to greater civility. You nasty cesspool denizens might not want to change. But I guess you can all sleep peacefully knowing that neither will "they."

You all said the conclusion would be the same: immovable object meets irresistible force.

I tried.

[_Lemmie]

You nasty cesspool denizens might not want to change. But I guess you can all sleep peacefully knowing that neither will "they."

What the hell?!?