MAD Dwells on Our Faults :(

[_Doctor Scratch]

What a splendid and delightful read that was! I have to extend kudos to LifeOnaPlate. It appears that he is matriculating at an alarming rate. First, he learned that he could seem smart by using Google and Wikipedia. Then, he demonstrated his acumen via a freshman logic textbook! Now, he's on to something even better! He's discovered that, if he mentions the names and titles of Mormon authors and books, it will seem like he knows what he's talking about. Never mind actually comprehending the texts, or showing any real wisdom. Simply reading the books and announcing that one has read them will do the trick. Tally ho, old sport!

Really, though, my favorite part of the thread was the appearance of the masterful poster called Rich Hansen, who dealt a thorough beating to Prof. Peterson. How embarrassing it must have been to have dear Bro. Hansen show everyone how endlessly you deny culpability for anything! Oooh, how that must have smarted!

I suppose the real question is: Why are these senior apologists so incapable of admitting guilt/responsibility/culpability? I think it was pretty much universally agreed upon that DCP's interference with GoodK's family was ethically problematic on every level, and yet he retreated to casuistry again and again on that one. Perhaps he feels that his mountain of sins is so tall at this point that he has no choice but to continue to deny and dodge?

Finally, the claim that the discussion over here is "about" DCP is problematic, and it borders on equivocation, in my view. I defy him to find a single post that discusses anything about him beyond his apologetics and his behavior on the boards---i.e., things that he himself brings up in one way or another. (If he wants to concede that his life is defined principally by Mopologetics, then I'm willing to concede that much discussion is "about" him.)

[_Ray A]

LoaP is a legend in his own lunchtime. In his imaginary Walter Mitty Olympics, like Usain Bolt he crosses the finishing line beating his chest.

[_Pahoran]

Actually Trev, none of those "assumptions" existed in my mind at any time.

Sure, that is why you brought out the talisman of secular as though that should solve your imagined argument on its own.

What "talisman?" Recall that you wrote:

I would like to add that it was here that beastie, I believe it was beastie at least, took the time to show everyone exactly how misleading the quotes in the Massacre at Mountain Meadows book were. It was an invaluable service, and confirmed my initial concerns about the book. She brought a kind of public scrutiny to the book that it might never have received elsewhere.

Evidently you don't think it possible for the book to have received any serious scrutiny in any other forum or medium.

I, however, know for a fact that LDS-friendly publications do not get a free pass in secular academia, and are often panned in many places.

I was merely wondering, aloud, just what it was about Beastie's analysis that justified such sycophantic praise.

No, you clearly were not.

Yes, I clearly was.

I don't remember you from MA&DB; but if you were so absurdly arrogant there as to tell other posters what was in their minds, it is no wonder you got short shrift.

And you have no idea whether the praise was "sycophantic" or not, since you admittedly have not read the thread.

The sycophantic nature of your praise is found in your post, not in her thread. It was right here that you gushed about her "invaluable service," etc.

What a nasty piece of work you are. You surely live up to your negative reputation.

And surely you live up the the negative reputation of "Shades' Sty."

And especially, your stated view that "She brought a kind of public scrutiny to the book that it might never have received elsewhere." Evidently a forum such as Sunstone, just for example, would be altogether too Mormon-friendly to give such a book any serious scrutiny.

And so you continue to pontificate on matters about which you are not informed.

In what way? I am familiar with this forum. I am familiar with Sunstone and related publications. So I am quite well able to say whether there are any fora other than this, um, place, where anti-Mormon reviews or opinion pieces can be published.

And there are.

Please note that I was not commenting on the quality or otherwise of Beastie's work precisely because I have not read it; but I have read your brown-nosing, and that alone was what I was commenting on.

Evidently you don't like anyone questioning your devotion to your sacred cows.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Guest]

Evidently you don't think it possible for the book to have received any serious scrutiny in any other forum or medium.

For the love of Pete, man, read the thread before you continue this foolishness. Not having read the thread, nor being privy to its contents, you are uninformed about what I was saying. Again for the benefit of your education in reading comprehension, there is a clear difference between "the kind of public scrutiny" and "any serious scrutiny." Are you really that deficient a reader?

I, however, know for a fact that LDS-friendly publications do not get a free pass in secular academia, and are often panned in many places.

So? Did I ever claim that they did get a pass or that they were not panned? If you had read the thread, you would know what it is I am talking about. You are working on so many assumptions here that I do not know where to begin to educate you. You are not aware of my opinions, nor why I praised beastie's thread. I have never panned the book, but I do find it flawed in certain important respects. Is it not valuable? It is still quite valuable. But, locked in a polemical/apologetic mindset, you are off to the races to set me straight without having the first clue what it is I actually think.

Yes, I clearly was.

In other words, you admit that you are ignorant, and that you talk trash in your ignorance.

I don't remember you from MA&DB; but if you were so absurdly arrogant there as to tell other posters what was in their minds, it is no wonder you got short shrift.

For you to talk of others' arrogance is the real absurdity. You're dripping with it. If anything, I have a reputation for being pretty fair in my dealings with others. It is true that I do not care for you in the least, but you do not deserve respect. You are a crooked-dealing menace to apologetics.

The sycophantic nature of your praise is found in your post, not in her thread. It was right here that you gushed about her "invaluable service," etc.

Again, if you haven't the slightest clue about matters as simple as context, as in, my praise should be judged in the context of what the thread actually offered, then why do you continue to type? So far, you are behaving like nothing short of an ignorant, arrogant moron.

And surely you live up the the negative reputation of "Shades' Sty."

I am happy to post at a place where people may post with relative freedom. That you denigrate a place where people with vastly different opinions can discuss things without heavy moderator intervention says more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you are constitutionally incapable of enduring a fair playing field and anything that might offend your facade of righteousness. Based on our interaction, it is certainly not your morality that is offended in the least. In that regard, your putrescence cuts through all competitors.

In what way?

You have not read the thread. (Repeat it to yourself as many times as it takes to get that through your thick skull.)

Please note that I was not commenting on the quality or otherwise of Beastie's work precisely because I have not read it; but I have read your brown-nosing, and that alone was what I was commenting on.

Well, since you have not read the thread, you don't know whether it is brown-nosing. And, brown-nosing suggests that I am praising beastie falsely in order to curry favor. I do not need her favor, and you have no idea whether I am praising her falsely or not.

Evidently you don't like anyone questioning your devotion to your sacred cows.

Hah! What sacred cows? I am not the one who spends the majority of his time hiding out on a board that routinely expels others for not properly kowtowing to his sacred cows. I am here because I am quite comfortable discussing things freely. I would just hope that someone who thinks as highly of himself as you appear to would read carefully or simply read before he comments. You have done neither in your interactions with me on this thread.

[_Droopy]

MAD does not expel people for not bowing to sacred cows. It expels people for being like you, Trevor. It expels people for being uncivil, bleating gasbags who come there to vent spleen and create contention, not to seriously discuss/debate issues.

Let me say it yet again: this board, whatever else it is, is a dumping ground for those who cannot abide MAD's standards of conduct. It is MAD purgatory.

Call this a trailer park, but one of its primary functions is as a resort for certain personalities who need a strong, confirmatory, echo chamber-like environment dominated by like minded individuals. Like AA, its a place where stories can be told and frustrations released.

Until someone like myself, or Pahoran, or bc show up, and then the coach becomes a pumpkin again and the princess finds herself clothed in the rags she began with.

[_SoHo]

Until someone like myself, or Pahoran, or bc show up, and then the coach becomes a pumpkin again and the princess finds herself clothed in the rags she began with.

Or finds herself just laughing hysterically at the irony. Thanks for bringing some Christian love to the board. If ever you should visit me in my home, I hope you remember to crap on my carpet while calling me unclean.

[_Pahoran]

For the love of Pete, man, read the thread before you continue this foolishness.

Oh, for crying down the sink.

Yes Trev, as I have already said, I would very much like to read it.

But also, Trev, as I have already said, I can't find it.

Beastie has confirmed that she, too, cannot find it.

So if you want to actually perform an "invaluable service," why don't you go and find it? Since you actually know what was said, you might have a better chance of locating it than I do, having only heard about it.

Not having read the thread, nor being privy to its contents, you are uninformed about what I was saying.

On the contrary, Trev, I am entirely informed about what you were saying.

I read what you were saying.

I commented upon what I read in this thread and nothing else.

Again for the benefit of your education in reading comprehension, there is a clear difference between "the kind of public scrutiny" and "any serious scrutiny." Are you really that deficient a reader?

Oh, so you were saying that Beastie's "public scrutiny" (in a very small community of largely like-minded Mormon-haters) was not serious?

Okay.

Ready to stop playing hair-splitting word games yet?

Yes, I clearly was.

In other words, you admit that you are ignorant, and that you talk trash in your ignorance.

No. In other words, I admit that you were lying when you presumed to tell me what my own intentions were.

The arrogance of which presumption I have not the ghost of a chance of measuring up to.

Now: until you can tell me where I might find the thread in question, you cannot possibly have anything to say to me.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Trevor]

MAD does not expel people for not bowing to sacred cows. It expels people for being like you, Trevor. It expels people for being uncivil, bleating gasbags who come there to vent spleen and create contention, not to seriously discuss/debate issues.

I have not had any problem abiding by MAD's rules. I think I was put on hold once. I have posted there over 500 times. The one incident for which I was suspended happened years ago. Knowing that I have to be very careful, I am very careful. I don't particularly enjoy the environment all the same. It is overly restrictive.

Let me say it yet again: this board, whatever else it is, is a dumping ground for those who cannot abide MAD's standards of conduct. It is MAD purgatory.

As I said, I am capable of abiding by the rules just fine. I just do not like the environment in which mods of mysterious identity swiftly suspend and ban not just for not following rules, but to slant the apparent outcome of arguments.

Call this a trailer park, but one of its primary functions is as a resort for certain personalities who need a strong, confirmatory, echo chamber-like environment dominated by like minded individuals. Like AA, its a place where stories can be told and frustrations released.

And AA is, in your opinion, a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I do not come here for an echo chamber. In fact, I have had some knock-down, drag-out fights with just about everyone here. Unlike many here, I am not an atheist. Unlike a number here, I do not find religion in general and Mormonism in particular risable. Unlike a number here, I do not think Daniel Peterson is an awful person. Indeed, I rather like him. And, lest you forget, Droopy, you have racked up quite a lot of posts here yourself. Did you do that because of the echo-chamber environment in which we affirm your unique genius and charming personality? Or are you a discomfirmation of your own "argument"?

Until someone like myself, or Pahoran, or bc show up, and then the coach becomes a pumpkin again and the princess finds herself clothed in the rags she began with.

So well spoken Droopy. And I believe every word. I have no doubt that you are living out a storybook fantasy in which your towering genius lays bare the wasteland of the Trailer Park. Keep living in your fantasy, Droopy.

[_Trevor]

So if you want to actually perform an "invaluable service," why don't you go and find it? Since you actually know what was said, you might have a better chance of locating it than I do, having only heard about it.

Find it yourself, and then write about what you read, not what your fevered imagination and unbridled keyboard conjures for your malicious pleasure.

On the contrary, Trev, I am entirely informed about what you were saying.

I read what you were saying.

I commented upon what I read in this thread and nothing else.

Context, Pahoran. Remember context. My words have meaning in a context, and I am not going to let you get away with manufacturing your own without commenting on your prestidigitation.

Oh, so you were saying that Beastie's "public scrutiny" (in a very small community of largely like-minded Mormon-haters) was not serious?

She put it in a place where it can be publicly accessed (when the search function is working). I think it was serious, in that it demonstrated a trend in the manner of quotation that was problematic. Do read it, and by all means comment on everything when you have a clue.

Ready to stop playing hair-splitting word games yet?

Not as long as you are in the business of word-twisting games.

No. In other words, I admit that you were lying when you presumed to tell me what my own intentions were.

I think we all have a pretty fair idea of what your intentions are based on your abuses of language.

The arrogance of which presumption I have not the ghost of a chance of measuring up to.

There isn't an arrogance of any presumption that I could engage in that you wouldn't have bested long ago. But I do not admit to any such thing nor accept your misreading.

Now: until you can tell me where I might find the thread in question, you cannot possibly have anything to say to me.

Find it yourself. It will be a test of your basic competence. We need to find something you can master. Clearly, it is not English.

[_Gadianton]

Some keen observations, professor Scratch. I'm glad you're back from your trip. I hope the office we managed to prepare for you at the last minute was to your liking and that the restaurant across the street had an adequate wine selection.