"You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

[_antishock8]

Even more ironic is the idea that Hamhocks McHammykins is complaining about longwinded literature. Hoo boy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It is deeply ironic (and uproariously funny) that you, the guy who is constantly on Harmony's (and others') case about commenting without having done the read[ing], and yet, here you are, attempting to flick away a very even-keeled critique of your work after a mere "skim".

I'll admit something even more stunning: There are literally millions of books that I haven't read.

There. I've said it.

The difference is that I don't pontificate about them.

I have nothing much to say about Bob McCue's critique of me except that it was very, very long, and that, having skimmed through it, I didn't find it worth reading.

I make similar judgments virtually every time I go into a bookstore, look at movie listings, read through a schedule of concerts, and the like. I freely acknowledge that.

Once again you fail to provide evidence that anyone has truly "misrepresented" you. At best, all you've got here is some vague sense that McCue "seemed" "wrong-headed." The Mopologetic ship continues to sink.

Whatever.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is deeply ironic (and uproariously funny) that you, the guy who is constantly on Harmony's (and others') case about commenting without having done the read[ing], and yet, here you are, attempting to flick away a very even-keeled critique of your work after a mere "skim".

I'll admit something even more stunning: There are literally millions of books that I haven't read.

There. I've said it.

The difference is that I don't pontificate about them.

I have nothing much to say about Bob McCue's critique of me except that it was very, very long, and that, having skimmed through it, I didn't find it worth reading.

This is what you said:

In my opinion, [McCue’s] purported rebuttal substantially and grossly misrepresented my position at numerous fundamental points, creating a ludicrous straw man in which I can't recognize my own ideas.

It's just interesting to note that you were somehow able to "pontificate" enough to issue this broad dismissal. All on the basis of "having skimmed" though the piece. Well, on that logic, a brief skim through the sample pages and reviews on Amazon.com of the MMM book out to be enough to condemn it for its bias taint. Wouldn't you agree?

Once again you fail to provide evidence that anyone has truly "misrepresented" you. At best, all you've got here is some vague sense that McCue "seemed" "wrong-headed." The Mopologetic ship continues to sink.

Whatever.

You say that I don't cut you any slack, and blah blah blah, and yet, here you have the opportunity to show yourself in a positive light. All you'd have to do is supply a tiny bit of evidence that your accusations of "misrepresentation" and "distortion" have some merit. Why won't you do that, I wonder?

[_Daniel Peterson]

In my opinion, [McCue’s] purported rebuttal substantially and grossly misrepresented my position at numerous fundamental points, creating a ludicrous straw man in which I can't recognize my own ideas.

It's just interesting to note that you were somehow able to "pontificate" enough to issue this broad dismissal. All on the basis of "having skimmed" though the piece.

Yup. It was enough.

Life is short. McCue is long.

[Well, on that logic, a brief skim through the sample pages and reviews on Amazon.com of the MMM book out to be enough to condemn it for its bias taint. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Massacre at Mountain Meadows -- like any book published by Oxford University Press -- is several orders of quality, subtlety, and sophistication higher than Bob McCue's internet effusions.

Why won't you do that, I wonder?

Because you're not worth the effort.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why won't you do that, I wonder?

Because you're not worth the effort.

It's because you can't. Feel free to man up and tell all the TBMs on MAD that you zero evidence supporting your repeated claims that critics "misrepresent" what you've said. Once again, I predict that you are terrified of doing this.

[_cinepro]

I like this clever ploy, and hope to adopt it in more of my day-to-day dealings with apologists:

[_solomarineris]

DCP
Life is short. McCue is long.

How can you argue with this fact?
McCue is a very good read but man.....
He could cut 1/3 of the length his subjects easily, we still could understand him.

[_bcspace]

As I was polishing my monocle this morning, it occurred to me that Mopologists frequently rely upon this as a rebuttal. I.e., if a critic does a thorough job of trouncing an apologist's argument, the Mopologist will often respond by saying, "You have misrepresented my views. You've distorted my ideas," etc.

I wonder about this, though. For one thing, this occurs with startling frequency.

Internet vs. Chapel Exmopologists?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's because you can't. Feel free to man up and tell all the TBMs on MAD that you zero evidence supporting your repeated claims that critics "misrepresent" what you've said. Once again, I predict that you are terrified of doing this.

"Neener neener neener," taunts Mister Scratch. "Chicken!" he says. "Fraidy cat!"