NY Times blog piece on FLDS and LDS - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 04-25-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters, Egan has two Pulitzers in history. Does he qualify as a historian?

If he quotes Krakauer, then no, he is not a historian, but likely a hack like Krakauer. Bank on it.

Goatnapper'96 · 04-25-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've read Under the Banner of Heaven and Into Thin Air, you FH.

If you have read Under the Banner of Heaven, I would think you agree with Mike. It wasn't a very good book and certainly would disqualify Krakauer as an expert on LDS culture/history.

Good to see my boy Deloy still getting pub.

MikeWaters · 04-25-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Under the Banner got some facts wrong, but the premise was right on target.

Bullshit.

Quote:

Mainstream Mormons believe in a God that can and will sometimes order his followers to flout the law of the land. Mainstream Mormons believe that whether it is from the mouth of the president of the church or from God's mouth, it is the same. The mainstream Mormon church has a history of actually flouting the law and defying the government. Mainstream Mormons believe that Abraham was literally ordered by God to kill Issac and mainstream Mormons actually carried out the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

More bullshit.

Quote:

The book doesn't pretend that mainstream Mormons are today bloodthirsty polygamists, but it makes the valid point that the history and doctrine of the mainstream church will always tend to spin off wackos at a greater rate than, say, Lutherans or Baptists. The book then highlights the Lafferteys as example A.

Bullshit.

Quote:

That he got some facts wrong doesn't negate the essential truth of what he was saying.

You have gone from someone who was interesting and provocative to someone who is essentially cruel and shitty.

It's been interesting to watch. But it's getting less and less interesting.

Indy Coug · 04-25-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You have gone from someone who was interesting and provocative to someone who is essentially cruel and shitty.

It's been interesting to watch. But it's getting less and less interesting.

Wow, even Mike is getting fed up. Speaks volumes.

SeattleUte · 04-25-2008, 09:24 PM

Unlike Krakauer Brodie got her facts all right and all you can quibble with is some of her conclusions. My main quibble with Banner is it was mostly quite derivative primarily of Brodie and not nearly as well crafted. I liked Thin Air better.

SeattleUte · 04-25-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bullshit.

More bullshit.

Bullshit.

You have gone from someone who was interesting and provocative to someone who is essentially cruel and shitty.

It's been interesting to watch. But it's getting less and less interesting.

Mike, Adam is making a reasoned argument. There is room for disagreement. You can respond substantively but instead you are the one being cruel and shitty. Your post speaks for itself: "Bullshit ... More bullshit." How intelligent. Your post is just bullshit.

SeattleUte · 04-25-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Speaks volumes.

Bullshit. Waters gets hot when someone bests his capacity to provoke.

MikeWaters · 04-25-2008, 09:34 PM

I don't want to rehash what has already been discussed, but I've talked to someone who knew, grew up with, and played with the Laffertys.

Krakauer missed the boat so bad, I can only suspect it was intentional. The Lafferty's father was bizarre, cuckoo, and cruel. Hmmm, I wonder if kids raised by such a father or more likely to be violent and rationalize violence?

And where is this information in Krakauer's book? Nowhere. Not mentioned at all.

Why? Because it devastates his hypothesis, which was a stretch in the first place.

Krakauer is a dishonest hack.

SeattleUte · 04-25-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't want to rehash what has already been discussed, but I've talked to someone who knew, grew up with, and played with the Laffertys.

Krakauer missed the boat so bad, I can only suspect it was intentional. The Lafferty's father was bizarre, cuckoo, and cruel. Hmmm, I wonder if kids raised by such a father or more likely to be violent and rationalize violence?

And where is this information in Krakauer's book? Nowhere. Not mentioned at all.

Why? Because it devastates his hypothesis, which was a stretch in the first place.

Krakauer is a dishonest hack.

Bullshit....Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit

il Padrino Ute · 04-25-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Bullshit....Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit

Link?

04-25-2008, 09:24 PM	#15
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Unlike Krakauer Brodie got her facts all right and all you can quibble with is some of her conclusions. My main quibble with Banner is it was mostly quite derivative primarily of Brodie and not nearly as well crafted. I liked Thin Air better. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 04-25-2008 at 09:27 PM.

04-25-2008, 09:34 PM	#18
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I don't want to rehash what has already been discussed, but I've talked to someone who knew, grew up with, and played with the Laffertys. Krakauer missed the boat so bad, I can only suspect it was intentional. The Lafferty's father was bizarre, cuckoo, and cruel. Hmmm, I wonder if kids raised by such a father or more likely to be violent and rationalize violence? And where is this information in Krakauer's book? Nowhere. Not mentioned at all. Why? Because it devastates his hypothesis, which was a stretch in the first place. Krakauer is a dishonest hack.