BEASTIE: Please boycott the pundits forum!

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks, Jersey Girl - I really do think its productiveness is over. I just told Juliann I was confused about her definition of apostate since she is supposedly not relying on the Bromley model, and she simply referred me to the definitions she included in her original post. Those citations that specifically address the definition are straight from the Bromley text. So nothing, I mean nothing, I have said to her has made the slightest dent.

And she completely ignored my request for clarification on how she figures that most exmormons leave with hardly a backwards glance.

I doubt I will participate anymore on the pundits forum. It looks like there is a bit more interest in the apostate thread in the regular discussion board.

for what it's worth, I agree with Shades, Beastie. It seems a moral imperative, in my opinion. Further, I think it's important to keep in mind that this whole business began with juliann's tauntingly titled thread, "The Lament Continues." She went on for several pages, berating you for deconstructing her silly, distorted argument, and the defied you to actually show up on MAD. Once you did, the thread was immediately shuffled off into the Pundits Forum. juliann needs to be reminded of this, since it has direct bearing on her integrity both as a scholar and as a debater. She continues to dodge questions; Dan G. has made a concerted effort to prevent us from viewing the discussion; so on and so forth. Time to "boycott," I say.

[_harmony]

Thanks, Jersey Girl - I really do think its productiveness is over. I just told Juliann I was confused about her definition of apostate since she is supposedly not relying on the Bromley model, and she simply referred me to the definitions she included in her original post. Those citations that specifically address the definition are straight from the Bromley text. So nothing, I mean nothing, I have said to her has made the slightest dent.

And she completely ignored my request for clarification on how she figures that most exmormons leave with hardly a backwards glance.

I doubt I will participate anymore on the pundits forum. It looks like there is a bit more interest in the apostate thread in the regular discussion board.

for what it's worth, I agree with Shades, Beastie. It seems a moral imperative, in my opinion. Further, I think it's important to keep in mind that this whole business began with juliann's tauntingly titled thread, "The Lament Continues." She went on for several pages, berating you for deconstructing her silly, distorted argument, and the defied you to actually show up on MAD. Once you did, the thread was immediately shuffled off into the Pundits Forum. juliann needs to be reminded of this, since it has direct bearing on her integrity both as a scholar and as a debater. She continues to dodge questions; Dan G. has made a concerted effort to prevent us from viewing the discussion; so on and so forth. Time to "boycott," I say.

As I've said in the past: without the critics, MAD/FAIR is reduced to a Relief Society homemaking meeting, complete with the gossip around the quilt.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Gossip aroung the quilt..now that is funny...Well they will stil have hammer......Are you sure they can quilt..cause quilting does require skill and patience...none of which they have over their...skill or patience..

[_beastie]

I pretty much ended my participation on the pundits thread with this comment:

I give up. You are using definitions that rely on Bromley's terminology, such as the "oppositional coalition", but have altered what those same terms mean. On a thread in the discussion forum you referred to dart's email interactions as an "atrocity narrative". for heaven's sake. You seem to form a fondness for certain terms and use them repeatedly, without paying attention to their specified meanings.

I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who continues to rely on terms taken from one specific model while denying that those terms mean what the model clearly states.

Oh well. Readers can make their own decisions on the matter.

I'm willing to continue whatever conversation occurs on the apostate thread in the regular forum, but my interest and patience in this is waning. Juliann has very obviously demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems in her application of Bromley's model, and continuing to hammer that point with her is useless. The fact that she simply reiterated that her definition of an apostate is still the citations in her original post told me all I need to know. She's still using Bromley, and still abusing it. She called dart's story about his email interactions an "atrocity narrative" for heaven's sake. It's like talking to a wall, and a rude one at that.

[_Runtu]

I pretty much ended my participation on the pundits thread with this comment:

I give up. You are using definitions that rely on Bromley's terminology, such as the "oppositional coalition", but have altered what those same terms mean. On a thread in the discussion forum you referred to dart's email interactions as an "atrocity narrative". for heaven's sake. You seem to form a fondness for certain terms and use them repeatedly, without paying attention to their specified meanings.

I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who continues to rely on terms taken from one specific model while denying that those terms mean what the model clearly states.

Oh well. Readers can make their own decisions on the matter.

I'm willing to continue whatever conversation occurs on the apostate thread in the regular forum, but my interest and patience in this is waning. Juliann has very obviously demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems in her application of Bromley's model, and continuing to hammer that point with her is useless. The fact that she simply reiterated that her definition of an apostate is still the citations in her original post told me all I need to know. She's still using Bromley, and still abusing it. She called dart's story about his email interactions an "atrocity narrative" for heaven's sake. It's like talking to a wall, and a rude one at that.

I guess I feel like I've at least accomplished one thing in getting Juliann to affirm that the vast majority of posters on RfM do not come close to meeting the sociological definition of apostate and that our narratives (atrocity or otherwise) are not suspect. Given that, I still haven't figured out what her point was, but I'm glad she clarified that much.

[_Mister Scratch]

I pretty much ended my participation on the pundits thread with this comment:

I give up. You are using definitions that rely on Bromley's terminology, such as the "oppositional coalition", but have altered what those same terms mean. On a thread in the discussion forum you referred to dart's email interactions as an "atrocity narrative". for heaven's sake. You seem to form a fondness for certain terms and use them repeatedly, without paying attention to their specified meanings.

I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who continues to rely on terms taken from one specific model while denying that those terms mean what the model clearly states.

Oh well. Readers can make their own decisions on the matter.

I'm willing to continue whatever conversation occurs on the apostate thread in the regular forum, but my interest and patience in this is waning. Juliann has very obviously demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems in her application of Bromley's model, and continuing to hammer that point with her is useless. The fact that she simply reiterated that her definition of an apostate is still the citations in her original post told me all I need to know. She's still using Bromley, and still abusing it. She called dart's story about his email interactions an "atrocity narrative" for heaven's sake. It's like talking to a wall, and a rude one at that.

I guess I feel like I've at least accomplished one thing in getting Juliann to affirm that the vast majority of posters on RfM do not come close to meeting the sociological definition of apostate and that our narratives (atrocity or otherwise) are not suspect. Given that, I still haven't figured out what her point was, but I'm glad she clarified that much.

I think she would be hard pressed to demonstrate that anyone on RfM meets the sociological definition of "apostate."

[_Runtu]

I pretty much ended my participation on the pundits thread with this comment:

I give up. You are using definitions that rely on Bromley's terminology, such as the "oppositional coalition", but have altered what those same terms mean. On a thread in the discussion forum you referred to dart's email interactions as an "atrocity narrative". for heaven's sake. You seem to form a fondness for certain terms and use them repeatedly, without paying attention to their specified meanings.

I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who continues to rely on terms taken from one specific model while denying that those terms mean what the model clearly states.

Oh well. Readers can make their own decisions on the matter.

I'm willing to continue whatever conversation occurs on the apostate thread in the regular forum, but my interest and patience in this is waning. Juliann has very obviously demonstrated a complete inability or unwillingness to recognize the problems in her application of Bromley's model, and continuing to hammer that point with her is useless. The fact that she simply reiterated that her definition of an apostate is still the citations in her original post told me all I need to know. She's still using Bromley, and still abusing it. She called dart's story about his email interactions an "atrocity narrative" for heaven's sake. It's like talking to a wall, and a rude one at that.

I guess I feel like I've at least accomplished one thing in getting Juliann to affirm that the vast majority of posters on RfM do not come close to meeting the sociological definition of apostate and that our narratives (atrocity or otherwise) are not suspect. Given that, I still haven't figured out what her point was, but I'm glad she clarified that much.

I think she would be hard pressed to demonstrate that anyone on RfM meets the sociological definition of "apostate."

I said I couldn't think of anyone on RfM who fit the definition as given, and she replied that she had a few names in mind.

[_beastie]

Good point, runtu.

I also suspect that her repeating that she is "beyond" bromley is a sign that she did recognize, at least on some level, that she was not applying his model well. But she still can't manage to put together a modified one. I guess that would be too much like actually admitting she goofed.

[_harmony]

Good point, runtu.

I also suspect that her repeating that she is "beyond" bromley is a sign that she did recognize, at least on some level, that she was not applying his model well. But she still can't manage to put together a modified one. I guess that would be too much like actually admitting she goofed.

Juliann is not a sociologist, capable of putting together her own model. Once you shot Bromley's out from underneath her, she was unable to refute and took the typical FAIR/MAD apologist way out: she ran for the mods. Admitting she goofed is catagorically impossible, without extreme prodding and non-interference from the mod staff. Since the latter is never going to happen on that forum, Juliann admitting she goofed is not going to happen either. (you will all remember how long it took for me to get her to admit she lied about the so-called transcript).

[_wenglund]

I just read the entire thread (at least what was left of it), and I found this to be the key reason for the breakdown in communication:

Beastie said:

You cannot simultaneously avail yourself of studies and research that was conducted based on the Bromley framework and then declare yourself free of his specific terminology. It just doesn’t work that way.

It’s as if the Bromley model is an intricate rug. You are trying to pull out several threads from the middle of the rug and pretend it does not unravel the whole piece.

The assumtion here is that threads from one sociological "rug" may not be used in creating another sociological "rug".

Were that true, then much of sociology would be "unravelled" and the sociologists would be forced, impractically, to create their own "rugs" from scratch, and this each time they create a "rug" (Bromley wouldn't be able to revise his "rug" because that would constitute borrowing from his previous "rug").

That, to me, is nonsense.

However, since Juliann appears to reasonably assumes that sociological threads can be borrowed to create new sociological "rugs", then as long as Beastie holds to the inane view that they can't, a discussion between these two has little or no chance of progressing beyond this dispute. Beastie will be fixated on Bromley and on supposedly preserving his "rug", and Juliann will be unable to "move on" with her use of Bromleyite threads (and those of others) in creating her own "rug".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-