To Mr Scratch

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't know whether it was discussed or not, and I don't know whether he was sexually active or not.

You claimed that it was! You stated---repeatedly---on MAD that Quinn's sexual orientation was "known to his then-Stake President." Don't try to deny this, Dan.

??????

The fact that Quinn's stake president, like many, many others, was aware of Quinn's homosexuality neither proves that Quinn was sexually active nor that the disciplinary council discussed the subject.

There is literally no way to justify telling TBMs on FAIR about Quinn's sexual orientation

Quinn officially "came out" in 1996. It wasn't a secret before; it certainly hasn't been a secret for the past thirteen years.

If you don't want it talked about, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't.

You guys have hated Quinn for a long time.

I've never hated Mike Quinn, and I don't know anybody who does.

What's you've done isn't illegal. But it is very, very immoral and unethical, and I am still amazed that you haven't just apologized for it.

I think you're nuts.

Yyou engaged in smear tactics against him. And you did.

No I didn't.

[_Mister Scratch]

You claimed that it was! You stated---repeatedly---on MAD that Quinn's sexual orientation was "known to his then-Stake President." Don't try to deny this, Dan.

??????

The fact that Quinn's stake president, like many, many others, was aware of Quinn's homosexuality neither proves that Quinn was sexually active nor that the disciplinary council discussed the subject.

Yes, that's correct, Dan. Well done. It doesn't prove either of those things. Which raises the question of why you would mention it in the first place. The reason is obvious: you wanted the TBMs on FAIR to know this, so that they would think he was booted for sexual sin rather than his histories.

There is literally no way to justify telling TBMs on FAIR about Quinn's sexual orientation

Quinn officially "came out" in 1996. It wasn't a secret before; it certainly hasn't been a secret for the past thirteen years.

Maybe so, but this still doesn't justify your efforts to insinuate that sexual sin was the reason for his excommunication.

If you don't want it talked about, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't.

You obviously "wanted it talked about" in the context of speculation into his excommunication. At that time, it was very convenient indeed to talk about it.

You guys have hated Quinn for a long time.

I've never hated Mike Quinn, and I don't know anybody who does.

"Hated," "disliked," "sought revenge against," "disliked strongly." Pick your poison. You wanted his credibility destroyed. You wanted to take away his ability to influence people's views of the Church.

What's you've done isn't illegal. But it is very, very immoral and unethical, and I am still amazed that you haven't just apologized for it.

I think you're nuts.

Name-calling is such a persuasive rhetorical tactic.

You engaged in smear tactics against him. And you did.

No I didn't.

The actual evidence says otherwise.

[_Yoda]

Yes, that's correct, Dan. Well done. It doesn't prove either of those things. Which raises the question of why you would mention it in the first place. The reason is obvious: you wanted the TBMs on FAIR to know this, so that they would think he was booted for sexual sin rather than his histories.

Well, Scratch, since you successfully managed to piss Daniel off on the other thread to the point that he refuses to post here anymore, I suppose you can claim a victory on this. It's a hollow victory, considering that we won't be able to hear his side of it, which is a shame.

[_antishock8]

Yes, that's correct, Dan. Well done. It doesn't prove either of those things. Which raises the question of why you would mention it in the first place. The reason is obvious: you wanted the TBMs on FAIR to know this, so that they would think he was booted for sexual sin rather than his histories.

Well, Scratch, since you successfully managed to piss Daniel off on the other thread to the point that he refuses to post here anymore, I suppose you can claim a victory on this. It's a hollow victory, considering that we won't be able to hear his side of it, which is a shame.

Really? REALLY? Because he posts so many substantive and thought-provoking contributions? Or is his endless obfuscating, empty assertions, ad homs, clever putdowns, and rhetoric really that fascinating to you? Mr. Peterson was as substantive as CC. That's a fact. He never engaged in thoughtful exchanges, and was here just to push buttons. He himself said that. What was it about that bully you enjoyed so much?

[_Yoda]

Question:

Dan, when you were the chairman for FARMS, and the $20K agreement was made, what was FARMS' association with BYU?

I know that the Maxwell Institute is now solidly tied with BYU now, but wasn't there more of a "dotted line" connection between FARMS and BYU prior to the formal Maxwell Institute tie?

My chairmanship of FARMS was almost entirely taken up with the process by which FARMS affiliated with BYU. That matter consumed almost all of my time, to the point of nearly driving me mad. It was enormously draining. We were working out all the details of our relationship to the University -- financial, administrative, even geographical.

But the deal with BYU -- which was worked out by others -- had little or nothing, as I understand it, to do with my chairmanship of FARMS. It had to do with my direction of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. The Foundation purchased my time from my department so as to free me from teaching duties. The time that I would have spent in teaching was then devoted to the direction of METI and to editing the fourteen volumes that we've produced so far.

This makes perfect sense to me, and falls in line with some of my own dealings with departmental loans via academia.

Scratch, it is obvious that you have either

1. Never taught for a university and/or worked in an academic arena.

or

2. Are being purposefully ignorant.

A loan of employees between departments, potential departments, or even clients with a dotted line connection is all very common in academia.

Your pursuing this in an attempt to make Daniel look disingenuous is only making you look foolish.

[_Yoda]

Really? REALLY? Because he posts so many substantive and thought-provoking contributions? Or is his endless obfuscating, empty assertions, ad homs, clever putdowns, and rhetoric really that fascinating to you? Mr. Peterson was as substantive as CC. That's a fact. He never engaged in thoughtful exchanges, and was here just to push buttons. He himself said that. What was it about that bully you enjoyed so much?

Really? REALLY? We're REALLY going to compare notes on bullying? Need I remind you of a few of your charming remarks to posters here? "Fat man".."vag lips"......Snickering like a two year old and throwing random comments like "vagina" in a thread.

Come on.

Honestly...I think the person who will end up missing Daniel the most is Scratch.

Any further thread that Scratch creates involving DCP will simply gravitate into a self-congratulatory smear-fest of DCP and the "big bad Mopologists".

Without any type of opposition or argumentation, what fun reading is that?

How is it hardly worth the effort?

[_antishock8]

Really? REALLY? Because he posts so many substantive and thought-provoking contributions? Or is his endless obfuscating, empty assertions, ad homs, clever putdowns, and rhetoric really that fascinating to you? Mr. Peterson was as substantive as CC. That's a fact. He never engaged in thoughtful exchanges, and was here just to push buttons. He himself said that. What was it about that bully you enjoyed so much?

Really? REALLY? We're REALLY going to compare notes on bullying? Need I remind you of a few of your charming remarks to posters here? "Fat man".."vag lips"......Snickering like a two year old and throwing random comments like "vagina" in a thread.

Come on.

Honestly...I think the person who will end up missing Daniel the most is Scratch.

Any further thread that Scratch creates involving DCP will simply gravitate into a self-congratulatory smear-fest of DCP and the "big bad Mopologists".

Without any type of opposition or argumentation, what fun reading is that?

How is it hardly worth the effort?

Hey, baby. The ad homs flew from my fingertips only AFTER Mr. Peterson repeatedly attacked me. I even gave the Fat Man a head's up to knock it off, or it was on like Donkey Kong. You and your ilk conveniently don't notice little details like that when it comes Profesarus Rex.

I don't mind back and forth exchanges, but you never really get any sort of honesty out of the Fat Man. Like I said, all he does is push buttons and plays word games. You, apparently, like that. So does most everyone else. I'd prefer honest exchange, but that seems to be beyond his grasp.

[_Jersey Girl]

Really? REALLY? Because he posts so many substantive and thought-provoking contributions? Or is his endless obfuscating, empty assertions, ad homs, clever putdowns, and rhetoric really that fascinating to you? Mr. Peterson was as substantive as CC. That's a fact. He never engaged in thoughtful exchanges, and was here just to push buttons. He himself said that. What was it about that bully you enjoyed so much?

My compliments to you, A8, on this finely crafted piece of garbage-thinking you possibly refer to as a series of "comments".

Since when is substnace a value of this board. Since when is it a value of yours? Daniel didn't begin the (now) hundreds of threads directed toward himself, Scratch did you intellectually dishonest twit.

He responded to them at the level of worth he felt was warranted and now you, the author of "piss flaps", "sandy vag" (there's substance for ya!) and let us not forget the utterly profound "cunt", play the bully card.

Are you saying that Scratch and perhaps your ignorant self are victims of bullying? Are you scared of Daniel? Does the obfuscating fat ass intimidate you?

Or are you simply a game player who deludes himself into "thinking" (I'm being kind) that anyone buys the total hypocrisy you wrongly assume you're "cleverly" pawning off in these exchanges?

Here is my main question for you:

How is it that you manage to see the screen with your head so deeply inserted up your ass?

Just curious.

[_antishock8]

Oh, I don't know you non-Mormon pap smear. I guess YOUR endless contributions to the intelligentsia of this board is apparent every time you decide to grace us with your thoughtfulness. You certainly bring a flavor of class and timeless grace to every thread you touch like an angel, you New Jersey acid-wash-wearing bridge troll.

[_Jersey Girl]

Really? REALLY? We're REALLY going to compare notes on bullying? Need I remind you of a few of your charming remarks to posters here? "Fat man".."vag lips"......Snickering like a two year old and throwing random comments like "vagina" in a thread.

Talk about rich irony, eh?