Happy Trails

June 30, 2004 | 39 comments
By

So long folks. While some of the conversation here has been interesting, the inability of at least one of the site’s bloggers to adhere to the standards of civility purportedly required for comments tells me it’s time to spend my time on matters more productive. ‘Bye.

39 Responses to Happy Trails

  1. Kingsley on June 30, 2004 at 6:18 pm

    Well that’s depressing. Hope it wasn’t me. Your ability to consistently post topics that generated dozens & dozens of responses was impressive, Prof. Burk, & I hate to see you go.

  2. lyle on June 30, 2004 at 6:46 pm

    I agree…that Prof. Burk was prolific, erudite & quite apt in inspiring participation. I disagreed with him alot; which means that I’m learning alot.

    Per Kingsley, I hope that my sometimes pointed remarks were not the cause of offense. If they were, my apologies. I even formulated a “bloggers” good faith rule in Gordon’s thread. Which is pretty much like the T&S code, except it asks us to “believe” that others are commenting in good faith, per the civility rules, as ’tis often harder to tell w/o the emotive clues of verbal/physical language.

    Also, I looked over the last 200 comments & was unable to find the offending comment…again, I hope it wasn’t mine.

  3. Dan Burk on June 30, 2004 at 7:01 pm

    Lyle, Kingsley — Thanks for your good wishes, and don’t worry. I think that you were both well within bounds. Adieu.

  4. Davis Bell on June 30, 2004 at 7:03 pm

    I agree that Burk’s comments were good, and stimulated enlightening discussion. However, I find it strange that the words of one person among many are enough to make him take his ball and go home.

  5. danithew on June 30, 2004 at 7:17 pm

    John 13:22

  6. Frank McIntyre on June 30, 2004 at 7:26 pm

    Daithew, that was funny. Let me make it easier: John 13:22

    Dan, Thanks for all your interesting insights and the time you freely gave us for the last two weeks.

  7. danithew on June 30, 2004 at 7:30 pm

    Frank,
    you’ll have to teach me how to make comment text into a link …

  8. Gordon Smith on June 30, 2004 at 7:38 pm

    Just so it’s clear. We invite guest bloggers for two weeks, so Dan’s departure today coincided with that time exactly. That said, I share the sentiments expressed here that I hope to see him around these parts again.

    And yes, danithew, that was pretty funny.

  9. Kingsley on June 30, 2004 at 7:40 pm

    Danithew, your subtle reference gave me my first solid laugh of the day. Thanks, bro.

  10. Ivan Wolfe on June 30, 2004 at 10:30 pm

    Since I don’t recall commenting in Dan’s posts (but I enjoyed reading them) I’ll take all the blame for whatever offended him.

    ;-)

  11. Kingsley on June 30, 2004 at 10:35 pm

    But, have all your bowels gushed out yet.

  12. laurie burk on July 1, 2004 at 10:24 am

    Hi Gordon! BTW — it wasn’t *exactly* 2 weeks. He did have a few hours and at least one un-uploaded post left :~)

    As for the rest — simulaneouly giving a paper at an international conference, finishing another paper for publication and trying to do a good job with his guest blogging in a far off time zone was enough without having to deal with some increasingly nasty ad hominums by one permanent T&S blogger.

    But glad most of you guys enjoyed his musings. I always do.

  13. lyle on July 1, 2004 at 10:27 am

    Well…the mystery seems further declined. A “permanent” T&S blogger seems to indicate one on the “masthead”.

  14. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 10:39 am

    Reading back through the posts, it really is hard to tell who the villain might be. The exchanges seem pretty even, intensity-wise. Certainly nothing stands out as especially “nast[ily] ad hominum” by “one permanent T&S blogger.” It’s sort of tit-for-tat between Prof. Burk & a host of others. I’m scratching deep furrows into my head here. Now where’s Eco when you need him.

  15. danithew on July 1, 2004 at 10:51 am

    Maybe it’s time for a BCC: By Common Consent style poll. All the names of the masthead permanent T&S bloggers could be listed and we could vote about who we think the offender was. :)

  16. laurie burk on July 1, 2004 at 11:10 am

    OK, OK. Maybe ‘nasty’ did get a bit into hyperbole; FWIW, that was my description, not his.

    I refer you to his original words. As any good lawyer knows, one should always read the original opinion, never summaries, paraphrases or headnotes. :~)

  17. Steve Evans on July 1, 2004 at 11:19 am

    Danithew, at BCC we only use polls as ultimate decision-makers on key doctrinal points. Only rarely do we use polls to determine facts, although that is an equally worth use. What we really need here is a Python-esque stream of syllogisms to weed out the culprit: “if Adam weighs the same as a duck, Adam must be made of wood…”

  18. Nathan Tolman on July 1, 2004 at 11:21 am

    While there is nothing to startling in the posts, there are emails . . .

  19. danithew on July 1, 2004 at 11:23 am

    ” … at BCC we only use polls as ultimate decision-makers on key doctrinal points.”

    LOL!

    How refreshing and enlightened an idea … :)

  20. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 11:26 am

    Even on his two-line exit speech, Prof. Burk gets a dozen-plus responses (& counting). Bra-vo.

  21. lyle on July 1, 2004 at 11:27 am

    Nathan: I don’t think emails are under the T&S civility code jurisidction. while it is good advice…and I’d prefer such in emails sent to me…

    Stevey-E: You crack me up. Your humor is really really great. thanks! :)

  22. Steve Evans on July 1, 2004 at 12:16 pm

    In the spirit of danithew’s counsel, I’ve posted a new doctrinally-sound poll for y’all at BCC.

  23. anon on July 1, 2004 at 3:14 pm

    I don’t know for certain, but I would guess that it was likely this post from Adam that most offended Dan Burk. Comparing Dan to posters on exmormon.org implicitly challenges his testimony, or worse accuses him of being a trojan horse:

    “So, given that the distasteful allies of Sudan and Iran do not personally concern you, since you would oppose Wilkins-type efforts anyway, I would ask under what circumstances you’ve turned your ‘distasteful allies’ reasoning on your own political and religious beliefs, and to what result? For instance, I note that the posters on ex-mormon.org have been as repulsed by church leaders making a mountain out of the beard molehill as you have.”

  24. Davis Bell on July 1, 2004 at 3:19 pm

    Well, it seems I missed some verbal fireworks. Can anyone point me to these ad hominem attacks? I am not much for substance, but I hate to miss scandal and sparring.

  25. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 3:44 pm

    Davis Bell: I think Prof. Burk sort of had a tendency, occasionally, to pick out a statement from a talk he (or his brother-in-law, etc.) heard last Sunday, interpret it a little uncharitably (e.g. his post on the dark side of perseverance), & then level all his formidable intelligence at it, like weeding a lawn with a flame-thrower. & then Adam, I think for perspective’s sake, would say, “Easy, there–you’re burning the grass & flowers & helpless straw men,” & Prof. Burk would reply, “What if Jesus, Rosa Parks, & Gandhi had taken it easy–what then,” & Adam would reply, “Oh, come on–I mean really,” & Prof. Burk would reply, “You come on,” & things would escalate. But truly, it never escalated to a genuinely nasty level. That’s my take.

  26. Davis Bell on July 1, 2004 at 5:40 pm

    Kingsley and Anon,

    Thanks. On which thread can that (those) conversation be found?

  27. D. Fletcher on July 1, 2004 at 6:18 pm

    Pheww! I don’t think it’s me this time.

  28. Adam Greenwood on July 1, 2004 at 7:06 pm

    So when do I get my 30 pieces of silver? :)

    I would not be terribly surprised to find that I were the unpleasant person in question as I had already been thinking of bowing out of D. Burk’s threads, as I had noted I couldn’t quite put aside my ire and that I was provoking it in him. Alas, my good intentions came too late. I feel I owe an apology to our guest and our readers for not doing something to set a better tone.

    In my defense, the beard comparison that I made no more implied that D. Burk was an apostate than his post and comments implied that social conservatives like Prof. Wilkins favored Sudanese genocide. I meant it to make clear to him, in personal terms, that sharing one viewpoint with unsavory people doesn’t mean that you share all.

  29. Steve Evans on July 1, 2004 at 7:38 pm

    Wait…. was that an apology, Adam?

  30. Davis Bell on July 1, 2004 at 7:39 pm

    I just read the “Company We Keep” thread, and if that’s what this whole brouhaha is about, I’m at a loss. Adam, I don’t think you’re comments are even close to the line. You give as good as you get from Burk, and while you were both testy and sarcastic, I don’t think either of you were inappropriate; nor do I think you were any worse than he was. Wierd.

  31. William Morris on July 1, 2004 at 7:44 pm

    ASIDE: Kingsley is most definitely the funniest person on T&S at the moment.

    I mean this: “Easy, there–you’re burning the grass & flowers & helpless straw men”

    is pure gold.

  32. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 7:46 pm

    I hope Brother Bell’s sentiments came out exactly in my little “take,” Adam. I enjoyed your exchanges without so much as a very slightly raised eyebrow at the tone etc. of either side.

  33. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 8:49 pm

    Gee, thanks, Brother Morris; for my money, however, Danithew’s reference to John 13:22 was the funniest thing I’ve seen on this blog, period. You had to have been there, right after Prof. Burk’s bold adieu: there was a sort of awkward silence on the thread: as if we were all glancing at each other, coughing & shrugging & shuffling our feet– I didn’t–Did you?–etc.–& then some tentative, barely audible I hope it wasn’t me‘s: & then the reference: just hanging there: solemn; modest; perfect.

  34. Adam Greenwood on July 1, 2004 at 8:51 pm

    I suppose it *is* an apology, curse it. Would it help if I claimed I made it grudgingly? Or at flamethrower point?

    To my many and numerous and lots of friends and admirers:
    I too feel that I was giving what I got, but that don’t make it right.

    William Morris:
    How right you are, and it’s not just that post. Kingsley has been a roll lately. He’s usurped the role I envisioned for myself of saying plain truths beautifully. May his shiftkey ever stick. We hates him, my precious, we hates him.

  35. Kaimi on July 1, 2004 at 9:03 pm

    Funniest thing I’ve seen on the blog? Hmm, probably this comment.

    Not to disparage danithew or Kingsley, but these are tough decisions, and choices must be made . . .

  36. Kingsley on July 1, 2004 at 9:16 pm

    “It turned out that ‘Masturbation’ was the triggering topic.”

    That needs to be acknowledged more often.

  37. Heather Oman on July 2, 2004 at 12:14 am

    Well, as long as we are resurrecting stories about the Cambridge wards on Dan’s farewell thread…

    We had a lesson in RS on “the law of chastity”, or at least that was the title of the lesson listed on the schedule. The lesson in no way actually resembled anything like the law of chastity–it was more like a “What is this thing, this body that God has given to us and what should we do with it” kind of lesson. After talking vaguely about how women get in touch with their bodies, the teacher dared to pose this question:

    “When do we feel pleasure with our bodies?”

    After an awkward silence, our valiant RS president spoke up and discussed dancing, exercise, and nutrition. We were all dutifully nodding our heads as the teacher wrote everything down on the blackboard. Then a woman raised her hand and very nonchalantly said, “Well, when you reach orga*m with your husband at the same time, we all know that is the best kind of pleasure this is.” I waited, wondering how the teacher would put that up on board. She wisely chose the words “Intimate sharing.”

    Needless to say, the stake RS president showed up the very next Sunday.

    At least in the Cambridge ward, nobody’s falling asleep in Relief Society!

  38. lyle on July 2, 2004 at 10:18 am

    ah…it’s good to see that despite the Cambridge Ward being “not in Utah anymore,” that they can still follow Utah culture, a la Jack Weyland, and have cute little chats in RS re: s$X. [“Laddies, what do you & your husband like to do together?” answ…various, then Charly says…[s#x].

  39. danithew on July 2, 2004 at 1:20 pm

    This has been a VERY interesting thread … and not just because I’m receiving high praise from Kingsley. But thanks bro… I appreciate the compliment. I actually have to agree with William Morris about your “straw men” comment. That had me tittering … it was this tangy sweet prose that just hit the spot.

    I also am getting quite a kick out of the post/comments about boldly stated Relief Society and Priesthood sex comments during a lesson. I (like Lyle) thought of the Jack Weyland Charly quote where Charly (the woman character) said out loud in Relief Society that she enjoyed making love to her husband. Sounds like this has happened in real life… which is hilarious. It’s kind of refreshing when someone says it like it is though, isn’t it? I think we’re laughing from relief as much as from shock that the hard-boiled facts-on-the-ground nitty-gritty reality/truth is being stated out loud IN CHURCH.