DCP wrote:I'll be surprised to see anything come of that project. And I'm not optimistic, even if something does, about what he's likely to produce.
Unless Shades rises high above the level of discourse and the standards of fairness that characterize the denizens of his board -- for which your suggested chapter title will serve as a (relatively mild) illustration -- any "biography" that he produced would be likely to be an unbalanced and uninteresting hatchet job.
By the way, please try to stop bringing the content of the Peterson/Midgley Obsession Board over here. Sufficient unto that place are the evils thereof.
I find it odd to see the proprieter of SeN and Interpreter complaining about balance. Dan, how's that beam in your own eye?
any "biography" that he produced would be likely to be an unbalanced and uninteresting hatchet job.
If so, how would that make it any different from the FARMS Review?
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
If so, how would that make it any different from the FARMS Review?
I thought a kind professor would take a minute and explain the difference between a FARMS review and a biography.
Daniel C. Peterson ain't wrong about this. He could be completely crazy crazy and unable to catch a fish, but he damn sure ain't wrong in the quoted piece that is included in this thread.
Chap: Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Binger wrote:I really truly think you should avoid writing a biography of someone you dislike and don't know. I am not saying that this character is likable. I certainly do not see anything appealing. I just think it not a worthwhile task with a reasonable probability of success.
While get the angle, how would anybody write a biography on Hitler if you had to know him and like him?
I do agree he should get as much feedback from DCP, Kiwi57, and anybody with FARMS willing.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Binger wrote:I really truly think you should avoid writing a biography of someone you dislike and don't know. I am not saying that this character is likable. I certainly do not see anything appealing. I just think it not a worthwhile task with a reasonable probability of success.
While get the angle, how would anybody write a biography on Hitler if you had to know him and like him?
I do agree he should get as much feedback from DCP, Kiwi57, and anybody with FARMS willing.
FFS.
Seriously?
There is your answer, Shades. Right there. You are being encouraged by a bunch of people that think your subject is comparable to Hitler. For the love of god, be serious and just drop it.
While get the angle, how would anybody write a biography on Hitler if you had to know him and like him?
I do agree he should get as much feedback from DCP, Kiwi57, and anybody with FARMS willing.
FFS.
Seriously?
There is your answer, Shades. Right there. You are being encouraged by a bunch of people that think your subject is comparable to Hitler. For the love of god, be serious and just drop it.
Nope, that’s just you trying to imply something untrue, because you’re unwilling or unable to argue the actual point that it’s possible to write a biography about someone without actually having to ‘know and like’ them.
There is your answer, Shades. Right there. You are being encouraged by a bunch of people that think your subject is comparable to Hitler. For the love of god, be serious and just drop it.
Nope, that’s just you trying to imply something untrue, because you’re unwilling or unable to argue the actual point that it’s possible to write a biography about someone without actually having to ‘know and like’ them.
Or, Gadianton could have made a point and discussed that instead of going full Godwin's law and comparing the subject to Hitler, which he seems to have done here.
Nope, that’s just you trying to imply something untrue, because you’re unwilling or unable to argue the actual point that it’s possible to write a biography about someone without actually having to ‘know and like’ them.
Or, Gadianton could have made a point and discussed that instead of going full Godwin's law and comparing the subject to Hitler, which he seems to have done here.
any "biography" that he produced would be likely to be an unbalanced and uninteresting hatchet job.
If so, how would that make it any different from the FARMS Review?
Exactly. For example, in 2017 Midgley published just such a hatchet job in the Interpreter regarding Marjorie Newton. It was so unbalanced that Lavinia Fielding Anderson, Newton' editor, responded in the comments, accusing him of approaching slander:
...The review challenges what Midgley perceives as Newton’s anti-American agenda. A key claim is: “Even though she is Latter-day Saint, she has chosen to follow those who claim they are not interested in the question of the truth (or untruth) of that faith. Marjorie Newton’s own understanding of the faith of the Saints manifests indifference to truth questions. An indifference to truth-claims prevents or hampers understanding what believers find soul-satisfying.”
This claim of Marjorie Newton’s “indifference” seems to be a manifestation of Midgley’s own agenda, which has, for years, been an attempt to defend Mormon truth claims. Defending the faith requires an enemy – someone or something who is attacking the faith. Positioning Marjorie Newton as such an enemy is a serious misreading of her books, and a misapplication of Midgley’s defensive agenda. He seems to be attacking Marjorie for not having written the books that he wants instead of reviewing the books she actually wrote.
In the “Comments” section, he states that “she insists there is scientific proof that there was no Lehi, and hence the indigenous peoples of America and Pacifica could not possibly be Children of Lehi. She sees belief that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient history as part of what she considers American Mormon cultural imperialism.”
These statements are so inaccurate that they approach slander.
