Bob Crockett writes on the Internet: "I now regret reading all the book reviews I've read over the years, particularly the critical ones. I didn't realize I was reading "hit pieces.'"

I am convinced Bob has no idea the difference between a hit piece and a review. With Bob being an expert at writing hit pieces in which he claims are reviews, the above is not surprising.

But the real question is; should a review be a "hit piece?" FARMS has used their review journal as both. Many reviews have been scholarly and informative, but most seem to be attacks and many have been actual "character assassinations" such as when Stephen Robinson writes "Korihor's back, and this time he's got a printing press" or much of Greg Smith's attack on George Smith. The amount of ink and paper wasted on Grant Palmer's "An Insiders View" is another case in point. Davis Bitton and Lou Midgley attacks be the worst of the bunch.

This idea that Peterson and co. can claim a personal attack on a person's life some how fits into a review journal (and call it a critique) lacks any kind of scholarship, particularly when this person has not written a book.

Hit pieces reveal two things:
1. Your arguments are so weak that instead of attacking ideas you attack the character of the author.
2. In the case of apologists, it reveals that their conviction in following the gospel of Jesus only applies when convenient. The attacks on character are inherently unchristian and reveal as much about the character of the attacker as the target.

When I was on my mission (everyone falls asleep...)

...anyway, long ago at the bookstore next to our mission office in San Berdoo, I saw a book written by a lawyer-apologist (Was it Welch? Don't think so.) about apologetics. It basically argued that apologetics was like being a lawyer. Implicit in that was the idea that you are not out to discover the truth or share the truth with others in apologetics, you know what your task is and you will use all of your rhetorical power to achieve it.

Crockett, on the other board, is that guy. Whether in the courtroom, or as an apologist, he will say just about anything to win. He is satisfied that he is in the right to begin with, so whatever kind of trick it takes after that is OK because the end justifies the means. And he has told some incredible doozies in his time in order to achieve his goals. Only he knows how he feels about all of that, but I won't excuse it. He is fine enough with it to continue.

I think that some of the other seasoned apologists do the same kind of thing. It is a game to them. It is a war to them. They are convicted of the rightness of the cause. They have the truth. They will do what it takes to win. Some of those folks are clearly into getting into people's faces. They have seen the anti-Mormons with the signs at Temple Square so many times that they feel they need to get back in the faces of those who go after the LDS Church.

I guess they don't realize that some of us don't like those guys yelling at us on Temple Square, and we don't like them to compete in the "getting in your face" business. But I feel comfortable saying that Louis Midgley in particular is the guy who doesn't give a crap what I or just about any other person thinks about this, and he will continue to do it. That's just how he is. Pahoran is that guy on the boards.

I don't feel like I am insulting them in saying this. I hope I am just describing what it is they do. I am pretty sure they believe they are right in doing things this way.

Edited to add: by the way, when I say any rhetorical trick to win, I would include misleading people who are your allies.

Hey, the proceedings of the Salem Witch Trials would not have been so harsh if not for the spells those witches were casting on the young girls of Salem. You might say that the approach taken by Professor Midgley in his interrogations with Grant Palmer's students, friends, family and co-workers was reminiscent of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and unbecoming to the role of an academician, but you would then be trivializing the extent to which Palmer's history revelations would corrupt the youth of Athens. So there.

Yes, the threat of witchcraft and communist infiltrators has been greatly underestimated in human history, moksha. Excellent point.

At least we can be relieved that Socrates, the "witches," and the "communists" were all appropriately executed or shunned.

We should really pin this thread so folks can gradually add examples as they have time. We need to organize them for future reference. I have a few I plan to post here when I get back from celebrating my 10th anniversary here in Las Vegas. It looks like much has happened since I've been gone, I have a lot of catching up to do when I get back.

Let's not forget the blistering critique by Dan Vogel after FARMS took Andrew Hedges off of his leash:

http://signaturebooks.com/2011/09/seein ... -w-hedges/

Hello,

Bob's fascination with IRL identity simply extends to his perpetual outing on this board.

- VRDRC