DiscussMormonism.com

On the MAD board there's the group "pundit". How does one become a pundit? Anyone got the lowdown?

I was just asking because some posters who I think would be pundits (cinepro, Uncle Dale, etc) aren't and some who are (no comment) shouldn't be.

Bond

Hi there,

My guess is a Pundit is somebody who Posts pretty regularly on the MA&D Board, who the Moderators over there think is really smart.

Brackite wrote:Hi there,

My guess is a Pundit is somebody who Posts pretty regularly on the MA&D Board, who the Moderators over there think is really smart.

The top 7 posters aren't pundits. I guess it has something to do with smarts.

Bond...James Bond wrote:On the MAD board there's the group "pundit". How does one become a pundit? Anyone got the lowdown?

I was just asking because some posters who I think would be pundits (cinepro, Uncle Dale, etc) aren't and some who are (no comment) shouldn't be.

Bond

No matter how you cut it, why isn't Uncle Dale a pundit? Or Tarski, for that matter?

There doesn't seem to be any rule about who is granted pundit status. Since pundits are allowed to post on (most, but not all) threads in the pundit folder, you would think they'd pick anyone who demonstrated a steady level of knowledge, intellectual rigor, disciplined communication, etc.

I became a pundit by invitation because the moderator Oreos/Argos wanted to move a thread, where I was a principal contributor, into the secure folder. I thought the same thing would happen to Tarski vs. E=mc2, but Kerry Shirts wouldn't commit to a formal debate.

The Dude wrote:No matter how you cut it, why isn't Uncle Dale a pundit? Or Tarski, for that matter?

There doesn't seem to be any rule about who is granted pundit status. Since pundits are allowed to post on (most, but not all) threads in the pundit folder, you would think they'd pick anyone who demonstrated a steady level of knowledge, intellectual rigor, disciplined communication, etc.

I became a pundit by invitation because the moderator Oreos/Argos wanted to move a thread, where I was a principal contributor, into the secure folder. I thought the same thing would happen to Tarski vs. E=mc2, but Kerry Shirts wouldn't commit to a formal debate.

I would also put Tarski and Uncle Dale at the top of the "should be" pundit list. Even from my limited experience I can tell those guys got their crap together on LDS history.

Bond

Edit: I wonder if this thread will get those guys the pundit status.

Note that Pahoran is not a Pundit. And he's no slouch with knowledge. So before we cry foul, think. I agree it's not consistent, but it's not entirely inconsistent either. Some very knowledgeable TBM defenders have never made Pundit status.

Ray A wrote:Note that Pahoran is not a Pundit. And he's no slouch with knowledge. So before we cry foul, think. I agree it's not consistent, but it's not entirely inconsistent either. Some very knowledgeable TBM defenders have never made Pundit status.

Pahoran was next on my list. Actually he is probably at the top of my list since he's such a defender. Also BCSpace, Benjamin McGuire, cinepro for sure...

I wasn't trying to put forth the idea that some critics were "getting the shaft" in the honorary title department by the way. I just wondered if there were any criteria for the title. After looking at the list (hey I found out MAD has a search feature) I'd say there are no criteria beyond the Mods opinion (and for allowing people into the pundits forum).

Bond

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Ray A wrote:Note that Pahoran is not a Pundit. And he's no slouch with knowledge. So before we cry foul, think. I agree it's not consistent, but it's not entirely inconsistent either. Some very knowledgeable TBM defenders have never made Pundit status.

Pahoran was next on my list. Actually he is probably at the top of my list since he's such a defender

He's been a defender since water was invented. Vogel and Metcalfe have been traditional critics, yet both are Pundits.

It would be unnecessary to have Pahoran on a scholarly forum where no one needs to be attacked. Of course, it could liven things up if the conversation became too boring - however, most scholars have immunized themselves from boredom.

moksha wrote:It would be unnecessary to have Pahoran on a scholarly forum where no one needs to be attacked. Of course, it could liven things up if the conversation became too boring - however, most scholars have immunized themselves from boredom.

I believe Moksha has it right. The reason Pahoran isn't a pundit is because there is no need for pit bulls in what they're trying to keep as a scholarly forum. His propensity to attack would defeat the purpose of the forum.

As for the others who are not yet granted that status, it seems that one must have a thread in the pundit forum, either by being started there or being moved there. Evidently Tarski et al have not yet been granted that privilege.

PS. Dude, Kerry may not be the smartest artist in the world, but he's no fool. He knows he's not up to Tarski's intellectual capabilities and no doubt prefers to make sure the rest of the world is unaware of his deficiency in that department as long as possible. Tarski would mop the floor with Kerry.