MHA Annual Meetings

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by creekster

The meat of the issue? Are you trying to be obnoxious?

I mean the meat of the evidence. Of course records of most everything that happened leading up to the event has been destroyed or lost, either intentionally or due to the passage of time. There is more known about the cover-up and the lack of investigation or prosecution and even lack of respectful treatment of the victims bodies after the fact, and if you ask me it is quite revealing.

Now you can disagree, then say, "No I don't think the LDS employed historians are biased", you could say, "No, what happened aftward makes no difference in determining the cause and responsibility", but why turn the thread into an attack on me and my character?

What is so "obnoxious" about merely pointing out that the research by people employed by and sworn to loyalty to the parties that are thought to be responsible for this tragedy are not, and really cannot, be unbiased?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I mean the meat of the evidence. Of course records of most everything that happened leading up to the event has been destroyed or lost, either intentionally or due to the passage of time. There is more known about the cover-up and the lack of investigation or prosecution and even lack of respectful treatment of the victims bodies after the fact, and if you ask me it is quite revealing.

Now you can disagree, then say, "No I don't think the LDS employed historians are biased", you could say, "No, what happened aftward makes no difference in determining the cause and responsibility", but why turn the thread into an attack on me and my character?

What is so "obnoxious" about merely pointing out that the research by people employed by and sworn to loyalty to the parties that are thought to be responsible for this tragedy are not, and really cannot, be unbiased?

Nobody is arguing that they won't have a biased viewpoint. That doesn't completely discount the value of their scholarship. Also, your post about avoiding the aftermath seems a bit odd given this quote from the article:

Turley said the authors came to the conclusion that there are really two stories: the one they've written about why the massacre occurred and who was involved, and another — yet to be written — about the aftermath.
He said the authors were "surprised by what we were able to find in our own institution and others about that" second part of the story. No mention was made of when that book will be written.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nobody is arguing that they won't have a biased viewpoint. That doesn't completely discount the value of their scholarship. Also, your post about avoiding the aftermath seems a bit odd given this quote from the article:

Turley said the authors came to the conclusion that there are really two stories: the one they've written about why the massacre occurred and who was involved, and another — yet to be written — about the aftermath.
He said the authors were "surprised by what we were able to find in our own institution and others about that" second part of the story. No mention was made of when that book will be written.

don't confuse hyrum/ray with the facts, he's just comfortable in his bathwater of hate/deceipt.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I mean the meat of the evidence. Of course records of most everything that happened leading up to the event has been destroyed or lost, either intentionally or due to the passage of time. There is more known about the cover-up and the lack of investigation or prosecution and even lack of respectful treatment of the victims bodies after the fact, and if you ask me it is quite revealing.

Now you can disagree, then say, "No I don't think the LDS employed historians are biased", you could say, "No, what happened aftward makes no difference in determining the cause and responsibility", but why turn the thread into an attack on me and my character?

What is so "obnoxious" about merely pointing out that the research by people employed by and sworn to loyalty to the parties that are thought to be responsible for this tragedy are not, and really cannot, be unbiased?

I thought I explained myself in my analogy in my second post in this thread. WHo are you and why are you here? Your bias is plainly evident as even in this thread you refuse to acknowledge or even address the fact that the article about the book that you attempt to indict plainly addresses the fact that there is no discussion of the 'cover-up' . There will be a second book. And even if there isn't one planned, they aren't trying to hide the facts relating to the response to the MMM, but expressly state that the first book simply doesn't extend that far. But just in case someone else might not be paying any more attention that you, you jump in here to let us know how horrible it is that the book ignores the cover up.

Oddly, I never see you opine about other religions, or about the bias that may be part of the books published about those religions. Why si that? And then you call the coverup the "meat" of the matter (my guess is the people killed might disagree) even thought this is addressed in the article? This following your long tradition at this site of saying nothing but negative things about the LDS religion and having virtually nothing of interest or use to add, apart from acerbic and often irrelevant comments and you are shocked that I find it obnoxious?

You wonder why I turned this into a thread attacking your character? Because your entire raison d'etre is to belittle without adding anything constructive on any topic at any time, as far as I can recall.

Maybe I'm out of line, but I find it hard to believe that you are disappointed in my reaction. In fact, it seems as though this is probably exactly what you are looking for, unless it is instead that someone will say, "ah yes, Hyrum is on to something, I am deluded!" Sorry Hyrum, your efforts are far too weak and far too predictable and uninteresting to get the latter reaction; instead, all you get is my loss of decorum.