Dan'S Announcement: The World Table

[jim_mason]

Scott llyod, do you deny that in this thread Daniel Peterson posted " It's not going to be "apologetic.""

Daniel Peterson denied theworldtable.org was going to be apologetic, yet you admit his presentation at FAIR was about it being apologetic.

Is not the defense of something the essence of apologetics? Can apologetics only occurr in a hostile environment?

Edited August 4, 2013 by jim_mason

[Daniel Peterson]

all well and good Calmoriah, but if Blair Hodges notes are correct or near correct, then Daniel Peterson presented theworldtable.org under the banner of apologetics or the need for more apologists of the LDS Faith and as a place for an army of Church apologists. How can a place for a army of apologists not be apologetic?

Suppose that the army of apologists is traveling down the highway. Is that road apologetic?

I also encourage apologists to make better use of the Internet. But the Internet isn't, as such, apologetic.

Most succinctly, if Hodges notes are correct, then the Title of Daniel Peterson presentation is "

“Toward a More Effective Apologetics”

That was, indeed, the title of my roughly hour-long remarks -- of which ten or fifteen minutes were devoted to The World Table.

[Daniel Peterson]

Scott llyod, do you deny that in this thread Daniel Peterson posted " It's not going to be "apologetic.""

Daniel Peterson denied theworldtable.org was going to be apologetic, yet you admit his presentation at FAIR was about it being apologetic.

Is not the defense of something the essence of apologetics? Can apologetics only occurr in a hostile environment?

The World Table is not, in and of itself, apologetic, though apologists -- Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Evangelical, etc. -- will be free to use it for apologetics.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am quite confident Daniel Peterson can defend himself. The simple fact is Daniel presented theworldtable.org under the guise [sic] of apologetics, but now wants to deny such because people who disagree with him commented about the site.

My "defense" against this charge is flat denial. It's false. And the imputation of bad faith or insincerity on my part is unjust and undeserved (to say nothing of wearisome).

I presented The World Table at a conference devoted to Mormon apologetics. I believe that The World Table will be an excellent venue for apologetics, yes, but it can be used for just about any kind of discussion or debate that people wish to conduct.

His clear intent is that LDS people will use theworldtable.org to become a home base for LDS apologists.

Yes. And the clear intent of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, which is creating The World Table and of which I'm a board member, is that it become an excellent platform for political discussions, too, as well as for Catholic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Evangelical apologetics, atheist apologetics, and, if people are so inclined, debates about the merits or demerits of asparagus.

[Robert F. Smith]

My "defense" against this charge is flat denial. It's false. And the imputation of bad faith or insincerity on my part is unjust and undeserved (to say nothing of wearisome).

I presented The World Table at a conference devoted to Mormon apologetics. I believe that The World Table will be an excellent venue for apologetics, yes, but it can be used for just about any kind of discussion or debate that people wish to conduct.

Yes. And the clear intent of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, which is creating The World Table and of which I'm a board member, is that it become an excellent platform for political discussions, too, as well as for Catholic apologetics, Hindu apologetics, Evangelical apologetics, atheist apologetics, and, if people are so inclined, debates about the merits or demerits of asparagus.

Yes, and the World Table might even be an opportune venue for good-hearted toleration and ecumenism. A little mutual respect and kindness would be a nice change from some of the contempt and vitriol which one can find on some message boards. Joseph Smith would have liked the World Table and the concept of religious diplomacy. I love the feeling of Gemütlichkeit which such an ambience implies. I always feel it when Rory or mfbukowski or volgadon, and others of like mind, discuss matters with us on this board. Don't most of us hanker for that?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm told that I had Jim Mason banned from this board or at least from this thread. But that's news to me. (Has he been banned?) I wasn't even aware that this thread existed until quite a while after his last post, and -- I suppose I may have missed something -- can't see any reason for him to have been banned. (I was busy until pretty late on Friday with FAIR, and then all day on Saturday with preparations for our Interpreter birthday party, and with the party itself. And then Sunday was church . . . You know the drill.)

I'm also told that my failure to demand that he be reinstated on the board or the thread demonstrates -- redundantly by now, I would think -- my hypocrisy and my fascist tendencies. But the moderators here don't seek my advice when they take action, and they don't notify me about it, either. (I'm not even sure that I know who they are.)

Bottom line: If Jim Mason has been tossed out, I, personally, wouldn't mind his being reinstated here, so that we might continue -- or, more accurately, start -- conversing about his suspicions regarding The World Table.

[volgadon]

I'm told that I had Jim Mason banned from this board or at least from this thread. But that's news to me. (Has he been banned?) I wasn't even aware that this thread existed until quite a while after his last post, and -- I suppose I may have missed something -- can't see any reason for him to have been banned. (I was busy until pretty late on Friday with FAIR, and then all day on Saturday with preparations for our Interpreter birthday party, and with the party itself. And then Sunday was church . . . You know the drill.)

In other words, you provided yourself with an elaborate alibi, thought out years in advance.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott llyod, do you deny that in this thread Daniel Peterson posted " It's not going to be "apologetic.""

I think he has explained that clearly enough by now. The World Table itself is not an apologetics forum primarily, but it will allow apologetics to transpire.

By the way, I see you have been banned from the board, but if you happen to be readmitted (or if you sneak back on with a sock puppet), please pay closer attention to the correct spelling of my last name.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm told that I had Jim Mason banned from this board or at least from this thread. But that's news to me. (Has he been banned?) I wasn't even aware that this thread existed until quite a while after his last post, and -- I suppose I may have missed something -- can't see any reason for him to have been banned. (I was busy until pretty late on Friday with FAIR, and then all day on Saturday with preparations for our Interpreter birthday party, and with the party itself. And then Sunday was church . . . You know the drill.)

I'm also told that my failure to demand that he be reinstated on the board or the thread demonstrates -- redundantly by now, I would think -- my hypocrisy and my fascist tendencies. But the moderators here don't seek my advice when they take action, and they don't notify me about it, either. (I'm not even sure that I know who they are.)

Bottom line: If Jim Mason has been tossed out, I, personally, wouldn't mind his being reinstated here, so that we might continue -- or, more accurately, start -- conversing about his suspicions regarding The World Table.

Something about his logic, expression and the way he mangles my last name seems familiar to me, and I suspect he was detected as a sock puppet and was banned anew after having been banned before. At any rate, I don't doubt the mods have their reasons.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I wasn't even aware that this thread existed until quite a while after his last post, and -- I suppose I may have missed something -- can't see any reason for him to have been banned.

Actually you did post before he did back in post 24 and 25 and 27 while his first post was 34...

Easy to lose track of conversations...

I think there might be two reasons he got banned---pure speculation here as I am not party to moderator decisions or know the process even, I just read the guidelines and watch like everyone else---might be what might be seen as a complaint about moderation on this board in a question that JM asked about the World Table:

Mason:

Will the moderators have public profiles, early post in this thread one gets the impression that their real names will be required. Will the moderators have to use their real names. What safe gaurds are in place to prevent it from becoming moderated by way of a who's-who moderators favorite list, which has been alleged of occurring on other boards.

I also started thinking that he was sounding a lot like another poster in the way that he phrased his arguments, but by the time I was thinking about checking it out (comparing the two) he was already banned...perhaps a moderator or another poster had the same idea and they found out he was a sock puppet.

[Calm]

Something about his logic, expression and the way he mangles my last name seems familiar to me, and I suspect he was detected as a sock puppet and was banned anew after having been banned before. At any rate, I don't doubt the mods have their reasons.

Same feeling here....glad to know it wasn't just me being tired and paranoid.

[Scott Lloyd]

Same feeling here....glad to know it wasn't just me being tired and paranoid.

Nice to know it's not just me.

Edited to add:

For the record, I didn't have anything to do with his banning either.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Nice to know it's not just me.

Edited to add:

For the record, I didn't have anything to do with his banning either.

Me neither for once...my actual reason for hanging out on the board so much is just to find people to report.....not really, it is the last thing i like to do though I will do it if it looks bad or like it's going to go bad, only fair to the mods.

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually you did post before he did back in post 24 and 25 and 27 while his first post was 34...

Easy to lose track of conversations...

Ah. So I did. I didn't even remember that it was this thread.

So I'll modify my claim: I was unaware of "Jim Mason's" posts until, it seems, after he was banned. I had nothing to do with his banning. And, if there was some reason for it that's invisible to me, I'll leave that to the moderators.

The consensus among certain critics is that I'm such a coward that I routinely seek the banning of forceful critics lest I be publicly exposed as the mountebank and charlatan that I am.

I may well be a charlatan and a mountebank, of course, but I'm apparently also hallucinatory, because I suffer from delusions of adequacy. I imagine that I can pretty well hold my own, and that I don't actually need the moderators to ban people in my defense.

[urroner]

...because I suffer from delusions of adequacy...

That is way better than suffering delusions of inadequacy.

Wally of the cartoon Dilbert once said it was no use to reach for the stars, they are just too far away. Besides, if you did touch them, you would just burn up.

[Stargazer]

Ah. So I did. I didn't even remember that it was this thread.

So I'll modify my claim: I was unaware of "Jim Mason's" posts until, it seems, after he was banned. I had nothing to do with his banning. And, if there was some reason for it that's invisible to me, I'll leave that to the moderators.

The consensus among certain critics is that I'm such a coward that I routinely seek the banning of forceful critics lest I be publicly exposed as the mountebank and charlatan that I am.

I may well be a charlatan and a mountebank, of course, but I'm apparently also hallucinatory, because I suffer from delusions of adequacy. I imagine that I can pretty well hold my own, and that I don't actually need the moderators to ban people in my defense.

Hi Dr. Peterson,

I'd be happy to help beta test if you want. Just PM me.

[Fifth Columnist]

People come for debate, and that's what The World Table will permit them to have. Real discussions.

Dan, would it be appropriate for someone to debate your use of Camus to support your apologetic arguments on The World Table?

[mfbukowski]

Dan, would it be appropriate for someone to debate your use of Camus to support your apologetic arguments on The World Table?

That's old.

I've got a better idea. Let's talk about Wittgenstein's view of religion.

Or Rorty. Or other "atheists" who understood the value of, and what justifies, religious belief as true. [media=]

Edited August 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, would it be appropriate for someone to debate your use of Camus to support your apologetic arguments on The World Table?

People can debate anything they want -- the superiority of marigolds over rhododendrons, Fords versus Chevys, quotations from Camus, Dodgers versus Giants, whatever.

Onlookers, who will themselves be rated, will be able to rate the debaters as regards fairness, knowledge, civility, and the like. And, of course, onlookers will be able to look away if they're bored.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hi Dr. Peterson,

I'd be happy to help beta test if you want. Just PM me.

We'd love to have you do it.

Just sign up for "notifications" here:

http://theworldtable.org/countdown/classic-skin/

When we're ready to commence beta testing, which should be very, very soon, all those on the notification list will be invited to help.

[3DOP]

That's old.

I've got a better idea. Let's talk about Wittgenstein's view of religion.

Or Rorty. Or other "atheists" who understood the value of, and what justifies, religious belief as true. [media=]

Too much Rory! Ban him!

[DBMormon]

The World Table is up and running but man it slows your computer down when trying to type within it.  It must use a lot of virtual memory and ram to run

[Daniel Peterson]

The World Table is up and running but man it slows your computer down when trying to type within it.  It must use a lot of virtual memory and ram to run

 

Please don't hesitate to report this to the Powers that Be at The World Table.

[mfbukowski]

I'm in.  Heavy Mormon presence so far and some interesting stuff.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suspect it will be fairly heavily Mormon for a while, given (for example) that I discussed it at FAIR and have publicized it here and on my blog, and so on and so forth.  But it should, and ideally will, begin to draw people from all sorts of backgrounds and viewpoints as it grows.