The Purpose of DiscussMormonism

[malkie]

Should I assume that you don't regard my questions as worth responding to?

No, I just missed it.

It would be very interesting to see the results of the basic data analysis you suggest. Someone with database access should run some queries against it, or even connect it to a data analysis tool like Tableau.

I don’t have such access, of course, and you know that. I think your question was a bit disingenuous.

My question was genuine. I was not suggesting anything so high tech as would need DB access.

All I had in mind was that, rather than just say, as does Prof P, that the board is obsessed with him with no evidence shown, it would be fairly easy to run a quick test, no special access required, with the following (manual) steps:

1. determined a Y% which a disinterested person might consider to indicate obsession
2. count Z = how many of the X (I suggested 50) most recent threads are substantially about Prof P, and calculate the %
3. post the results, with a justification for the chosen Y

I thought it not beyond the bounds of possibility that you had undertaken some such test, though I'm fairly sure that Prof P has not. I likewise have not, but I think that anyone willing to devote a little time and effort could easily do so.

I disagree that this rises to the level of disingenuity, but YMMV.
---
Edited to be a bit clearer and more explicit

[Salvete]

Why should anyone really care what Dan writes about unless they’re in Dan’s circle of friends and family? I just don’t see the celebrity you all apparently see.

He’s one of the few Mormon apologists that actually puts their name behind their apologetics, and then engages with criticism.

Is that not actually a good thing?

I admit to being an anonymous chicken.

But also, I don’t see enragement from Dan unless it’s a blatant falsehood which is personal (which happens all too often).

Gotta go, I just saw another DCP focused thread appear!

[Doctor Scratch]

Welcome, Salvete.

A couple of thoughts: first, this board has had a handful of “Danpologists” over the years—I.e., people who showed up to cast aspersions, label people as “obsessed,” “loons,” and so on. Their main goal seemed to be trying to get folks to cease criticizing DCP. It usually didn’t go well, and to be fair, it’s not clear whether that’s what you’re up to or not. Time will tell, I guess?

Second: I’m curious what your reaction is to something like “Neville-Neville Land.” The blog is widely believed to be authored by DCP’s protege, Stephen Smoot, and whereas DiscussMormonism *does* admittedly have quite a few DCP-related posts, “Neville-Neville Land” is pretty much 100% devoted to attacking Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders. And Daniel Peterson has repeatedly and approvingly linked to and commented on “Neville-Neville Land” dozens of times. So, if this board is “obsessed,” how would you characterize “Neville-Neville Land” and DCP’s relationship to the Heartlanders? Also obsessed? Or something worse?

[drumdude]

Welcome, Salvete.

A couple of thoughts: first, this board has had a handful of “Danpologists” over the years—I.e., people who showed up to cast aspersions, label people as “obsessed,” “loons,” and so on. Their main goal seemed to be trying to get folks to cease criticizing DCP. It usually didn’t go well, and to be fair, it’s not clear whether that’s what you’re up to or not. Time will tell, I guess?

Second: I’m curious what your reaction is to something like “Neville-Neville Land.” The blog is widely believed to be authored by DCP’s protege, Stephen Smoot, and whereas DiscussMormonism *does* admittedly have quite a few DCP-related posts, “Neville-Neville Land” is pretty much 100% devoted to attacking Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders. And Daniel Peterson has repeatedly and approvingly linked to and commented on “Neville-Neville Land” dozens of times. So, if this board is “obsessed,” how would you characterize “Neville-Neville Land” and DCP’s relationship to the Heartlanders? Also obsessed? Or something worse?

I forgot, yet another anonymous LDS apologist.

What's their problem with standing behind their words?

[DaveIsHere]

If there's a purpose past being smug I've yet to detect it

[Marcus]

Welcome, Salvete.

A couple of thoughts: first, this board has had a handful of “Danpologists” over the years—I.e., people who showed up to cast aspersions, label people as “obsessed,” “loons,” and so on. Their main goal seemed to be trying to get folks to cease criticizing DCP. It usually didn’t go well, and to be fair, it’s not clear whether that’s what you’re up to or not. Time will tell, I guess?

Second: I’m curious what your reaction is to something like “Neville-Neville Land.” The blog is widely believed to be authored by DCP’s protege, Stephen Smoot, and whereas DiscussMormonism *does* admittedly have quite a few DCP-related posts, “Neville-Neville Land” is pretty much 100% devoted to attacking Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders. And Daniel Peterson has repeatedly and approvingly linked to and commented on “Neville-Neville Land” dozens of times. So, if this board is “obsessed,” how would you characterize “Neville-Neville Land” and DCP’s relationship to the Heartlanders? Also obsessed? Or something worse?

Good question. It was ridiculously funny when Smoot a.k.a. Peter Pan tried to assert he wasn’t a heartland critic hiding behind an anonymous log in, which is kiwi-et al’s complaint at SeN, but rather a “pseudonymous” pen name. Because that makes it ok.

[Salvete]

Welcome, Salvete.

A couple of thoughts: first, this board has had a handful of “Danpologists” over the years—I.e., people who showed up to cast aspersions, label people as “obsessed,” “loons,” and so on. Their main goal seemed to be trying to get folks to cease criticizing DCP. It usually didn’t go well, and to be fair, it’s not clear whether that’s what you’re up to or not. Time will tell, I guess?

Second: I’m curious what your reaction is to something like “Neville-Neville Land.” The blog is widely believed to be authored by DCP’s protege, Stephen Smoot, and whereas DiscussMormonism *does* admittedly have quite a few DCP-related posts, “Neville-Neville Land” is pretty much 100% devoted to attacking Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders. And Daniel Peterson has repeatedly and approvingly linked to and commented on “Neville-Neville Land” dozens of times. So, if this board is “obsessed,” how would you characterize “Neville-Neville Land” and DCP’s relationship to the Heartlanders? Also obsessed? Or something worse?

I don’t think saying it will convince anyone, but I assure you all I am no “Danpologist.” I was merely making an observation that, from my perspective, it seems like a lot of content here is devoted to Dan. The only value judgement I offer is that we should avoid personal insults and focus on the ideas and arguments. Otherwise, as they say, knock yourselves out, but don’t be too surprised when Dan refers to this board as the Peterson Obsession Board (tm).

As for Neville Neville Land: it’s atrocious. I think it’s ridiculous and Smoot should grow up.

I also hate whataboutism. So while NNL is obsessed with the Heartlanders, that doesn’t necessarily make it okay to be obsessed with Dan at a personal level.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[Salvete]

Clearly I’m making people angry. I won’t complain anymore about it. I just made an observation, I didn’t mean to upset the balance of the force.

[malkie]

It's an interesting shape - https://www.newyorker.com/science/lab-n ... -explained