Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Apart from your other points, I will note that the "invective filled hatchet job" comment was a joke because the review was written by Bob Crockett, who posts here. But I still stand by my points about "tone", even on the Bagley reviews.Ah, yes, tone. Now we move into the realm of the purely subjective. Which boils down to "My tone is purely reasonable, your tone is, well, ... you know."
Mike Reed Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Hamblin just posted something. Can someone copy/past here what he said so I can read it?
treehugger Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) cookie monster Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger
John Ping Pong Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Hamblin just posted something. Can someone copy/past here what he said so I can read it?Here goes:That Mike Reed is a total hipster doofus. Edited June 26, 2012 by John Ping Pong
Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Why does Mike Reed care what an "angry, venomous" person has to say?
John Ping Pong Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Why does Mike Reed care what an "angry, venomous" person has to say?So he can give you a wide berth?Or a nasty swat with a quirt?
Mike Reed Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Found a glitch in the security, mods. Thought you should know.
Pahoran Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Greg Smith's wasn't a book review, and I would expect Smith to be on better behavior (less venomous), considering the transition that was underway with the new name of the volume being the Mormon Studies Review; but even still we read the following:"A hostile Babylon had, as one might expect, little use for a Palmyra prophet." Comparing M4M and others opposing the Church's involvement with Prop 8 to Babylon."But as I read what Compton and her fellow contributors wrote, I found it increasingly hard to regard this 'rule' as anything more than a fig leaf to draw in the unwary, or as a sop to any conscience that might be unnerved by an attack on the church or its leaders.""After the smoke-screen claim that M4M will not tolerate personal attacks or criticism of the church and its leaders...""(despite the dreadful effort of D. Michael Quinn to argue otherwise in Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example)...."Dan Peterson's remark in the Editor's Introduction:"The reference in the title is to the notorious anti-Mormon mountebank, charlatan, and demagogue Ed Decker, best known for his once-popular, sensationalizing, anti-Mormon pseudodocumentary The God Makers."But again... changes were already underway within the Maxwell institute, and it is therefore understandable that the tone would be more profession. Contrary what has been the case years before, the review of this volume was not primarily concerned with reviewing the work of skeptics. We also had several contributors in this volume, including Hauglid, Gardener, and Grow who have reputations for being professional and balanced. Even still... Dan Peterson could not prevent needless jabs above from going to print. Neither could he refrain from publishing the following:You missed the ad hominem jab that takes all the prizes for sheer, gratuitous spite:You are an angry venomous person, Bill.Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your double standards.Regards,Pahoran
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Huh, they did?We have now entered the Twilight Zone (but not Edward's Twilight, Rod's)
Mike Reed Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Sorry to spam this thread again, but here is how I am doing this, moderators, in case you want to try to patch this hole. I figured it out by accident. I posted my comment and found out that I was thread banned... but I then noticed that my remarks were still posted. So now I am just backing up to the previous page, and posting again through the quick post "reply to this topic" option at the bottom of the window.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Here goes: That Mike Reed is a total hipster doofus.Ad hominem!!! Ad hominem!!! That Hamblin is soooooooo nasty!
Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If you want to see what real ad hominem is like, take a look at Edwin Firmage rant in the Salt Lake Tribune comment section of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article on the "shake-up" at the NAMI:Good riddance. Daniel Peterson is a self-righteous, pretentious, embarrassment to Mormon scholarship.Sadly, he and other apologists (not to mention mediocre scholars) remain in BYU's departments of ancient scripture and church history, ...The firing of Peterson, and its implicit recognition of the failure of apologetics, …It will take DECADES more to undo the damage that Peterson et al. have done. ...Democrats are as invisible in Church leadership as real scholars are in religious studies at the Y.… Time and again, the Church demonstrated to thinking Mormons with an interest in history and religion that honest scholarship cannot exist at BYU. ...… The predictable result: an exodus of everyone with a brain. …there would be no real scholarship at the Y in faith-related fields for the foreseeable future. Instead, the Church got poseurs and prostitutes like Daniel Peterson, ...So, you can continue Daniel Peterson's brand of ad hominem attacks against me. [Hamblin: Does the man have no sense of irony?!]They welcome debate, but only when the other side is a straw man without a brain. ...… What is disingenuous about Daniel, in my view, is that he parlays his real expertise in Arabic into writing and speaking gigs (e.g., his columns in The Church News) on topics that he actually knows little about. ...…. Thus, you have lots of people with only peripheral knowledge and virtually no one with solid credentials teaching the, for Mormons, most important subjects. And the closer you get to the core issues, the lower the actual expertise. I would say this criticism holds for ALL of those now teaching Hebrew, Bible, and religious studies at the Y, many of whom I know personally.… The expertise is very shallow, and largely focused on areas that allow the faculty in question, … Real scholars know real scholarship when they see it, and in religious, and especially biblical studies, BYU does not represent real scholarship.It would be impossible to find anything even remotely like this in the FARMS Review. 2
juliann Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Assuming the complaining polemicists realize that they do have to address more than decades old examples while ignoring hundreds of stellar examples, my question is what happens when there is no more "ad hom"? That really is quite easy to fix. So I have serious questions that I would really like answered by those who are pointing out needed improvements.1. Will polemicists refer to articles with adjectives such as thoughtful and mature if vocabulary is selected from an approved list of words (or as is being pointed out now, not use their banned words?)2. Will the polemicists agree to use or not use their own vocabulary lists?"Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa. . ." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/arts/christopher-hitchens-is-dead-at-62-obituary.html?pagewanted=all 1
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If you want to see what real ad hominem is like, take a look at Edwin Firmage rant in the Salt Lake Tribune comment section of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article on the "shake-up" at the NAMI:It would be impossible to find anything even remotely like this in the FARMS Review. Is he blaming the lack of Democrats in the Church on Dan?! Or was it just a random comment?
John Ping Pong Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 It would be impossible to find anything even remotely like this in the FARMS Review. Having read most of the Reviews since their inception, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you.And I think this is a good reminder of the sort of thing Dan Peterson has volunteered to endure in order to bring us so much in the way of top-notch scholarship.Dan's Nephi and His Asherah is a watershed.
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 an exodus of everyone with a brainSo if Dan left over the MI thing, does that mean he would suddenly grow a brain?many of whom I know personallyAnd calls them some of his dearest, closest friends too I bet.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Is he blaming the lack of Democrats in the Church on Dan?! Or was it just a random comment?There actually are Democrats at BYU. I met one once. At least I think he was a democrat. I also am the proud owner of an "LDS for Obama" campaign button. In fact, it may be the only one.
cinepro Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If you want to see what real ad hominem is like, take a look at Edwin Firmage rant in the Salt Lake Tribune comment section of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article on the "shake-up" at the NAMI:It would be impossible to find anything even remotely like this in the FARMS Review. Well, apparently not now.
gtaggart Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Well, apparently not now.Well, like, apparently not ever. 1
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I also am the proud owner of an "LDS for Obama" campaign button. In fact, it may be the only one.And they let you on campus!!!!
Bill Hamblin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 And they let you on campus!!!!I didn't wear it. I stole it of an unconscious student who was lying badly beaten up in the quad.
gtaggart Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) And they let you on campus!!!!All funnin' aside, I am a life-long Republican and an adjunct at BYU. I go to lunch regularly with four BYU colleagues who are also adjuncts. If I'm not mistaken, three of them are Democrats; the third is one foot in, one foot out; and one has run for office at least two times in Utah County as a Democrat. My across-the-street neighbors and monthly dinner dates are Democrats--and he is a full time professor at BYU. In addition, he is, or has been, high up in Utah County Democrat politics. And guess what? Not one of them has ever said anything so boorish or offensive or, dare I say it, ad hominemish as Bro. Firmage. Edited June 26, 2012 by gtaggart 2
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I hope you've buried it somewhere so to avoid the contamination.
William Schryver Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 why are you bringing up polemics?The original statement you posted over a month ago was about not seeing "significant use of ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric", what does polemics have to do with this statement from a month ago?Are you now claiming that what you meant was that you have seen no use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetorc" in MI or FAIR?What does polemics have to do with my assertion that your OP herein, disagrees with the statement in made in another thread. I am just trying to understand why you are all the sudden claiming polemics.Polemics is when I tell you that your post above is manifestly incoherent nonsense. Incidentally, I have not observed any instances of "ad hominem personal attacks" in the FARMS Review. I have seen several instances of well-written polemical criticism, and thought it very excellently done.
Recommended Posts