In the exchange below, FAIR administrator Mike Parker deleted all but my first post to the thread. Point is, I caught him red handed spying on the search history instead of just responding to the discussion and then he tried to delete the evidence.
On the fairblog thread (linked), I posted:
mormography Says:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Allen Wyatt,
To be clear, you did not deny that the highly unusually charges against a lapse Mormon following his publication of academic analysis upsetting to Mormon leadership constituted an ad hominem attack. You only denied attribution of the charges to FAIR/FARMS.
Mike Parker followed up with this:
mormongraphy: Your comment makes some very curious claims.
• What were the "charges" against Grant Palmer? Who made them? Why were they "highly unusually" [sic]?
• In what way was Grant Palmer's book an "academic analysis," rather than simply irresponsible conjecture?
• In what way was Palmer's book "upsetting to Mormon leadership"? Who were the leaders who were upset? How do you know they were upset?
• If FAIR and FARMS were not responsible for these charges, then who is? And why should FAIR or FARMS receive all the blame for them, as they do?
To which I responded:
That is hilarious.
Allen Wyatt's post above is about Simon Southerton. Nowhere in the thread do I see someone referencing Grant Palmer. I have also check
recent post I do not see reference to Grant Palmer, so why the confusion with Grant Palmer?
Could it be that before posting I did some searches on Grant Palmer among other things? What an amazing coincidence. Mike Parker just happened to confuse my comment and wrongfully thought of Grant Palmer. Could it be that instead of just engaging in legitimate discussion he had an urge to spy on my search history resulting in a bizarre retort?
Given Mike Parker's playing dumb line of question regarding Grant Palmer, my conclusion would be that he will also play dumb regarding Simon Southerton. So in his mind the Mormon leadership indeed does routinely seek out and charge lapse Mormons with sexual indiscretion and for the life of him he just can't see why non-Apologist find this to fail the reasonable person smell test.
But I get it. In addition to being an irresponsible academic hack, Southerton is a vexed soul struggling with sexual naughtiness, which of course has nothing to do how easily his conjectures are debunk, but may be the motivation to why he is blind to the error of his sophomoric reasoning.
Anyways, I would be more interested in knowing if the byline of the post Allen Wyatt concurs with Mike Parker.
To which Mike Parker emailed:
My mistake. It's been a month since the original blog post; I responded to your comment via email without reading the OP, and mistook the subject matter entirely. I should have read the OP for context first. I withdraw my comment, and apologize for the error. Mike Parker
On the fairblog thread (linked), I posted:
mormography Says:
June 10th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Allen Wyatt,
To be clear, you did not deny that the highly unusually charges against a lapse Mormon following his publication of academic analysis upsetting to Mormon leadership constituted an ad hominem attack. You only denied attribution of the charges to FAIR/FARMS.
Mike Parker followed up with this:
mormongraphy: Your comment makes some very curious claims.
• What were the "charges" against Grant Palmer? Who made them? Why were they "highly unusually" [sic]?
• In what way was Grant Palmer's book an "academic analysis," rather than simply irresponsible conjecture?
• In what way was Palmer's book "upsetting to Mormon leadership"? Who were the leaders who were upset? How do you know they were upset?
• If FAIR and FARMS were not responsible for these charges, then who is? And why should FAIR or FARMS receive all the blame for them, as they do?
To which I responded:
That is hilarious.
Allen Wyatt's post above is about Simon Southerton. Nowhere in the thread do I see someone referencing Grant Palmer. I have also check
recent post I do not see reference to Grant Palmer, so why the confusion with Grant Palmer?
Could it be that before posting I did some searches on Grant Palmer among other things? What an amazing coincidence. Mike Parker just happened to confuse my comment and wrongfully thought of Grant Palmer. Could it be that instead of just engaging in legitimate discussion he had an urge to spy on my search history resulting in a bizarre retort?
Given Mike Parker's playing dumb line of question regarding Grant Palmer, my conclusion would be that he will also play dumb regarding Simon Southerton. So in his mind the Mormon leadership indeed does routinely seek out and charge lapse Mormons with sexual indiscretion and for the life of him he just can't see why non-Apologist find this to fail the reasonable person smell test.
But I get it. In addition to being an irresponsible academic hack, Southerton is a vexed soul struggling with sexual naughtiness, which of course has nothing to do how easily his conjectures are debunk, but may be the motivation to why he is blind to the error of his sophomoric reasoning.
Anyways, I would be more interested in knowing if the byline of the post Allen Wyatt concurs with Mike Parker.
To which Mike Parker emailed:
My mistake. It's been a month since the original blog post; I responded to your comment via email without reading the OP, and mistook the subject matter entirely. I should have read the OP for context first. I withdraw my comment, and apologize for the error. Mike Parker
No comments:
Post a Comment