Okey doke---one of my spies has located the post in question. It was not Hammer who said the offending things, it was "DiggerDan." Read it and weep:
Diggerdan60 wrote:What is the hang-up with killing women and children in this instance? I personally think if once all the men were dead killing the rest was the most humane thing to do. What are the alternatives. Leave a wagon train of women and children to fend for themselves to continue on or return to Missouri? Take the women in as additional polygamus wives?
Abandoning the women and children would surely lead to their death. And taking all the women for wives would reflect more negatively today on this board.
Yes this was a tragic event, but we live in a totally different world today, and judging the thoughts and feelings of these people that led to these events, by our current modern standards is judging in ignorance.
(emphasis added)
So, while he doesn't appear to be saying MMM was "positive", per se, he is definitely saying that it was "humane" to slaughter the women and children. Pretty disturbing.
Last edited by Physics Guy on Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel Peterson wrote:For what it's worth, my mendacious and malevolent stalker over at the Shades Obsession Board claims that at least somebody here feels positively about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I don't recall ever seeing anything here to that effect, but, of course, I could be mistaken. Unlikely as it is, my stalker could, for once, actually be telling the truth. I mean, it's not totally inconceivable . . .
Anyway, if such a massacre fan actually exists, I hope that he or she will come forward. Don't be shy! If you believe that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a good thing, say so!
Unless I'm mistaken, the poster in question was Hammer. (Perhaps Kevin Graham can confirm this, or somebody with searching privileges at MAD.) I believe Hammer's remark was something to the effect that those slaughtered were "better off," since the survivors had to live with the pain of knowing that their family had been killed. Or something like that. The point is that I'm pretty sure it was Hammer.
I think you may be right. I remember someone saying it, and I wish I could remember who it was. As I said, I don't remember the exact statement, but I'm pretty certain someone said that. If I could search over there, I'd probably be able to find it.
I am kind of surprised to hear him refer to me at all, let alone to call me a "mendacious and malevolent stalker." I've had a few interactions with Dr. Peterson over the years, and they've been pretty much positive. If you're reading this, Daniel, can you tell me in what way I've stalked you, alliteratively or otherwise?
Daniel Peterson wrote:For what it's worth, my mendacious and malevolent stalker over at the Shades Obsession Board claims that at least somebody here feels positively about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I don't recall ever seeing anything here to that effect, but, of course, I could be mistaken. Unlikely as it is, my stalker could, for once, actually be telling the truth. I mean, it's not totally inconceivable . . .
Anyway, if such a massacre fan actually exists, I hope that he or she will come forward. Don't be shy! If you believe that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a good thing, say so!
Unless I'm mistaken, the poster in question was Hammer. (Perhaps Kevin Graham can confirm this, or somebody with searching privileges at MAD.) I believe Hammer's remark was something to the effect that those slaughtered were "better off," since the survivors had to live with the pain of knowing that their family had been killed. Or something like that. The point is that I'm pretty sure it was Hammer.
I think you may be right. I remember someone saying it, and I wish I could remember who it was. As I said, I don't remember the exact statement, but I'm pretty certain someone said that. If I could search over there, I'd probably be able to find it.
I am kind of surprised to hear him refer to me at all, let alone to call me a "mendacious and malevolent stalker." I've had a few interactions with Dr. Peterson over the years, and they've been pretty much positive. If you're reading this, Daniel, can you tell me in what way I've stalked you, alliteratively or otherwise?
Runtu---
It turns out that his post was merely the result of sloppy reading/writing on his part. He was actually referring to me.
It turns out that his post was merely the result of sloppy reading/writing on his part. He was actually referring to me.
College professors, world-renowned scholars, most prominent church apologists on the planet, brilliant, newsworthy, and erudite... and he was merely being sloppy? Boy, that's a disappointment. The idol has feet of clay after all?
It turns out that his post was merely the result of sloppy reading/writing on his part. He was actually referring to me.
College professors, world-renowned scholars, most prominent church apologists on the planet, brilliant, newsworthy, and erudite... and he was merely being sloppy? Boy, that's a disappointment. The idol has feet of clay after all?
I just hate these cross-board lobbings of insults. I hardly ever think about Dr. Peterson, and he implies that I'm a liar on a board where I'm not allowed to defend myself. Sorry, but that's not very nice.
Thanks for the quote, Scratch, it's quite a lovely example of the genre.
I love how he manages to work in the "presentism" charge, too. Yes, indeed, those were different times. How dare we judge past throat slitters by own biased, non-throat slitting, present-day attitudes!
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:Thanks for the quote, Scratch, it's quite a lovely example of the genre.
I love how he manages to work in the "presentism" charge, too. Yes, indeed, those were different times. How dare we judge past throat slitters by own biased, non-throat slitting, present-day attitudes!
That's the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks!
Presentism is the most ridiculous argument in the apologist's repertoire. "We only disapprove of polygamy and polyandry because we don't live in the 19th century."