From maklelan's thread

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

From maklelan's thread

Post by _harmony »

Since I've been asked to not post on maklelan's thread, and since I'm feeling exceptionally charitable today and will acceed to his request, I thought I'd make a new thread, of what I would have posted there, had I not been so kind today. Feel free to comment as you see fit (since I never muzzle anyone).

maklelan wrote:Harmony, I'm going to speak honestly. I don't think anyone else will respond if you're taking up all the room. I started this thread to get ideas from people who are versed in this subject, and I honestly don't think you have anything you can add to my paper. Your criticisms have completely ignored my points and your responses to mine have ignored them again. Please refrain from commenting on this thread anymore. I'm asking you to not ridicule me and just let others share their critiques. Can you please do that for me?


*whistles in the corner*

*notices critiques of maklelan's word usage that are similiar to my own*

*notices lack of animosity on maklelan's part, to other posters' critiques of maklelan's word usage that are similiar to my own*

*sits patiently waiting for critiques of maklelan's points*

*notices maklelan ignoring lack of critique of his points*
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

LOL!

You have a wicked sense of humor, Harmony! ;)

To be fair, Mak did see the points that James and I were making, and also conceded to your grammatical point as well.

I honestly didn't critique the content of Mak's paper. It looked like he had sound sources for the items he was addressing.

Let's face it. Anytime you write a paper, you're going to write it from a specific perspective, and then cite sources which will back your perspective.

I think that Mak did well with this.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

Thank you liz.

Harmony, thank you for noticing my lack of animosity. You'll notice the critiques I was responded to also lacked animosity and biting sarcasm. There's a pattern there.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

maklelan wrote:Thank you liz.

Harmony, thank you for noticing my lack of animosity. You'll notice the critiques I was responded to also lacked animosity and biting sarcasm. There's a pattern there.


Yes, there is a pattern. You notice I didn't ask you to not post on my thread? (I have no doubt you not only didn't notice it, but didn't catch the irony therein) Did you notice that you place more emphasis on messenger and tone than you do on substance?

What I noticed was I pointed out the same problem with "some" that both James and Liz pointed out, and you came back at me with sword outstretched, while you accepted the same criticism from someone you considered to be your friends. What that tells me is 1) you only accept criticism from your friends (which will eventually leave you out on a limb somewhere looking like an idiot), and 2) you place more importance on the messenger and the tone than on the message (a practice that will fail you entirely at some point in your life).

Another thing I noticed is that you didn't notice they offered no critique of your paper's substance at all, preferring to point out only your grammer mistakes. And what that tells me is that you weren't serious about wanting your paper critiqued. You just wanted someone to proof read it for you, and circle the grammer mistakes with a red pencil, like a high school English teacher, instead of seriously engaging a discussion on the points themselves. Which makes you a lightweight. Ah well. Welcome to LDS apologetics. You'll fit right in.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

I honestly didn't critique the content of Mak's paper.


I noticed. I'm not sure he did.

It looked like he had sound sources for the items he was addressing.


Well, he had sources, and they may indeed be substantial, but that doesn't mean he connects the dots. I think he's very light on making those connections. Don't point it out to him, though. He doesn't want to hear that.

Let's face it. Anytime you write a paper, you're going to write it from a specific perspective, and then cite sources which will back your perspective.

I think that Mak did well with this.


He did fine at supporting his points. His problem is connecting his points to each other.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

harmony wrote:
maklelan wrote:Thank you liz.

Harmony, thank you for noticing my lack of animosity. You'll notice the critiques I was responded to also lacked animosity and biting sarcasm. There's a pattern there.


Yes, there is a pattern. You notice I didn't ask you to not post on my thread? (I have no doubt you not only didn't notice it, but didn't catch the irony therein) Did you notice that you place more emphasis on messenger and tone than you do on substance?


I did notice it, and I knew you could have two ways you could go with it after I posted.

harmony wrote:What I noticed was I pointed out the same problem with "some" that both James and Liz pointed out, and you came back at me with sword outstretched, while you accepted the same criticism from someone you considered to be your friends. What that tells me is 1) you only accept criticism from your friends (which will eventually leave you out on a limb somewhere looking like an idiot), and 2) you place more importance on the messenger and the tone than on the message (a practice that will fail you entirely at some point in your life).


What it means is that I respect the opinion of someone who respects my opinion and doesn't incessantly jump at the opportunity to try to assert their moral and intellectual superiority.

harmony wrote:Another thing I noticed is that you didn't notice they offered no critique of your paper's substance at all, preferring to point out only your grammer mistakes. And what that tells me is that you weren't serious about wanting your paper critiqued. You just wanted someone to proof read it for you, and circle the grammer mistakes with a red pencil, like a high school English teacher, instead of seriously engaging a discussion on the points themselves. Which makes you a lightweight. Ah well. Welcome to LDS apologetics. You'll fit right in.


Actually, I was hoping they would critique the content. I'm still hoping more people come forward to offer more insights. CaliforniaKid helped a bunch. You're guessing about my intentions, and what others do has nothing to do with what I would like them to do. If they only copy edit that does not prove that I only wanted them to copy edit.

I see you still can't resist taking a pot shot at others who have nothing to do with our conversation.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Post by _maklelan »

harmony wrote:
I honestly didn't critique the content of Mak's paper.


I noticed. I'm not sure he did.

It looked like he had sound sources for the items he was addressing.


Well, he had sources, and they may indeed be substantial, but that doesn't mean he connects the dots. I think he's very light on making those connections. Don't point it out to him, though. He doesn't want to hear that.

Let's face it. Anytime you write a paper, you're going to write it from a specific perspective, and then cite sources which will back your perspective.

I think that Mak did well with this.


He did fine at supporting his points. His problem is connecting his points to each other.


Actually I've been asking you and everyone else to do just that all along, but you refuse. Again you make assumptions about my intentions and pawn them off as gospel truth without so much as a single piece of evidence for them.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Actually, I was hoping they would critique the content. I'm still hoping more people come forward to offer more insights. CaliforniaKid helped a bunch. You're guessing about my intentions, and what others do has nothing to do with what I would like them to do. If they only copy edit that does not prove that I only wanted them to copy edit.

I see you still can't resist taking a pot shot at others who have nothing to do with our conversation.


My problem isn't with the first part of your paper. I think you probably know your stuff and have it correctly attributed. What I disagree with is your connecting the ECF stuff to Joseph Smith and the modern church. You bring in non-canonical writings and give them the weight of the canon/doctrine. That is incorrect. Make sure of your doctrinal foundation, then move on to the connection or lack thereof to ECF and the rest of your paper. The best way to get your doctrinal foundation set is to use the canon. At least there, you won't get tied up in the rampant speculation that passed for revelation in the early LDS church.

And I agree with Celestial Kingdom as to the motives for most LDS searching or studying the ECF. They want to connect the early church with the modern LDS church, and they'll go through corkscrews in order to do it.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Re: From maklelan's thread

Post by _Who Knows »

harmony wrote:Since I've been asked to not post on maklelan's thread, and since I'm feeling exceptionally charitable today and will acceed to his request...


Wow, look at that - this happened without moderator intervention - no one had to be put on the Q - no one had to be warned. Hmm, people can be civil i guess...
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Post Reply