Daniel Peterson Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I think the writer showed that it was highly likely Smith used a few people to "poke and prod" Dehlin.I believe that claim to be false.He also showed how a number of time Smith used elipses in such a way to misconstrue what Dehlin actually said as well as stringing comments together that also distorted the original message.I'm not convinced. I've just gone through the whole "Rollo Tomasi" hit piece, and I don't think that Dr. Smith distorted the sense of Dehlin's remarks in any significant way.Isn't that a common complaint of LDS aplogists against LDS critics?Yep.
William Schryver Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) http://www.patheos.c...al-critics.htmlThat is pretty amazing.Isn't that the same tie you wore to Church last week? Edited March 8, 2013 by William Schryver
Daniel Peterson Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 If I were Greg, I would only respond to the "review" on the condition that the cowardly "Rollo Tomasi" attach his real name to it.That's unlikely to happen. These folks have always published their smears anonymously.Besides, Kishkumen, my Malevolent Stalker, and "Rollo Tomasi" are so precisely identical, ideologically, that it's really hard to know how many distinct people actually stand behind their "names."
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 That's unlikely to happen. These folks have always published their smears anonymously.Besides, Kishkumen, my Malevolent Stalker, and "Rollo Tomasi" are so precisely identical, ideologically, that it's really hard to know how many distinct people actually stand behind their "names."For a while early on, I suspected "Rollo Tomasi" and Scratch were the same entity. I soon became convinced, though, that even "Rollo" is not that toxic.
Teancum Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 So far, I've yet to find a single one pointed out.So far I find many valid criticisms of the paper. Funny that.But honeslty Scottt, you find NOT ONE valid criticism of the paper? How about Smith's use of elipses to misconstrue Dehlin's points. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 But honeslty Scottt, you find NOT ONE valid criticism of the paper? I believe the term you used was "major flaws." But no, I haven't yet seen anything I would call a valid criticism.How about Smith's use of elipses to misconstrue Dehlin's points.I've already addressed that; perhaps you haven't yet come upon the post where I have done so.It's convenient that the post is on the same page where I am writing this response. I'll reproduce it here for you:Use of ellipses is not necessarily bad or deceptive. It is only so when it materially changes or conveys the wrong impression of a speaker or writer's intended meaning.I just read through the portion of RT's essay where he alleges manipulation of quotes. I don't think he makes a strong case. That is to say, upon reading the full quote, I come away with the same impression of Dehlin's intended meaning as I had before.
Teancum Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Yes Scott, I had not seen your comment on the elipses before I wrote my comment.Interesting the what our personal filters do to how we see things.
juliann Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 That's unlikely to happen. These folks have always published their smears anonymously.Besides, Kishkumen, my Malevolent Stalker, and "Rollo Tomasi" are so precisely identical, ideologically, that it's really hard to know how many distinct people actually stand behind their "names."Rollo Tomasi is a lawyer in Baltimore...or was.
ERayR Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Rollo Tomasi is a lawyer in Baltimore...or was.If only he were in Philadelphia I could do a Philadelphia lawyer remark. Alas.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Rollo Tomasi is a lawyer in Baltimore...or was.On the whole, he doesn't strike me as being so coldly and implacably reptilian as the Stalker, or as obsessively, personally, and vocally nasty as Kishkumen. But then, what's a sock puppet for, if not to pretend to be different people?I have no idea whether there are fewer than three, three, or more than three people behind these "names." Anyhow, "Rollo Tomasi" has virtually disappeared for long stretches. The Stalker typically only posts a few times daily, and will sometimes vanish for several days at a time. Kishkumen, however, seems lately to be posting up a storm every day from the crack of dawn in the morning until late at night, virtually foaming at the mouth with virulent contempt for his targets. It's too bad. I once saw him as somewhat more moderate than the Stalker. But he's long since ceased to be that, if indeed he ever really was. (Has anybody here read C. S. Lewis's Perelandra? I'm thinking of how Weston was gradually absorbed into the "Unman."). Edited March 9, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 1
Calm Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 I'm thinking of how Weston was gradually absorbed into the "Unman.".Now that is a horrible image.
William Schryver Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 That's unlikely to happen. These folks have always published their smears anonymously.Besides, Kishkumen, my Malevolent Stalker, and "Rollo Tomasi" are so precisely identical, ideologically, that it's really hard to know how many distinct people actually stand behind their "names."Not only that, but among the lesser lights in the MDB mob, there are many who will post for several months under one name, and then make themselves a new avatar, and start posting with it. So you've got many posters who only have a few hundred posts, but who have clearly been around for years and years. So it's hard to say who is who even from year to year. 1
Mayan Elephant Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Not only that, but among the lesser lights in the MDB mob, there are many who will post for several months under one name, and then make themselves a new avatar, and start posting with it. So you've got many posters who only have a few hundred posts, but who have clearly been around for years and years. So it's hard to say who is who even from year to year.really? it is that clear?
Nathair/|\ Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.Dehlin's rationalization here does not pass the smell test.Would it perhaps resemble a large seagoing vessel containing burning incense?(Can't claim credit for that one, I got it from a Xanth novel.) 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Yes Scott, I had not seen your comment on the elipses before I wrote my comment.Interesting the what our personal filters do to how we see things.Well, perhaps you could select what you judge to be the most compelling, egregious example of quote manipulation from Dr. Smith's essay, either something "Rollo Tomasi" has identified in his post or something of your own choosing. We could then consider and evaluate it. Bear in mind, though, that there is nothing inherently bad or wrong about excerpting a speaker's words or using ellipses to exclude content. It only becomes a problem if the context is changed to the point that the speaker's intended meaning is materially altered. Edited March 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Louis Midgley Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Rollo Tomasi is a lawyer in Baltimore...or was.There are various kinds of apologists it seems. With "Rollo Tomasi," we have an attorney hiding behind a handle busy defending a "client" with a brief listing whatever he can dredge up. All of this to the delight of a cheering gallery of those given to hate speech directed at anyone who dares to sustain and defend the Kingdom in ways that make critics uncomfortable. Has anyone an explanation for why Dehlin's new advocate did not address Greg Smith's second essay? The first essay, the one that Dehlin was desperate to quash, provides the context for the second essay, which I find highly significant. 4
wenglund Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Has anyone an explanation for why Dehlin's new advocate did not address Greg Smith's second essay?Perhaps the advocate figured that since he wasn't able to engage the substance of Greg's first essay, then why bother with the second?That, or perhaps the advocate's penchant for petty quibbles isn't inexhaustible.Who knows. I suspect that there is no value to be gained either way.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
sethpayne Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 Not only that, but among the lesser lights in the MDB mob, there are many who will post for several months under one name, and then make themselves a new avatar, and start posting with it. So you've got many posters who only have a few hundred posts, but who have clearly been around for years and years. So it's hard to say who is who even from year to year.Ludd and Nomad are especially guilty of this type of behavior. 1
William Schryver Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) Ludd and Nomad are especially guilty of this type of behavior.I know who "Nomad" is (he actually lives closer to you than to me), and to my knowledge, he only ever used one handle in the years he posted on these boards. He retired from the message boards altogether about a year or so ago. I'm not familiar with "Ludd" beyond the fact that I'm aware he read MsJack's "hit piece" ... er ... "scholarly exposé," and came away unimpressed--and for that grievous sin he was accused of being my sock puppet. Quite ironic, that. But not nearly as ironic as the fact that the people at MDB have spent much of the past month waxing "morally outraged" about "scholarly exposés" ... er ... "hit pieces." Edited March 12, 2013 by William Schryver 2
Daniel Peterson Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 It's amusing and instructive to see Kishkumen's Hit Place so perpetually exercised about Greg Smith's supposed "hit piece." 4
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 I know who "Nomad" is (he actually lives closer to you than to me), and to my knowledge, he only ever used one handle in the years he posted on these boards. He retired from the message boards altogether about a year or so ago. I'm not familiar with "Ludd" beyond the fact that I'm aware he read MsJack's "hit piece" ... er ... "scholarly exposé," and came away unimpressed--and for that grievous sin he was accused of being my sock puppet. Quite ironic, that. But not nearly as ironic as the fact that the people at MDB have spent much of the past month waxing "morally outraged" about "scholarly exposés" ... er ... "hit pieces."But Will you are Nomad. Graham told me so.
wenglund Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 It's amusing and instructive to see Kishkumen's Hit Place so perpetually exercised about Greg Smith's supposed "hit piece."They need something to obsess about so as to distract attention away from their miserable and pathetic existence. It is just that in their typical asinine way, they inadvertently end up drawing attention to their miserable and pathetic existence, making it all the more obvious. There is an old saying about "fools" that comes to mind. Amusing and instructive indeed.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
sethpayne Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 I know who "Nomad" is (he actually lives closer to you than to me), and to my knowledge, he only ever used one handle in the years he posted on these boards. He retired from the message boards altogether about a year or so ago. I know, Will. I'm just giving you a hard time.
Jersey Girl Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 One of them was a very intelligent, well-educated young woman, formerly from my ward, who was ultimately banned from MDB, that bastion of "free speech." Would you mind saying what screen name the poster in question used?
why me Posted March 13, 2013 Posted March 13, 2013 It's amusing and instructive to see Kishkumen's Hit Place so perpetually exercised about Greg Smith's supposed "hit piece."I think that many over there have egg on their face over the Smith article. Of course they are still repeating the hit piece angle but most know that it wasn't a hit piece. There was also a someone with a screen name of rosebud who began a thread about john but she got short shift from the posters when this poster expressed hurt and pain over what john did.Some just need to keep stirring the pot...but I did feel a little sorry for rosebud. This poster's pain should be recognized by them.
Recommended Posts