DonBradley wrote:Does anyone really need to ask Bob why he excludes BYU, or uses any of his other convoluted rhetorical ploys? And do you think he'd give the real reason anyway?
Bob practices a particularly opportunistic form of polemics, latching on to anything he finds useful, whether or not it makes sense, even to him. Truth and falsehood are equally useful for his purposes.
Don
In terms of my discussion of Dr. Quinn, can you cite to a falsehood it seems to you I have exploited for my argument? Be careful -- your charge is significant. A knowing lie I have exploited to use against Dr. Quinn; bring to my attention, please.
rcrocket wrote:So, that explains why I minimize his work at BYU Press, and minimize his professional output in general. Do I respect him? Yes. Do I cite him? Yes. But I don't hero-worship him like Don Bradley does. And as most of you do.
rcrocket
Thanks for the summary. I do not hero worship Quinn at all. I have read only three of his books, the Clark bio, and the two books on the Hierarchy. But you see, since I am an idiot I am skeptical of many authors works, how reliable are they, do I need to track down their sources to confirm their interpretation, and so on. In fact it seems that even the estimable Hugh Nibley played loose with his notes and sources at times. Of course any author can and some will, intentionally. When I first read Quinn's more controversial book I asked and LDS historian who is solid in the faith and a top notch gentlemen at that, what his view was of Quinn's books and could I rely on his resources. He said that Quinn was brilliant and a top notch historian. But he also said that he thinks Quinn tended to slant things to the negative and read things into the historical account that often were just not there.
Well I started this thread more due to my fascination of his testimony that I listened to on a podcast. I found it interesting, given what he has written and with what has happened to him, that he still holds a seemingly solid testimony of the restoration.
rcrocket wrote:So, that explains why I minimize his work at BYU Press, and minimize his professional output in general. Do I respect him? Yes. Do I cite him? Yes. But I don't hero-worship him like Don Bradley does. And as most of you do.
rcrocket
Thanks for the summary. I do not hero worship Quinn at all. I have read only three of his books, the Clark bio, and the two books on the Hierarchy. But you see, since I am an idiot I am skeptical of many authors works, how reliable are they, do I need to track down their sources to confirm their interpretation, and so on. In fact it seems that even the estimable Hugh Nibley played loose with his notes and sources at times. Of course any author can and some will, intentionally. When I first read Quinn's more controversial book I asked and LDS historian who is solid in the faith and a top notch gentlemen at that, what his view was of Quinn's books and could I rely on his resources. He said that Quinn was brilliant and a top notch historian. But he also said that he thinks Quinn tended to slant things to the negative and read things into the historical account that often were just not there.
Well I started this thread more due to my fascination of his testimony that I listened to on a podcast. I found it interesting, given what he has written and with what has happened to him, that he still holds a seemingly solid testimony of the restoration.
My calling you an idiot was tongue in cheek relating to Harmony's idiotic post against GoodK. Forgive me.
The fact that Quinn published through BYU Press remains. As does the fact that he published through the prestigious University of Illinois Press. You've only recently come up with the objections that Quinn's publication through BYU Press was early in his career (relevance?), and that the U of Illinois Press is, on your word, frequently a vanity press. But that's what you do, you change the "objections" on which your low view of Quinn is based, but keep the conclusion. Your derision of Quinn is the one constant bit of content from you throughout.
I don't hero-worship Mike at all. He encouraged me and helped me earlier in my life. And he has done prodigious work, which everyone but those sharing your particular faith blinders seems to recognize--including the academic institutions that have continuously given him awards, fellowships, etc., and the editors and reviewers for peer-reviewed publications that publish him and praise his work.
Your objections are pure h****s***, and anyone who doesn't share your bias can see it.
The only foolish thing I've done in this discussion is continue with it. Time to put my money where my mouth is when I say you're not worth talking to.
[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use the "S" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum.]
rcrocket wrote:I also suspect that Dr. Quinn's UofI publication was a vanity publication; it accepts for publication self-funded works frequently. Somebody look in the flyleaf and see if UoI has a disclaimer of Dr. Quinn's funding.
Now wait just a minute.
First you said University of Illinois was an "academic powerhouse". Now you're saying it's a vanity press? You can't have it both ways, Crock.
rcrocket wrote:I also suspect that Dr. Quinn's UofI publication was a vanity publication; it accepts for publication self-funded works frequently. Somebody look in the flyleaf and see if UoI has a disclaimer of Dr. Quinn's funding.
Now wait just a minute.
First you said University of Illinois was an "academic powerhouse". Now you're saying it's a vanity press? You can't have it both ways, Crock.
I think that what you and Don have to realize is that there are facts and there are opinions. In looking at the U of I closer in the context of this thread, I discovered that Mormon authors were paying to have their work published there. So, whatever my opinions about the U of I as a "powerhouse" the fact remains that it is a vanity publisher.
You two are more interested in sophistry than in understanding the facts.
Bradley in particular is abusive when it comes to trying to understand one's position and the verity of one's claims. He's more interested in position and insult than the truth. I remain interested in his proof that I have deliberately relied upon a lie in this thread. I am calling him out. He won't respond.
DonBradley wrote:I would love to see documentation that Mormon authors have been paying to be published by the University of Illinois.
I provided that in a post above. A very specific example.
I would like to see proof of where you think I have relied upon a deliberate lie in this thread to make any point I have made about Dr. Quinn, whom I respect and admire. Just not enough to suit you, I guess.