I always add a single color and an underline so that people know that it is a link (pretty common courtesy for those that spend lots of time on the web).
Part of the problem with linking to MA&D is that they have a redirect/some other techno wizardry that doesn't allow links clicked from this site to their's to function.
The hyperlinking that I showed you would probably be best used for sources, search results or if you are feeling particularly ventursome, links to scriptural verses.
Okay, I was thinking that maybe MAD had it set up like this. And other links do seem to work. So thanks for the help!
It occurs to me . . . wrote:I don't know if it's appropriate for me to bring this up, but I was enjoying the thread http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=22510 on MAD that D. Peterson started about a review of Dawkins' The God Delusion, The Dude asked if Dr. Peterson had read the book himself:
Daniel, have you read The God Delusion? Yes/No.
If yes, then we will likely have an interesting and potentially useful discussion.
For which he was immediately suspended:
Goad posters on another board. Two days and two ignored warnings and you are suspended. ~ Mods
I'm just having a hard time figuring out how this is "goading". It sounds like a logical request for information. It is pretty difficult to discuss a book, or even a review of a book if one of you haven't read it. This seems like a reasonable question to which a suspension is a huge over reaction.
Of course that is goading. Daniel doesn't have to read a book in order to know exactly what's in it. He just goes into Joseph Smith mode and knows what it says without ever opening it. Heck, the book doesn't even have to be in the same room with him, and he knows what's in it. He could probably quote paragraph after paragraph of that book, and he's never even opened the spine. It's amazing really, and The Dude is lacking in inspiration if he doubts Daniel's abilities.
While it seems nonsensical, I suspect the moderators have been given the word to make sure Dr. Peterson is treated with kid gloves. To be safe, everyone should avoid discussing things with him at MAD, for fear whatever is said could be misinterpreted by the moderators.
Asking if Dr. Peterson has read a book is just begging for suspension. Imagine all the implications that could be drawn from that question. They may well have concluded that The Dude was questioning his literacy or his Priesthood. Dr. Peterson could have gone into another depression and refused to frequent the board for at least a week. Can't have that.
Perhaps he could have gotten away with it had he phrased it thusly:
"I beg in advance the indulgence of the moderators on this matter. They are welcome to delete this post if need be. I ask this question not to imply anything negative at all about the esteemed Dr. Peterson, and I intend to show the utmost respect to him, as well as to all LDS posters. My question, of course, has nothing to do with the merits of any argument, and is simply prompted by curiosity.
In other words, Mother May I ask Dr. Peterson a direct question?
Dr. Peterson,
I thank you in advance for taking time from your very busy schedule to even consider answering my question. I also hasten to add that while I personally do not believe in the LDS church, it is admirable in many important elements, and is indeed a rolling stone that no one can stop. I also concede that, despite my disbelief, Mormonism contains many claims that are hard to refute. Just where did the miraculous Book of Mormon come from, for example? So with all that understood, Dr. Peterson, did you ever have the time to read the book in question?
Thanks in advance for your tolerance,
The Dude"
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Dr. Peterson's latest contribution to the thread in question:
Over on a board that appears to be largely dedicated to obsessive-compulsive derision of this board and where accurate reading seems to be in short supply, there has been some cackling about my purportedly miraculous ability, in this thread, to comment negatively on Richard Dawkins's book without yet having read it. Of course, I've made precisely no comments directly about Dawkins's book. I simply called attention to a review of Dawkins by Alvin Plantinga, and summarily mentioned one or two of Plantinga's arguments.
I much prefer it when people respond to what I've written rather than to what they imagine me to have written. Unfortunately, that's surprisingly rare -- and particularly so on the board where these folks are making their remarks. (I'll pass over in charitable silence their latest conspiratorial speculations about me.)
Dr. Peterson,
Thank you in advance for your willingness to, no doubt due to some noble impulse, follow this board so obsessively. We are certainly not worthy of your attention, just as The Dude was quite impertinent in his question. So I beg your liege's nobler impulses to educate the less able and, as you request of others, actually respond to what we've written instead of what you imagined we wrote. The topic is whether or not The Dude "goaded" you and deserved a temporary banning by asking you whether or not you had read Dawkin's book.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
moksha wrote:While it seems nonsensical, I suspect the moderators have been given the word to make sure Dr. Peterson is treated with kid gloves. To be safe, everyone should avoid discussing things with him at MAD, for fear whatever is said could be misinterpreted by the moderators.
I asked Dr. Peterson two questions and he politely answered both. I think you guys are stretching it a bit too far.
---------------
When did Dr. Peterson say he didn't need to read the book to know it was trash? All he did was offer information about a critical review on it. He also mentioned that FARMS will be doing a review of it as well. I think his biggest point was that according to the review of a scholar he appears to respect, Dawkins made some fundamental logical errors in his book.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
moksha wrote:While it seems nonsensical, I suspect the moderators have been given the word to make sure Dr. Peterson is treated with kid gloves. To be safe, everyone should avoid discussing things with him at MAD, for fear whatever is said could be misinterpreted by the moderators.
I asked Dr. Peterson two questions and he politely answered both. I think you guys are stretching it a bit too far.
Perhaps we are overreacting. Still, it is comforting in life to understand the reason for seemingly inexplicable actions and this is one of those times. Surely the accusation of goading must have had some underlying basis, since on the surface the reason is not apparent.
I asked Dr. Peterson two questions and he politely answered both. I think you guys are stretching it a bit too far.
The question is whether or the mods were justified in punishing the Dude for asking Peterson the question. Under what world view is that viewed as "goading"???
There are other issues that can be discussed, but this is the primary one. Whether or not it was justifiable for Peterson to start a thread featuring a review of a book he hasn't read is an interesting discussion, but not the primary topic here, as far as I've understood the comments.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
1. The Mod's are mentally ill and unable to interpret what they read.
2. The Mod's are control freaks who want to "own" their posters and the words they publish on that board.
3. The Mod's are afraid their apologetic posters can't hold their own in even a series of simple exchanges such as "did you read a book?" and choose pre-emptive strikes to avoid potential embarrassment at all costs.
4. The Mod's are crafty little wizards who think that no matter how false the picture is that they present...they're okay with it so long as it makes them "look good". In other words...window dressing is the thing.
My 2 cents, probably not worth much more than that.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb