juliann Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Here are the definitions of two fallacies that Mr. Confidential and his associates (particularly Juliann) have employed against me and others on this board. Mr. Vogel, you have been ranting at me on two threads...each time including a new conspiracy that I have allegedly cooked up in real time. You have conveniently avoided the subject by turning this into a harangue about credentials. I have gone so far as to take a look at your book in the library so that I would not be talking out of turn. I have given you at least one example of what I find objectionable in your approach directly from that book. You have responded to none of this but have chosen to rant and flame instead. Is there a better example of ad hominem and poisoning the well?Here is just some of what I have offered in the hopes of a reasonable discussion with you, Mr. Vogel. All of it has been ignored in favor of spiteful comments like the above. I have stated my objection to your methodology: you are leaving out the community of believers who construct the meaning of their canon. you are confusing "approach" with "conclusion". The problem is in your selective use of sources (and from what I saw in the introduction...a very shotgun approach to supporting your psychologizing and skepticism. ) You were throwing in sources like Hume without supplying any geographical or cultural relevance to JS. Hume may matter but this is parallel-itis if you do not connect the dots. To back up my personal opinion of your methodology, I gave you a quote from a professor at Claremont (which only brought forth another torrent of abusive accusations directed at Claremont and professors in general):Thus a reading of these documents must respect communal or ecclesiastical contexts and the dynamics and challenges of these contexts.
juliann Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Back to the regularly scheduled program: Daniel Peterson Posted: Nov 11 2004, 07:48 PM I hope that somebody will take up Professor Hamblin's challenge. cinepro and Dan Vogel have, I think, said that they would. I trust they've noticed that a special thread has been created ("pinned") for it, up above at the top of the first page of the "LDS Dialogue and Discussion" area.
Dan Vogel Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Juliann,You have conveniently avoided the subject by turning this into a harangue about credentials.You can say that without smiling? Mr. Confidential is the one who picked this fight, not me. And then you chose to join in. So if you don
Bill Hamblin Posted November 12, 2004 Author Posted November 12, 2004 Dan, We all know you are picked on and misunderstood. No one else has ever been treated on FAIR quite as badly as you. You are a victim, pure and simple, and as such, deserve special kid-glove treatment. Your credentials are impeccable, but still you are attacked. Your methods are above reproach, yet still the Neanderthals ask you questions; how dare they? Your world-view is eminently rational
juliann Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I do have to give Mr. Vogel credit for a response that was given after I left the thread. I did not see it. As I reread this thread to determine how I have provoked you, Mr. Vogel, I am even more stunned by the level of your rage and I truly hope you find resolution to it.
Tchild2 Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Juliann wrote:I am even more stunned by the level of your rageRage? how about a link to any statement Dan has made in rage? Rage?
Confidential Informant Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Juliann wrote:I am even more stunned by the level of your rageRage? how about a link to any statement Dan has made in rage? Rage? I'm not sure how you missed it. His responses drip with it, throw in a dash a paranoia a pound of condescension and an ounce of self-pity and it's a pretty good stew.He does not like the fact that we've (or, I guess I) have legitimately questioned his credentials, as if such a question is completely out-of-bounds. C.I.
wenglund Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 With this thread heading towards its 17th page, and few if any post directly responding to the challenge at issue here, I think C.I. had the right idea in taking off-topic discussions (particularly those focusing on the esteemed, though much maligned, Mr. Vogel), to another thread, thereby leaving this thread unimpeaded in accomplish its intended objective.Perhaps the most fitting thread to move things to is the one initiated by rabanes on improving relations between LDS and EV, and which has morphed into a general discussion of improved inter/intra-faith dialogue on this board. See:http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5620&st=105Just a suggestion.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
religiously free Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Dan, We all know you are picked on and misunderstood. No one else has ever been treated on FAIR quite as badly as you. You are a victim, pure and simple, and as such, deserve special kid-glove treatment. Your credentials are impeccable, but still you are attacked. Your methods are above reproach, yet still the Neanderthals ask you questions; how dare they? Your world-view is eminently rational
brugsch Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Religiously Free,I note that you have not responded to Hamblin's post either. Why should Hamblin reminding Vogel that he has not responded to the thread be off topic?
Daniel Peterson Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 You guys are not fooling anyone. People with any brains can see the games being played here.
cinepro Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I'm not sure how you missed it. His responses drip with it, throw in a dash a paranoia a pound of condescension and an ounce of self-pity and it's a pretty good stew.I'm not a Vogel apologist, but how do you "drip" with rage? "Rage" is usually pretty overt and overwhelming. But if you could provide me an example of Vogel "dripping" with rage, I'd be interested.I also don't see "paranoia". In what way is Vogel "paranoid"? In situations where you have people who disagree about a subject, is it "paranoid" to respond to people who don't agree with you? I'm sure Vogel feels that Dr. Peterson, juliann, wenglund and others are "out to get him" by showing that his conclusions are without merit, but is that really paranoia? I don't see "self-pity" there either. Can you point out ways in which Vogel has been showing "1. Pity for oneself, especially involving excessive moaning about one's misfortunes." (allwords.com)?But frankly, I would love for the discussion to veer away from the personal issues and stick to the subject at hand, so don't feel compelled to respond.He does not like the fact that we've (or, I guess I) have legitimately questioned his credentials, as if such a question is completely out-of-bounds. When you say you "question his credidentials", can you please show me where Vogel has presented his "credidentials" to be questioned? Where has he presented himself as something he isn't? As far as I know, he has been entirely upfront and honest about his "credidentials". People may have made assumptions about his credidentials, but as I've learned the hard way, if you make bad assumptions, you can't blame anyone but yourself.
Bill Hamblin Posted November 12, 2004 Author Posted November 12, 2004 Vogel and Cinepro have both said they plan to respond to the challenge. Neither has done so, choosing instead tactics of distraction by moral indignation for real or perceived slights. Is anyone going to deal with the actual issue, or should we close up shop and go home? This is getting really boring really fast. And I can tolerate anything except boredom. (Which often makes attending Church excruciating torture )
A Random Catholic Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 And where is the moderator warning people who are pro mormon..that they shouldn't derail topics with ad hominems or that their posts have no substance regarding the actual issues and therefore will be limited to only a certain number per day etc etc. The only time I see the moderator step in is to warn any person who challenges mormonism. That's not true. Search by member name Dunamis. Latter-day Saints get warned and capped and placed on the moderated queue as well. Anyway, has anyone ever been penalized for hijacking a thread? They've even started a special one at the top of the page where thread hijacking will not be permitted, which is a tacit acknowledgment that they're generally pretty lax about that. I think that this board is very even-handed and tolerant, and quite well-moderated. This post proves it: I've posted a completely off-topic message praising the mod, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that I'm not penalized in any way!
A Random Catholic Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Vogel and Cinepro have both said they plan to respond to the challenge. Neither has done so, choosing instead tactics of distraction by moral indignation for real or perceived slights. Is anyone going to deal with the actual issue, or should we close up shop and go home? This is getting really boring really fast. And I can tolerate anything except boredom. (Which often makes attending Church excruciating torture ) I've ordered the Graydon Snyder book. And for those who might respond, "Yeah, and you ordered The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and The Miracle of Forgiveness for the express purpose of intelligently participating in discussions, but you apparently plan on acquiring the content through passive osmosis by reading Nero Wolfe novels for the 80th time in the same apartment with Kimball and Ehrmans," I would reply, "Say, you're really cruising for a bruising there, buster..."
Calm Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Oooohhh! Sounds like you have the same reading methodology that I have!
Calm Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Dear reader: I chose to respond to Mr. Confidential
cinepro Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Is anyone going to deal with the actual issue, Just trying to clarify what the actual issue is.
Ray Agostini Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 And where is the moderator warning people who are pro mormon..that they shouldn't derail topics with ad hominems or that their posts have no substance regarding the actual issues and therefore will be limited to only a certain number per day etc etc. The only time I see the moderator step in is to warn any person who challenges mormonism. You guys are not fooling anyone. People with any brains can see the games being played here. And of course the ones with brains don't stay long as they do realize this is not an intellectually honest message board seeking truth. But one thing you guys can not fight..and that is ..truth eventually wins out. And with the internet the church will not be able to fight it.Another informed, rational judgement by RF. Just ask Leeuniverse, one of the greatest defenders of the church here, if Mormons don't get warned and placed in a queue. Almost all of the judgements I've seen from you RF have been skewed and wrong, whether we are talking about Mormonism or just moderator decisions. No doubt you feel that the ex-Mormon board is just, fair, has no bias, and is impartial in judgement. No wonder you have the views on Mormonism that you do.
Dunamis Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 To pursue the topic of this thread go here: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5675Do not go here if you are not going to talk about the topic, only the topic and nothing but the topic. Anyone who even tries to hijack that thread will be given a one way ticket to the queue.Cinepro the Brave has stepped in.
aznative Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 And where is the moderator warning people who are pro mormon..that they shouldn't derail topics with ad hominems or that their posts have no substance regarding the actual issues and therefore will be limited to only a certain number per day etc etc. The only time I see the moderator step in is to warn any person who challenges mormonism. Oh, please! I don't even know how many times Drevan & I have been smacked down by Dunamis and we're both pro-Mormon. Stop you're whining.
Confidential Informant Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I also have suffered the wrath of Dunamis, and deservedly so, on many occassions, inlcuding this thread.C.I.
noel00 Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 This whole thread has descendend into a discussion that has little to do with the topic. I would like to have seen some discussion of Dan's book without all the other comments about qualifications. Was it not Nibley who wrote an article called "The Day of the Amatuer" So Dan has an undergraduate degree (so what) and has written some interesting stuff and collected some helpful documents. Both DCP in ZLMB and Ray in RFM has reputations as either being acid tongued or obsessed. I take that into account when i write my "pedestrian" comments. Lets hear some comments about Dan's writings and give him a chance to respond. I know i will learn something.
Daniel Peterson Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 Both DCP in ZLMB and Ray in RFM has reputations as either being acid tongued or obsessed.Talk about "obsessed," noel00. You've been badmouthing me for weeks now. This little phase of yours began on that thread about the Australian elections. Do you remember that? You directed a gratuitous insult at me on that thread, provoked by absolutely nothing whatever. I had made only one appearance on the thread -- a single sentence, as I recall -- congratulating Ray on the outcome of the election. So you delivered a personal attack. And now, here again, you feel some sort of weird, obsessive need to get in a dig at me when I haven't been an issue and have hardly been a part of the discussion. What's your problem, noel00?This whole thread has descendend into a discussion that has little to do with the topic. Indeed it has. Why do you do it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.