Runtu wrote: But runtu, while I've certainly witnessed juvenile message board hi-jinx among some exmormons (not any that I'd actually deem serious critics, however), I've never seen anything close to the vindictive attempts at character and career assassination that Mormon apologists have carried out in many, much less ephemeral, venues.
Oh really? Have you not read the character assignation that Scratch perpetrates on Daniel Peterson on constant basis? Don't you read the smears of many LDS apologists that often happen right here on this very board. I agree that some apologists do what you say. But golly, do you really not see the same stuff carried out against them as well as LDS leaders right here on this board by many LDS critics?
Scratch continues to legitimately disturb me. I am completely serious in encouraging Scratch to see a counselor, if Scratch doesn't already. I sincerely mean that. I know I've goofed around sometimes on this board, but I am not goofing around when I encourage Scratch to seek some sort of counselor.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Runtu wrote: But runtu, while I've certainly witnessed juvenile message board hi-jinx among some exmormons (not any that I'd actually deem serious critics, however), I've never seen anything close to the vindictive attempts at character and career assassination that Mormon apologists have carried out in many, much less ephemeral, venues.
Oh really? Have you not read the character assignation that Scratch perpetrates on Daniel Peterson on constant basis? Don't you read the smears of many LDS apologists that often happen right here on this very board. I agree that some apologists do what you say. But golly, do you really not see the same stuff carried out against them as well as LDS leaders right here on this board by many LDS critics?
Jason,
You may be right about Scratch's fixation with DCP. OTOH, DCP does seem to revel in the notoriety. I think it is somewhat entertaining for him. (Actually for both of them and many of us.) DCP could certainly end it or stop it altogether if he wanted to by simply ignoring it. He is easy to bait. One merely has to mention a real or perceived inadequacy or deficiency and DCP goes to no end to prove the other party is in error. I have never encountered someone so able to make a case for himself and unravel it within a single thread. DCP is a great salesman who buys back his own product without closing the deal. Critics instinctively understand this about Daniel. He simultaneously entertains and makes us wince. He clothes himself in glory and then publicly disrobes.
You may be right about Scratch's fixation with DCP. OTOH, DCP does seem to revel in the notoriety. I think it is somewhat entertaining for him. (Actually for both of them and many of us.) DCP could certainly end it or stop it altogether if he wanted to by simply ignoring it. He is easy to bait. One merely has to mention a real or perceived inadequacy or deficiency and DCP goes to no end to prove the other party is in error. I have never encountered someone so able to make a case for himself and unravel it within a single thread. DCP is a great salesman who buys back his own product without closing the deal. Critics instinctively understand this about Daniel. He simultaneously entertains and makes us wince. He clothes himself in glory and then publicly disrobes.
Daniel may have created Scratch.
That's gold -- no truer words have been written in scripture.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
I think when comparing the relative guilt of apologists and critics we need to keep a few things in mind. First, what counts as bad? Is it worse for a critic on RFM to write three pages of four letter words about an apologist, or for apologists to use less harsh language but effectively ruin the career of Dr. Quinn?
Then, how to compare general internet behavior? Clearly, if you take the most vulger critics, and compare to the most vulger apologists, the critics are worse. I just think it's obvious if you take all the nasty things said at MAD, and then take all the nasty things said here or at RFM, the language and personal attacks of the "worst" critics win over the meanest apologists. BUT, if you grade on a curve, then I think the apologists are worse. If you take the education levels, salaries, and general social class into account, then the behavior of LDS apologists of relatively high worldly standing is worse than the behavior of critics within the same class. I mean seriously, the antics of "l Skinny" and associates are probably less juvenile than the average 17 year old who logs onto RFM and starts exclaiming, "F the church and FARMS and .... and ... ", but not by a whole lot. And the critics on the same footing (or if you ask the apologists, severly lower in standing) like Metcalfe, Vogel, or whoever, you just don't see the same kind of stupidity and immaturity.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Because I had mentioned to him that I had corresponded with the late Wes Walters , he wanted to know where or if there were papers of Wes Walters in existence. I know Walters exchanged letters etc with many in and out of the church, liberal and conservative. Both Quinn and Vogel spent time at his house going through his research. I imagine there would be copies of his corres with both historians. Was Migley wanting to see who corresponded with Walters? Walters told me he had conversations with a number of closet doubters. Migley seemed in his email to be really wanting to know if such papers existed
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
DCP is a great salesman who buys back his own product without closing the deal. Critics instinctively understand this about Daniel. He simultaneously entertains and makes us wince. He clothes himself in glory and then publicly disrobes.
Blixa wrote: But runtu, while I've certainly witnessed juvenile message board hi-jinx among some exmormons (not any that I'd actually deem serious critics, however), I've never seen anything close to the vindictive attempts at character and career assassination that Mormon apologists have carried out in many, much less ephemeral, venues.
What is your best example of a career assassination by an apologist?
Mike Quinn. Specifically, I refer you to the Wall Street Journal article you found and posted (I believe at FAIR) a couple of years ago.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Blixa wrote: But runtu, while I've certainly witnessed juvenile message board hi-jinx among some exmormons (not any that I'd actually deem serious critics, however), I've never seen anything close to the vindictive attempts at character and career assassination that Mormon apologists have carried out in many, much less ephemeral, venues.
What is your best example of a career assassination by an apologist?
Mike Quinn. Specifically, I refer you to the Wall Street Journal article you found and posted (I believe at FAIR) a couple of years ago.
The WSJ concluded, among other things, and right or wrong, that Quinn didn't have a career because his focus in things Mormon was too narrow and he didn't publish books in academic presses.
But, if you were to identify a particular apologist who did the assassination that led to his career being torpedoed, whom would that be? [I'll then just ask Mike if he agrees.]