Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_harmony]

I've also seen Brant Gardner "[sic]" other Mormon authors, even those with whom he agrees. In his excellent Second Witness.

And because Brant does it, it's okay? That's not the point, Plate. The point is, FROB uses it excessively, as a weapon, a snide sly put down. And it reflects badly on them.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

LOL

Man, this thread really makes me admire Mormons. The ones here are just so grown up and mature. How could I not admire the example they set for the rest of the world...? (<-insert massive doses of sarcasm, in case there was any doubt)

Too funny.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've also seen Brant Gardner "[sic]" other Mormon authors, even those with whom he agrees. In his excellent Second Witness.

And because Brant does it, it's okay? That's not the point, Plate. The point is, FROB uses it excessively, as a weapon, a snide sly put down. And it reflects badly on them.

Do you think Brant would do it to be mean or score points against someone?

[_Some Schmo]

And like it has been said, using [sic] on a message board just means you are an ass.

I have to agree. I think DCP is a [sic] bastard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

First of all, for harmony's sake, I want to declare my agreement with everybody, and my appreciation for their valuable insights.

But you again misrepresent the facts. "[F]I've or six or so... were printed and bound"?! I know from multiple sources that many were printed and bound. Are you seriously disputing this?

Yes. I'm contradicting it.

My understanding and my memory have it that perhaps slightly more than five were printed and bound (and released), but fewer than ten. If I'm wrong, I'm not wrong by very much. There were very few printed and distributed, and virtually all were successfully recalled. So I was told, and I've never had any reason to doubt it.

Well, I suppose Brent can take comfort in the fact that he was only called a butthead

Brent wasn't called "a butthead."

Unfortunately, you're wrong again (as is your wont).

To be precisely accurate, Brent was equated in an essentially invisible acrostic with "Butthead," a then-popular television character. That's a rather different thing.

Having watched you on this board and elsewhere, I know you're not into nuances or "parsing" or the careful reading (or even beholding) of texts, but the difference between, say, "a mouse" and "Mickey Mouse" is not without significance: Exactness is a virtue.

And the acrostic was unknown to the leadership of FARMS, which neither approved it nor supported it. Demonizing and dismissing the entire organizaton (and, sometimes, even all "apologists") as some critics continue to do fully a decade and a half and many personnel changes after this very trivial little inside joke, is simply ridiculous, and, as it's often used, represents as clear an illustration of the ad hominem fallacy of irrelevant diversion as any Logic 101 textbook writer could possibly desire for a chapter on the "practical fallacies."

[_harmony]

And because Brant does it, it's okay? That's not the point, Plate. The point is, FROB uses it excessively, as a weapon, a snide sly put down. And it reflects badly on them.

Do you think Brant would do it to be mean or score points against someone?

How does what Brant would do impact what FROB does? Does Daniel listen to Brant? Would Daniel accept Seth's suggestion if Brant made it?

[_harmony]

First of all, for harmony's sake, I want to declare my agreement with everybody, and my appreciation for their valuable insights.

*contemplating the uses of chocolate syrup and whipped cream with the occasional maraschino cherry"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for the additional information, Brent. Once again, Dan has been exposed as manipulating/embellishing the facts, and been busted. He still doesn't get that his OWN words reveal his true character, as opposed to any claim of "character assasination."

Mini-Scartch is, as usual, absolutely right.

I hope I'll continue to profit from his insightful and provocative commentary.

However, the source texts for Mormonism are riddled with grammar and spelling "errors". I can't think of an instance where the apologists, quoting the sources, pepper them with [sic]. If they are equally judicious in [sic]-ing Joseph Smith and the critics, I will believe they have good intentions. Otherwise...

An extremely cogent point. I've addressed it already, above, but, of course, did so inadequately and insincerely, and I completely agree with Brother Larsen.

However, the source texts for Mormonism are riddled with grammar and spelling "errors". I can't think of an instance where the apologists, quoting the sources, pepper them with [sic]. If they are equally judicious in [sic]-ing Joseph Smith and the critics, I will believe they have good intentions. Otherwise...

When a source text is riddled with errors, it is not necessary to point out your awareness of each one. No one is likely to think that you made a dozen errors in a single short quote.

This is very like the point that I made, above. I agree completely with what Trevor has said, although my own way of putting a very closely related point was, it scarcely needs to be said, entirely wrong and even rather dishonest.

Grown up and mature Mormons would take one look at this board and realize it's not worth their time. Since only the borderline insane would voluntarily come here you really shouldn't complain when we're the only ones who show up.

A brilliant point, with which I concur absolutely and enthusiastically.

I think DCP is a [sic] bastard.

Mega dittos!

As he invariably does, Some Schmo has gotten right to the heart of the matter and scored a devastating point against me and my ilk. He's a valuable asset here on MDB, and an ornament to the world of Mormon letters.

I plan to make every effort to incorporate his insights into my future work.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And the acrostic was unknown to the leadership of FARMS, which neither approved it nor supported it. Demonizing and dismissing the entire organizaton (and, sometimes, even all "apologists") as some critics continue to do fully a decade and a half and many personnel changes after this very trivial little inside joke, is simply ridiculous, and, as it's often used, represents as clear an illustration of the ad hominem fallacy of irrelevant diversion as any Logic 101 textbook writer could possibly desire for a chapter on the "practical fallacies."

But one thing hasn't changed -- Hamblin is still there, as a tenured professor no less. You must be so proud ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thanks for the additional information, Brent. Once again, Dan has been exposed as manipulating/embellishing the facts, and been busted. He still doesn't get that his OWN words reveal his true character, as opposed to any claim of "character assasination."

[Rollo Tomasi] is, as usual, absolutely right.

I hope I'll continue to profit from his insightful and provocative commentary.

Why, thank you, Bishop Dan. I'm always happy to help.