Recovery from MAD

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:20 pm

CaliforniaKid wrote:Juliann started yet another of her driveby threads over there this morning. And of course only the pro-mos are allowed to participate.

Well what do you expect? Discussion? Not on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion!

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:24 pm

asbestosman wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Who among those saints would do such a thing?

Dr. Peterson? Julian? Pahoran? Me?

Yeah you would. ;o)

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:37 am

Bond...James Bond wrote: One board's trash is another board's poster.

Having been kicked to the curb repeatedly, I'd like to object to this particular turn of phrase. Just because one is banned from MAD (or ZLMB or LDStalk or... nevermind) doesn't make one "trash". It simply means one doesn't get along with the mod squad and/or the owners very well. Even as a Pickle.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:07 am

harmony wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote: One board's trash is another board's poster.

Having been kicked to the curb repeatedly, I'd like to object to this particular turn of phrase. Just because one is banned from MAD (or ZLMB or LDStalk or... nevermind) doesn't make one "trash". It simply means one doesn't get along with the mod squad and/or the owners very well. Even as a Pickle.

Should I alter the phrase to "One board's Dill is another person's poster?"

Post by **_Zoidberg** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:08 am

barrelomonkeys wrote:I just am slightly uncomfortable with the way Charity is apparently made the poster child for a certain "type" of LDS.

I quite agree that she's an extreme case and judgements shouldn't be made about all LDS or even a certain type of LDS based solely on her. I also don't doubt that her intentions are good. So I really don't mind her at all; I do mind her attitudes and "advice".

On a related note, Pahoran really surprised me by casting a vote for debanning me on MAD. But then he suspects that I'm someone's sockpuppet. I wonder whose?

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:18 am

I don't understand those people. For two days now I've had cdowis calling me intellectually arrogant and stupid and whatever because I don't agree with his assessment of how Mesoamerican history lines up with the Book of Mormon. I hope I was never like that as an apologist. If Mormonism is true, surely God does not want His followers ridiculing others like that.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:39 am

cdowis is hopeless. He combines condescension with minimal understanding of Mesoamerica. He has latched onto the idea that since most mesoamerican texts were burned by the spaniards, that means that we can know almost *nothing* about the history of the place. To him, archaeologists just look at a bunch of ruins and make wild guesses. Yet, actual archaeologists know that "dirt" is just as important as text, and more reliable, since text tends to be propaganda.

He's also a classic example of confirmation bias. I've seen him repeat arguments that he used on Z, only to have them torn apart by people who knew better. None if it registers with him. He repeats it all in a few months as if the former conversation never happened.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:54 am

by the way, Brant has used that 378 date, when Teotihuacan's influence began to be more felt, as some sort of correlation with the Book of Mormon. However, it is very problematic, because that date is notable for the reason that it signaled an alteration in the type of warfare that took place in Mesoamerica. Prior to that date, warfare was not designed to completely overtake another polity. Polities did not have the population base to carry on conquest wars of that nature, and wars were often designed mainly to obtain victims for later ritual sacrifice.

So the problem this presents for the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon describes conquest warfares far earlier than 378, which is anachronistic. When Brant and I argued over this point in the past, he handled it by insisting I didn't understand the Book of Mormon, and insisting it didn't describe conquest warfare at all. That is utter nonsense.

I went into this at length in my essay here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... er#Warfare

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:13 am

beastie wrote:cdowis is hopeless. He combines condescension with minimal understanding of Mesoamerica. He has latched onto the idea that since most mesoamerican texts were burned by the spaniards, that means that we can know almost *nothing* about the history of the place. To him, archaeologists just look at a bunch of ruins and make wild guesses. Yet, actual archaeologists know that "dirt" is just as important as text, and more reliable, since text tends to be propaganda.

He's also a classic example of confirmation bias. I've seen him repeat arguments that he used on Z, only to have them torn apart by people who knew better. None if it registers with him. He repeats it all in a few months as if the former conversation never happened.

I think I'm done with him. He has Juliann's sneering but not her intellect.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:33 am

Zoidberg wrote:
barrelomonkeys wrote:I just am slightly uncomfortable with the way Charity is apparently made the poster child for a certain "type" of LDS.

I quite agree that she's an extreme case and judgements shouldn't be made about all LDS or even a certain type of LDS based solely on her.

Actually, I know Mormons just like her in terms of their attitudes, and their ignorance, and naïve arguments that they think are so powerful. I use Charity as a stereotype for a certain kind of Mormon because IMHO she is a stereotype for a certain type of Mormon.