The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Rollo Tomasi]

Assuming Rollo is who he says he is, he also is a king-priest.

Wow. I'm flattered. Is this in the church curriculum?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is spot on.  You often use quotation marks in a misleading fashion, making it appear that the quoted words came from your source when they in fact don't.  The most recent example is your  placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts.  I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had.

I can't believe I have teach grammar to an English teacher such as yourself, or to a professional writer like Scott, but here goes anyway:

The examples you raise (the "bury embarrassing facts" reference in the Packer discussion is a good one) are not quotes of verbatim words from a text. The quote marks that you cite I have used to reflect either a phrase of art, or a figure of speech, or a proverbial expression, or to call attention to a particular concept.

Hope this clarifies any confusion.

There are more acceptable ways of showing emphasis: Bold face, italics and underscore are three that are available to you on this board. You don't need to use quotation marks in unconventional, confusing and misleading ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you can further misconstrue and misrepresent what I say -- even to the point, perhaps, of putting words in quotation marks that I did not use? No thanks.

You typed the words, friend. If you want to go back and edit your post in order to clarify, please feel free.

I'm comfortable with it as it stands.

[gtaggart]

Scott is spot on.  You often use quotation marks in a misleading fashion, making it appear that the quoted words came from your source when they in fact don't.  The most recent example is your  placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts.  I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had.

I can't believe I have teach grammar to an English teacher such as yourself, or to a professional writer like Scott, but here goes anyway:

The examples you raise (the "bury embarrassing facts" reference in the Packer discussion is a good one) are not quotes of verbatim words from a text. The quote marks that you cite I have used to reflect either a phrase of art, or a figure of speech, or a proverbial expression, or to call attention to a particular concept.

Hope this clarifies any confusion.

Rollo, I'm well aware of the various uses of quotation marks. But I'm more tuned into the author's duty to his or her audience. In this case, two from your audience have pointed out that your use of quotation marks is not working, that it's getting in the way of your argument because you use them in a way--inadvertently, intentionally, who knows--that gives the impression that you are quoting someone when in fact you are not. You are giving your spin on what someone said. To use the Packer talk again. "Hide embarrassing facts" was apparently your spin--given what you just explained. However, those of us not plugged into your brain were left thinking that you actually thought that Elder Packer used those exact words. And that's why I called you on it.

Here's a hint: When you are talking about what someone said, either quote them accurately or say at the outset that you are paraphrasing or summarizing.

[Pahoran]

I also wonder why, if what you say is a refutation of my point, Joseph Smith had himself crowned King of the Kingdom of God

Actually neither he nor any other President of the Church "had himself crowned." An anointing is not a coronation.

or Brigham Young did not establish a government in Deseret that was founded on the United States constitution.

Actually he did. Or, more accurately, it was founded on a model that imitated typical state constitutions of the time.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Assuming Rollo is who he says he is, he also is a king-priest.

Wow. I'm flattered. Is this in the church curriculum?

This response is more telling than we can ever say, winkies notwithstanding.

[Mark Beesley]

I think Rollo should go back and edit all of his posts where he used quotation marks to emphasize something and change the emphasis to bold, underlined, or italics. That would make these latter posts really funny.

[gtaggart]

I think Rollo should go back and edit all of his posts where he used quotation marks to emphasize something and change the emphasis to bold, underlined, or italics. That would make these latter posts really funny.

I think that's a dangerously funny idea.

[Scott Lloyd]

Assuming Rollo is who he says he is, he also is a king-priest.

Wow. I'm flattered. Is this in the church curriculum?

An observant and seasoned Latter-day Saint would likely as not be aware of the concept.

[Pahoran]

Scott is spot on.  You often use quotation marks in a misleading fashion, making it appear that the quoted words came from your source when they in fact don't.  The most recent example is your  placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts.  I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had.

I can't believe I have teach grammar to an English teacher such as yourself, or to a professional writer like Scott, but here goes anyway:

The examples you raise (the "bury embarrassing facts" reference in the Packer discussion is a good one) are not quotes of verbatim words from a text. The quote marks that you cite I have used to reflect either a phrase of art, or a figure of speech, or a proverbial expression, or to call attention to a particular concept.

Hope this clarifies any confusion.

But there you are, Rollo. The "bury embarrassing facts" phrase (quoting you) is not Elder Packer's. It is your own (extreme anti-Mormon) spin on his talk.

And what reason does anyone have to suppose that your spin is correct?

Well--none. That's what.

That talk is a reasonably long one, and has been analysed already. Let us take the way you can spin a simple three-word phrase: "The Lord's University." You previously wrote:

Be careful describing BYU this way -- in his review, gtaggart slammed Martha for doing the same.

To which I responded by quoting the entire paragraph in which that phrase appeared in Greg's review and asked:

So Rollo, when you accused Greg of having "slammed" Beck for describing BYU as the Lord's University, you were making it up, weren't you?

To which you superciliously replied:

I read Greg's quote of Martha's use of that phrase to be derogatory.

But then you saw that Greg had already written:

For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

Then, with unusual graciousness, you wrote:

My apologies for misconstruing your reference.

Of course it was no biggie; English, like every human language, is imprecise, and misconstruction is something everyone does every day. The point is that the "slam" you saw in his review just wasn't there--your assertion had no basis in reality.

Likewise, Elder Packer's "instruction" to "bury embarrassing facts" is also not there. You misconstrued that, as well.

At this point, it seems that the only difference between Greg and Elder Packer is that Greg is here to personally disabuse you. If that were not the case, would you still, ten pages hence, be reiterating your claim that he "slammed" her?

I rather think you would.

So please apply a little humility to your interpretations. You got Greg wrong; why do you imagine it impossible that you got Elder Packer wrong as well?

As you so clearly did?

You know perfectly well that if you continue to use scare quotes around phrases you've made up, unsuspecting or careless readers will assume you are quoting what the person said--perhaps in a portion omitted from one of your snippets. You should therefore stop doing it, before others join me in starting to suspect your intentions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nighthawke]

Scott is spot on.  You often use quotation marks in a misleading fashion, making it appear that the quoted words came from your source when they in fact don't.  The most recent example is your  placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts.  I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had.

I can't believe I have teach grammar to an English teacher such as yourself, or to a professional writer like Scott, but here goes anyway:

The examples you raise (the "bury embarrassing facts" reference in the Packer discussion is a good one) are not quotes of verbatim words from a text. The quote marks that you cite I have used to reflect either a phrase of art, or a figure of speech, or a proverbial expression, or to call attention to a particular concept.

Hope this clarifies any confusion.

Absolutely. Rollo Tomasi is saying that President Packer never instructed LDS historians to bury embarrassing facts.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Mark Beesley]

Pahoran wrote:

. . . before others join me in starting to suspect your intentions.

You're just now starting? I've been on the board a scant month and I started no later than the second day. Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran wrote:

. . . before others join me in starting to suspect your intentions.

You're just now starting? I've been on the board a scant month and I started no later than the second day. Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.

Actually when I'm not piling up adjectives for emphasis, I'm rather fond of a little ironic understatement. I've had Rollo pegged as a rather stereotypical anti-Mormon for some time now and, following the traditional method of house-training a recalcitrant puppy, I rub his nose in his doo-doo at every opportunity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Baeth_Ku]

Actually neither he nor any other President of the Church "had himself crowned."  An anointing is not a coronation.

I have another hair to split for you . . . But really, anointing has been part of the ceremonial installation of kings in various cultures for thousands of years. If I refer to it loosely as coronation, I think people get the basic idea. I must say that the phrase "crowned king of the Kingdom of God" sticks out in my mind as one that has been used by others to describe the events in question.

Actually he did.  Or, more accurately, it was founded on a model that imitated typical state constitutions of the time.

Interesting. So the constitutions of territories were founded on a model that imitated states. I didn't recall that. I think there is more to the issue here, but I need to spend some time looking into it before I get back to you. My books are in a room where my wife is currently sleeping. You have got me thinking.

[Pahoran]

In another thread, Rollo wrote:

The attacks on Martha's credibility (including Greg's review, on which I will post my observations) have, by and large, relied on "nit-picks" (some incredibly petty).

So Rollo, how's that response coming? Ready any time soon?

Or are you having to take it back to the drawing board now that your own penchant for incredibly petty nit-picks has been so cruelly exposed in this thread? Once you take out incredibly petty nit-picks like imaginary "slams" about such expressions as "The Lord's University," do you have any response left?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Beowulf]

Here is a so-called "chronology" of Church history, entitled Great Moments in Church History.

There is nothing upbeat or pleasant about it.

And all of the items come from Michael Quinn's book.

It appears that I was mistaken in saying that Quinn had done this. Somebody CULLED Quinn, to get rid of anything that might remain of enlightening, upbeat, or revelatory items about the Church...

I did not quote it, it is very long...

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_history.htm

(I do not know how to make a link, sorry for being such a Luddite.

Beowulf

[juliann]

The most recent example is your placing quotes around the words "bury embarrassing" when you alleged that Elder Packer counseled to hide embarrassing facts. I called you on it because he never used those words, yet you put them in quotes as if he had. (Whether he meant that is another argument altogether.) Maybe you don't realize what you're doing. But word to the wise: If you'd stop, I'm guessing that the animosity you may feel towards you on this board would be cut in half.

I actually thought he was quoting Packer! How deceptive. There ought to be some sort of penalty for that kind of trickery on a message board...seriously.

[Rollo Tomasi]

There are more acceptable ways of showing emphasis: Bold face, italics and underscore are three that are available to you on this board. You don't need to use quotation marks in unconventional, confusing and misleading ways.

I use all of those. And it's clear I use quote marks to reflect verbatim text because I give the source for that quotation.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, I'm well aware of the various uses of quotation marks. But I'm more tuned into the author's duty to his or her audience. In this case, two from your audience have pointed out that your use of quotation marks is not working, that it's getting in the way of your argument because you use them in a way--inadvertently, intentionally, who knows--that gives the impression that you are quoting someone when in fact you are not. You are giving your spin on what someone said. To use the Packer talk again. "Hide embarrassing facts" was apparently your spin--given what you just explained. However, those of us not plugged into your brain were left thinking that you actually thought that Elder Packer used those exact words. And that's why I called you on it.

Not surprisingly the two having the most problem with this are the same two who try to find any petty reason to deflect attention from the real issues. You know very well that using quote marks the way I have is an acceptable way to reflect a form of expression or content -- if it is an actual quotation of the words of another, then I give the source or citation; if not, then it's my way of offering a personal form of expression or content. We've all seen people talking and using "air" quote marks with their fingers when doing the same thing. I am honestly surprised that a professional writer such as yourself did not understand this, but live and learn, I guess.

Here's a hint: if I give a source or citation, then it's that use for the quote marks; if not, then it's my personal way of expressing something or bringing attention to content or subject.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But there you are, Rollo. The "bury embarrassing facts" phrase (quoting you) is not Elder Packer's. It is your own (extreme anti-Mormon) spin on his talk.

I never said that was Packer's exact quote; as you well know, the phrase was mine ("spin," yes, but certainly not "anti-Mormon," extreme or otherwise) to describe and call attention to a particular subject (i.e., "burying embarrasing Church history").

And what reason does anyone have to suppose that your spin is correct?

Read the talk itself (linked in prior post) and it will be self-evident.

For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

Because Greg's quote-mark reference to "The Lord's University" reference has no page cite, I guess one could have assumed it was his personal form of expression (as he admits in his quote), but he also admits he did take it from Martha's book on p. 77 (both in the chapter title and in the second paragraph) without attribution in his review. Knowing the latter, this is why I understood that he was making fun of Martha's use of the phrase.

The point is that the "slam" you saw in his review just wasn't there--your assertion had no basis in reality.

I think it was a slam, because (without attribution) Greg used Martha's description of BYU in two places on p. 77 of her book. Even though Greg now admits to using the phrase himself (probably for different reasons -- he really believes it, much to the chagrin of USU78 and many others), he was using it in the context of slamming Martha for the way she caricatures and describes BYU.

Likewise, Elder Packer's "instruction" to "bury embarrassing facts" is also not there.

This is what Packer's talk is all about. Go back and reread it ... slowly this time, and you'll see it.

So please apply a little humility to your interpretations.

My opinions are always humble.

You got Greg wrong; why do you imagine it impossible that you got Elder Packer wrong as well?

Perhaps because Elder Packer is a bit more obvious than Greg.

You know perfectly well that if you continue to use scare quotes around phrases you've made up, unsuspecting or careless readers will assume you are quoting what the person said--perhaps in a portion omitted from one of your snippets.

I give a source or citation when I am quoting someone verbatim. If not, then it's a form of expression or explaining content. Only "blind" readers such as yourself would have a problem seeing the difference when it comes to Mormon issues (btw, did you get the impression in that last sentence that my use of "blind" was a quote from someone else or my own way of highlighting your condition?).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Absolutely. Rollo Tomasi is saying that President Packer never instructed LDS historians to bury embarrassing facts.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry, you still got it wrong. Elder Packer indeed was instructing Church historians and educators not to publish or teach embarrassing Church history. Hope this clarification of the clarification gets through.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I've been on the board a scant month and I started no later than the second day. Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.

And here I thought we were beginning to get along famously.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I've had Rollo pegged as a rather stereotypical anti-Mormon for some time now and, following the traditional method of house-training a recalcitrant puppy, I rub his nose in his doo-doo at every opportunity.

The only "doo-doo" I see getting on folks around here is the kind you constantly fling at anyone and everyone who dare to disagree with you or dare to suggest (nay, even think) that Church history and its leaders may not be all that they are held up to be.

[Rollo Tomasi]

So Rollo, how's that response coming? Ready any time soon?

Oh, don't worry, it's coming. I have read the review, and it's just a matter of putting finger to computer key. The reason it is taking so long is that Greg's review comprises 47 pages of pure nit-pick, which of course, requires that my response be just as nit-picky since I am reviewing nothing but. But, don't worry, I'll get it here as soon as I can. Rollo "the Apologist Slayer" Tomasi would never desert Sunnydale, er... I mean, Zion.

[gtaggart]

And what reason does anyone have to suppose that your spin is correct?

Read the talk itself (linked in prior post) and it will be self-evident.

But it's not self-evident. At least, it's arguable that it's not. What's sad, is that you don't see that.

For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

Because Greg's quote-mark reference to "The Lord's University" reference has no page cite, I guess one could have assumed it was his personal form of expression (as he admits in his quote), but he also admits he did take it from Martha's book on p. 77 (both in the chapter title and in the second paragraph) without attribution in his review. Knowing the latter, this is why I understood that he was making fun of Martha's use of the phrase.

Fair enough. Greg, the author [me], should have been more concerned about his audience [you, among others]. Greg [me] should have written it this way: "In her chapter titled 'The Lord's University,' . . ." Greg [me] is now acknowledging his error and will do better next time. Go thou and do likewise.

The point is that the "slam" you saw in his review just wasn't there--your assertion had no basis in reality.

I think it was a slam, because (without attribution) Greg used Martha's description of BYU in two places on p. 77 of her book. Even though Greg now admits to using the phrase himself (probably for different reasons -- he really believes it,much to the chagrin of USU78 and many others), he was using it in the context of slamming Martha for the way she caricatures and describes BYU. (emphasis mine)

Is this not the Rollo we all know and love? I've explained what I intended. I've explained how I personally use "The Lord's University," yet Rollo knows my mind better than I do. No wonder he feels free to roam the minds of his other, often dead, victims, reporting back what they think. What twaddle.

You know perfectly well that if you continue to use scare quotes around phrases you've made up, unsuspecting or careless readers will assume you are quoting what the person said--perhaps in a portion omitted from one of your snippets.

I give a source or citation when I am quoting someone verbatim. If not, then it's a form of expression or explaining content. Only "blind" readers such as yourself would have a problem seeing the difference when it comes to Mormon issues (btw, did you get the impression in that last sentence that my use of "blind" was a quote from someone else or my own way of highlighting your condition?).

Only a tone deaf writer would slam his audience this way.