Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_J Green]

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying here, but it looks to me like the pronoun "you" is directed at me specifically, not some general group of people. You are, after all, addressing me and quoting something I wrote. That something was very specific. In any case, I don't want to belabor the point.

The intent (obviously unclear) was that I think you would have the skills to take everyone else's postings (cull the herd) and fashion them into a focused argument. I take the blame for the poor wording.

If you are speaking to all of us as a group, well, I have no idea why our complaints should be as monolithic as FARMS should not be expected to be. If five guys can write reviews, many of which are of questionable quality, of one book and publish them with FARMS it strikes me as odd that you would expect an online discussion group to be more "focused."

I only intended to point out my perception that the thread was started with the goal of demonstrating the nasty tone of FARMS. But when I read the first few pages, I saw posts that addressed issues other than tone, such as quality. I don't think it is a question so much of being monolithic or not as it is understanding the purpose or goal of a thread. Or maybe I just misunderstand the purpose of the thread.

It has been a long day.

Agreed. I came online after helping with dinner and changing sprinkler heads to discover that I have misfired in several areas tonight. I'm dropping my Jane Austen cudgel and slowly backing away. Best.

[_J Green]

I probably don't add much, Stak. My posting count is what it is precisely because I don't think I have much to contribute. I apologize if I've given a different impression or if you've expected more from me.

Cheers

I won't accept your apology till you wax on a bit more about how much your respect for me with grow exponentially and unabated. I’m only 98% convinced you are either up to something or can’t tell the difference between humility and condescending groveling.

Probably the latter, Stak. If you can picture Pumba graveling at the feet of Simba, that's me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

J Green,

Do you add anything? I get this sense you create this persona of really wanting to contribute, but when you step up to the line, it's just some boring commentary on how DCP isn't really that much of a fool.

Lol. Uh, yeah. J Green first showed up on this board on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9606&p=250256#p250256

The things is, he later shot himself in the foot (which I pointed out earlier in this very thread in which we're discussing this) by admitting that his non-LDS colleagues think that DCP is.... Well, *something*.

My first interaction with him was here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16902&p=415217#p415217

He wouldn't be here if it weren't for his "Good Friend Dan Peterson." He is never, ever going to be able to see that there is a problem with Mopologetics. He might say that he wants to talk about the "evidence," but nothing is ever going to persuade him that he's friends with someone as problematic as DCP. Hell, he posted about the problems himself and yet he seems incapable of recognizing what's staring him in the face. He thought he was going to parade Dan Peterson around to all the "spooks," and yet what happened? They had already formed an opinion.

The real laffer in this is that J Green's main apologetic is to say that people are crafting a "persona" of the most problematic Mopologists. Well, what is happening with Rod Meldrum in Greg Smith's "review"? Look at some of the verbs. Is Smith saying that Meldrum is "presenting" or "sharing" his views? Or, instead, is he using the language of trade and business--talking about what Meldrum is selling?

In any case, I've understood from the outset that J Green is playing a game. He's probably a nice enough guy in real life, but in terms of Mopologetics, he's totally uninterested in having a real conversation--hence why he's so obsessive about controlling all the terms.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also apropos of nothing, I wonder which is the more effective or meaningful tactic: to simply tell someone to shut up, or to bury it in a Jane Austen reference?

How about dealing with the evidence?

Hey, Scratch. We seem destined to misunderstand each other.

What was it that you misunderstood?

No malice intended. I was merely in a silly mood and found the situation humerous.

Really? You didn't find it more ulnar?

Why don't you tell me again about how I'm so "rage fueled" that I'm comparable to a war vet with PTSD?

[_Drifting]

One could say Green in name and Green in nature...

[_Kishkumen]

The intent (obviously unclear) was that I think you would have the skills to take everyone else's postings (cull the herd) and fashion them into a focused argument. I take the blame for the poor wording.

Well, I appreciate the compliment and the suggestion. If I do take on such a project someday, I will take a year to study all of the reviews in depth so that I can understand the entire phenomenon better. What is really needed is a proper history of LDS apologetics. But that is something I doubt I am the person to write.

I only intended to point out my perception that the thread was started with the goal of demonstrating the nasty tone of FARMS. But when I read the first few pages, I saw posts that addressed issues other than tone, such as quality. I don't think it is a question so much of being monolithic or not as it is understanding the purpose or goal of a thread. Or maybe I just misunderstand the purpose of the thread.

I found that frustrating, and you are right. The thread has turned out to be somewhat of a grab-bag. Clearly the critique needs to be more organized and focused, but 40 or so independent and uncoordinated minds on a freewheeling message board are not going to achieve that. About this you are correct. Besides, my interest has shifted from one of tone to one of authority and theology. Given LDS doctrine and priesthood organization, how does this effort of reviewing members in good standing harmonize with the whole?

Agreed. I came online after helping with dinner and changing sprinkler heads to discover that I have misfired in several areas tonight. I'm dropping my Jane Austen cudgel and slowly backing away. Best.

LOL! Well, please don't stop referring to Austen on my account. Forgive my eruption.