for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories

[_mormonstories]

Thank you, Water Dog. Please reach out to me in real life if you are willing/able. I'd be more than happy to turn over the mic to someone as thoughtful as you. No joke. johndehlin@gmail.com

[_Yahoo Bot]

John Dehlin should be open to public criticism, having made himself a public figure. John Dehlin is mormonstories, and so a critique of him is a critique of his website.

I can't really stand Dr. Smith's writing so I've never read it, but did he get into some personal aspect of Dehlin's life which was not public knowledge?

[_sock puppet]

John Dehlin should be open to public criticism, having made himself a public figure. John Dehlin is mormonstories, and so a critique of him is a critique of his website.

I can't really stand Dr. Smith's writing so I've never read it, but did he get into some personal aspect of Dehlin's life which was not public knowledge?

It's quite the dossier Smith put together on Dehlin. Something one might expect from operatives for covert ops of a totalitarian regime.

[_Yahoo Bot]

It's quite the dossier Smith put together on Dehlin. Something one might expect from operatives for covert ops of a totalitarian regime.

I see my challenge has gone unmet to point out any part of the Smith analysis which is not based upon Dehlin's public persona. That is fair game, in my opinion. Unless the analysis is from an anonymous boob, and then it is not fair game.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

It's quite the dossier Smith put together on Dehlin. Something one might expect from operatives for covert ops of a totalitarian regime.

I see my challenge has gone unmet to point out any part of the Smith analysis which is not based upon Dehlin's public persona. That is fair game, in my opinion. Unless the analysis is from an anonymous boob, and then it is not fair game.

Did you read the opening post of this thread? Rollo goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the personal attacks that Smith lobs against Dehlin. I think that most here just feel that your challenge was already met in the OP by Rollo.

Would you mind pointing out some specific attacks that Smith made that you feel are "fair game" due to Dehlin's public persona?

[_sock puppet]

It's quite the dossier Smith put together on Dehlin. Something one might expect from operatives for covert ops of a totalitarian regime.

I see my challenge has gone unmet to point out any part of the Smith analysis which is not based upon Dehlin's public persona. That is fair game, in my opinion. Unless the analysis is from an anonymous boob, and then it is not fair game.

Are you second guessing the GA's decision to tamp down against NAMIRS publication of Smith's diatribe aimed at destroying Dehlin?

[_Kishkumen]

Did you read the opening post of this thread? Rollo goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the personal attacks that Smith lobs against Dehlin. I think that most here just feel that your challenge was already met in the OP by Rollo.

Would you mind pointing out some specific attacks that Smith made that you feel are "fair game" due to Dehlin's public persona?

I am not as bothered by the fact that Smith criticized Dehlin as I am by his distortions of what Dehlin said. Bot's pseudo-point is another of his red herrings. Honest discussion isn't exactly his thing, just as honest criticism is not Greg Smith's thing.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I am not as bothered by the fact that Smith criticized Dehlin as I am by his distortions of what Dehlin said. Bot's pseudo-point is another of his red herrings. Honest discussion isn't exactly his thing, just as honest criticism is not Greg Smith's thing.

Untrue. You and your apostrophe-challenged and anonymous pals simply marginalize your opponents in this forum by characterizing their discussion as "dishonest" or "trollish" or other such labeling to avoid discussion.

What is, really, a personal attack [back to Pinkman's comments]? Is that off-limits for a public figure? No, it isn't.

Is a sardonic, smarmy discussion of one's public posting and writings in a way calculated to marginalize and humiliate somehow dishonest or unethical? No, although it may turn off a_l_o_t [sic] here and there.

Rather, the question I continue to post [and I am interested, because I don't like Greg Smith's writing or topics] is whether Dr. Smith dredged up personal non-public information about Dehlin? For instance, statements from his stake president whispered to others; statements from friends; wife; whatever? Now that would be interesting and that would be wrong.

I guess the answer to my question is -- "no."

[_sock puppet]

I am not as bothered by the fact that Smith criticized Dehlin as I am by his distortions of what Dehlin said. Bot's pseudo-point is another of his red herrings. Honest discussion isn't exactly his thing, just as honest criticism is not Greg Smith's thing.

Untrue. You and your apostrophe-challenged and anonymous pals simply marginalize your opponents in this forum by characterizing their discussion as "dishonest" or "trollish" or other such labeling to avoid discussion.

What is, really, a personal attack [back to Pinkman's comments]? Is that off-limits for a public figure? No, it isn't.

Is a sardonic, smarmy discussion of one's public posting and writings in a way calculated to marginalize and humiliate somehow dishonest or unethical? No, although it may turn off a_l_o_t [sic] here and there.

Rather, the question I continue to post [and I am interested, because I don't like Greg Smith's writing or topics] is whether Dr. Smith dredged up personal non-public information about Dehlin? For instance, statements from his stake president whispered to others; statements from friends; wife; whatever? Now that would be interesting and that would be wrong.

I guess the answer to my question is -- "no."

Do you think it wrong, dishonest (see Oaks' talk on 9/12/1993) for Smith to have assembled information, all public, and present it out of context and in such a way as to be misleading to the reader?

Do you think it would have been appropriate for a church funded organ, NAMIRS, to have published a hit-piece aimed at anyone?

[_Kishkumen]

Untrue. You and your apostrophe-challenged and anonymous pals simply marginalize your opponents in this forum by characterizing their discussion as "dishonest" or "trollish" or other such labeling to avoid discussion.

It is abundantly true, as has been demonstrated countless times on this forum, and in detail. Your history of bending the truth to make other people look bad is well established. Greg Smith's treatment of John Dehlin's public posts is exactly the same. The only difference is the style and medium in which he undertook to distort Dehlin's record.

What is, really, a personal attack [back to Pinkman's comments]? Is that off-limits for a public figure? No, it isn't.

Off-limits in what sense? Legally? Ethically? Morally? Be specific. I think it shows your and Smith's bad character that you and he distort others' words in order to make them look bad. I don't think it is ethical or moral. Can you get away with it legally? Sure. Does that place this low behavior above criticism? No.

Is a sardonic, smarmy discussion of one's public posting and writings in a way calculated to marginalize and humiliate somehow dishonest or unethical? No, although it may turn off a_l_o_t [sic] here and there.

Twisting others' words is dishonest and unethical. Period. You regularly engage in this behavior. Smith did in his "review" of John Dehlin.

Rather, the question I continue to post [and I am interested, because I don't like Greg Smith's writing or topics] is whether Dr. Smith dredged up personal non-public information about Dehlin? For instance, statements from his stake president whispered to others; statements from friends; wife; whatever? Now that would be interesting and that would be wrong.

I guess the answer to my question is -- "no."

Well, it is no surprise to me, based on your record here, that we disagree. I think it is immoral to misrepresent others. Since we are familiar with your own habit of doing this, it is not surprising to us that you have no problem with it.