Plutarch wrote:How sad and pathetic, that you justify Runtu's rantings with Pahoran's ravings.
You seemed to make the initial comparison -- I was simply pointing out your absurd statement.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that the very last substantive post thereon was made by me, and nobody has even tried to respond to it. I wonder why?
A fringe clique of obsessive haters decides Dan is not a respected scholar. Meanwhile, a government minister half a world away is consulting him about his area of academic expertise.
Pahoran wrote:Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that the very last substantive post thereon was made by me, and nobody has even tried to respond to it. I wonder why?
A fringe clique of obsessive haters decides Dan is not a respected scholar. Meanwhile, a government minister half a world away is consulting him about his area of academic expertise.
Is this strange, or rather is it to be expected?
Regards, Pahoran
Well, in the first place, we only have your word for it, that the gov't official requested a meeting. And in the second place, if Daniel was in NZ anyway, and if by some obscure yet heretofore unidentified means the gov't official had heard of him, then why wouldn't he consult him? I mean, for all we know, you told the gov't official that Daniel was a world-renowned scholar and an expert in Islam Studies.
OK, I'll bite, Pahoran. Who was the government official, and how was the invitation made? I just read a press release about Dr. Peterson's tour of New Zealand and Australia wherein his visit is described as follows:
Professor Daniel Peterson will explore the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and Islamic relationships with nonMuslim nations. His visit to Australia and New Zealand in September is to enlighten opinion leaders from government, media, academic, business and religious fields.
Given this stated goal, I'd be surprised if it weren't Peterson et al. who requested the enlightening meeting.
Pahoran wrote:Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that the very last substantive post thereon was made by me, and nobody has even tried to respond to it. I wonder why?
A fringe clique of obsessive haters decides Dan is not a respected scholar. Meanwhile, a government minister half a world away is consulting him about his area of academic expertise.
Is this strange, or rather is it to be expected?
Regards, Pahoran
Well, in the first place, we only have your word for it, that the gov't official requested a meeting.
That's true.
But since no-one has yet managed to accuse me of inventing falsehoods out of whole cloth, I'm content to stand on that.
And in the second place, if Daniel was in NZ anyway, and if by some obscure yet heretofore unidentified means the gov't official had heard of him, then why wouldn't he consult him?
My point exactly. Why wouldn't he? After all, Dan is a respected scholar, the anti-Mormon lunatic fringe notwithstanding.
I mean, for all we know, you told the gov't official that Daniel was a world-renowned scholar and an expert in Islam Studies.
That's right. Dan is completely obscure and unknown, but cabinet ministers are listening to me.
Tal Bachman wrote:And lastly, this, from the current head of the very graduate program from which the world famous Arabist got his Ph.D.:
UCLA Arab Studies Chair wrote:I'm not aware of any scholarly work of his in the fields of biblical studies or Semitic languages. I'll take your word for it that he graduated from UCLA at some point in the past...Mormons generally think their beliefs are credible. I'm not aware of non-Mormon scholars who find their beliefs credible, but that's hardly surprising".
I rather suspect that the quoted email is, if not an outright fabrication, then at least the result of some very heavy-handed editorial interference.
Dan Peterson came to New Zealand a couple of months ago. While here, he was invited to meet with a government minister who was worried about immigration issues and wanted Dan's insights into Muslim beliefs and culture. I find it rather incredible--as in, non-credible--that a government minister from half way around the world would have heard of Dan in the context of his academic field, while an academic working in that field and in his own country would not. Can you explain that to me? Regards, Pahoran
This does seem most puzzling. Maybe its like Americans failing to see the genius of Jerry Lewis when the French can find him as appealing as their snails. Or maybe not. I like Dr. Daniel Peterson. If his international notoriety ellipses his domestic academic fame, then it must be a mystery. I wouldn't be surprised in he became a Presidential Adviser on the Middle East for Mitt Romney if elected.
Maybe you can enlist your clone, Wade Englund, to help you.
Look, this was a simply an experiment of Sorenson Genetic Research that went wrong. Instead of asking if it could be done, the better question would have been whether it should be done. Researchers found that in their desire to make more obedient members, they merely created more irascible ones. They labeled their experiment CASE CLOSED.
....
Last edited by Jersey Girl on Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:20 am, edited 2 times in total.