Mister Scratch wrote:it was little more than a smear
Here's a bit of friendly advice:
Why don't you just program your computer to send out precisely that line every time my name appears on the web? There must be some Google-type function that would enable such a procedure.
It would save you oodles of effort in the long run, and would guarantee that your fundamental message reaches the masses who yearn to hear it.
Having done so, in the autumn of your life, rich in achievement and full of years, you'll be able to contemplate the great work that you've accomplished with contentment and satisfaction.
Well if the smear fits...
Let's face it, Dan: smearing is what you like to do. That's why you don't like anonymous posters. What fun is it to smear people when you don't know who you're smearing?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Let's face it, Dan: smearing is what you like to do.
Yes, I'm passionate about it. And when I found out that I could do it full time, and for pay, I was ecstatic.
Some people hate their jobs, but I can hardly wait to get to the office every morning.
I have to pinch myself to make sure that I'm not dreaming. I'm one of the lucky ones, no doubt about it. My hobby is my life's work.
Some Schmo wrote:That's why you don't like anonymous posters. What fun is it to smear people when you don't know who you're smearing?
A good smear is a targeted smear. When Mike Quinn was assigned to me, I was thrilled that I would be entrusted with such an important character-assassination portfolio. I knew I had arrived.
Some Schmo wrote:Let's face it, Dan: smearing is what you like to do.
Yes, I'm passionate about it. And when I found out that I could do it full time, and for pay, I was ecstatic.
Some people hate their jobs, but I can hardly wait to get to the office every morning.
I have to pinch myself to make sure that I'm not dreaming. I'm one of the lucky ones, no doubt about it. My hobby is my life's work.
Some Schmo wrote:That's why you don't like anonymous posters. What fun is it to smear people when you don't know who you're smearing?
A good smear is a targeted smear. When Mike Quinn was assigned to me, I was thrilled that I would be entrusted with such an important character-assassination portfolio. I knew I had arrived.
Wow. Well, I stand corrected. The bishop has finally taken responsibility for himself and admitted what he's done. Granted, there was no apology, but at least he's owned up to it.
I'm glad to have been instrumental in closing this case forever.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Just to add a little more effort to returning the discussion to the review...
Gee seems somewhat bent out of shape about the narrow focus of Larson's biography. In response I would say that Ferguson is interesting to the larger world primarily because of his role in Mormon, New World archaeology. Many of the things Gee comments about being missing are things that most people really don't care to know. Theme biographies are legitimate, as are biographies that illustrate particular points, or focus on particular periods of a person's life. Momigliano, great scholar that he was, was wrong when he said that a biography is basically an account of a person's life from birth to death.
Whether Ferguson was right about the Book of Mormon not being ancient (and I believe he was), his story is an account of a man who, in the face of evidence he finds convincing, loses his faith, or at least greatly modifies it. It is a great story, although it is one that has been told in connection with other faith traditions by much more skilled authors, often in the the form of a novel (veiled auto-biography in a sense).
Gee's review is not the review I would write. Where he seems to be interested in rebutting Larson in defense of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. A better question would be, in my opinion, how does this book work as a biography of lost faith? How does it compare with other such biographies? Gee consistently takes the position that the biography is really masked polemic. I would love to have seen him demonstrate that more convincingly. I would have spent less time stretching for comparanda from Egyptian archaeology that don't really work, in my view.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Yes, I'm passionate about it. And when I found out that I could do it full time, and for pay, I was ecstatic.
Some people hate their jobs, but I can hardly wait to get to the office every morning.
I have to pinch myself to make sure that I'm not dreaming. I'm one of the lucky ones, no doubt about it. My hobby is my life's work.
I know you are kidding, Dan, but that sounds a little too convincing.
I think your hobby *is* to be the guerrilla warrior in defense of Mormonism.
I don't think so. From what I've seen, Dr. Peterson is just having a little fun sending a little gentle mocking and sarcastic humor towards us critics.
Runtu wrote:I don't think so. From what I've seen, Dr. Peterson is just having a little fun sending a little gentle mocking and sarcastic humor towards us critics.
Runtu wrote:I don't think so. From what I've seen, Dr. Peterson is just having a little fun sending a little gentle mocking and sarcastic humor towards us critics.
Sure, it's all in good fun. I'll buy that. ;-)
I think that's why so many people can't stand Dr. Peterson. What he finds humorous a lot of people find hurtful and offensive. I don't often find his shtick funny, but I've long since stopped finding it personally offensive.
Runtu wrote:I don't think so. From what I've seen, Dr. Peterson is just having a little fun sending a little gentle mocking and sarcastic humor towards us critics.
True. But it's not really aimed at you or Trevor. I draw a sharp distinction between such folks as you are, and such folks as the Schmo. (Yip yip! Yip! Yip yip yip! Yip!) And then over in Mordor dwell Scratch and his ringwraith. They're in a class by themselves. Dr. Frankenstein and Igor. Count Dracula and one of the children of the night. Lex Luthor and Nigel, but not funny.
Runtu wrote:I think that's why so many people can't stand Dr. Peterson. What he finds humorous a lot of people find hurtful and offensive. I don't often find his shtick funny, but I've long since stopped finding it personally offensive.
Those people who find me hurtful and offensive are often serenely at peace with the likes of Polygamy Porter, Some Schmo, Mister Scratch, Rollo Tomasi, and the entire art of deliberate, sustained character assassination.
They've forfeited even the slightest smidgin of credibility as judges.