I get frustrated here because...

[_Daniel Peterson]

They don't critici . . . I mean smear Quinn?

Yeah. Somehow, in some mysterious way, I think it's the Quinn thing that's crucial here.

Scratch has been trying, for half an enraged and obsessive decade now, to avenge a wrong that he imagines me to have done to him/them.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh, so you think that's the explanation for the discrepancy? That it's a mere matter of "visibility" and duration thereof?

I think that's a very real part of it.

That seems unlikely. As I pointed out, Bushman, Givens, Ostler, et al. probably have as much "visibility" as you do, if not more. Your point might be valid with Bokovoy, but it's not valid in general. It's not a good explanation for why you have so many enemies.

Do you seriously think that the denizens of the "Recovery" board would show him any particular honor? That Infymus would treat him with respect? That Rev. James White and Rev. Kurt Van Gorden would consider him a friend? That Steve Benson would do him reverence?

I don't know, Dan. We can really only speculate, but my guess is that he'd get a different reception from them because he would treat them differently that you have. I'm pretty sure there is an entry on David at the Mormon Curtain (authored, If I recall correctly, by Kevin Graham, who's hardly David's "enemy"). But I find it hard to imagine him generating the sheer amount of ill-will that you've kicked up over the course of your career.

And Infymus gets along fine with plenty of LDS. Heck: Liz is a moderator on his board. He doesn't go after people simply for being Mormons. That's a self-serving mischaracterization on your part.

You also mentioned Richard Bushman, who, similarly, doesn't have nearly as many enemies, nor the type of enemies you've managed to collect, and yet he's at least as "visible" as you, though he hasn't been engaged in the same kinds of online activities as you.

You're not paying attention, as usual. Richard Bushman has been subjected to precisely the same kind of vituperation for the past forty-eight hours over on the so-called "Recovery" board as I am.

I just looked over there, and it's true that he's taking some heat. But like I said, this just doesn't compare to the amount of animosity that you've managed to generate. Bushman doesn't have 3 sections at The Mormon Curtain. He doesn't have a bunch of special topics at RfM (at least as far as I know). He doesn't have people's angry correspondence posted over at SHIELDS.
He doesn't (again, as far as I know) have younger apologists telling him that he needs to cut back on the "snark."

Think about what you're saying, Dan: you're essentially arguing that Richard Bushman has as many enemies as you do, and for the same reasons, and that's just absurd.

[Guest]

As I pointed out, Bushman, Givens, Ostler, et al. probably have as much "visibility" as you do, if not more. Your point might be valid with Bokovoy, but it's not valid in general. It's not a good explanation for why you have so many enemies.

They aren't active on line. They don't write weekly newspaper columns.

The "recovering" and most of the others you mention practically live on line. They don't respond, much if at all, to books from Oxford University Press. They've seldom if ever even responded to my Review articles, let alone to my pieces on "Asherah," etc.

but my guess is that he'd get a different reception from them because he would treat them differently that you have.

I've had no interaction whatever with most of the people who insult me on the "Recovery" board. At least, they haven't claimed any, and I don't recall any. I haven't "treated" them in any way, well or ill.

My confident prediction is that David would be denigrated, mocked, and insulted just as I am if he were as visible to them.

You have no evidence for your guess.

And Infymus gets along fine with plenty of LDS. Heck: Liz is a moderator on his board. He doesn't go after people simply for being Mormons. That's a self-serving mischaracterization on your part.

It's sheer invention on yours. I've said precisely nothing about him going after people solely because they're Mormons.

[_LDSToronto]

I do like coming and reading here. I often come to read comments from those who are just so different than I am. I enjoy understanding other folks a little. its been delightful.

But what really is annoying...what gets me a little....

I don't know if there is much point in raising legitimate points regarding LDS. When I do it seems inevitable some posters here will complain about me (like calling me a liar for effect), or worse yet run to the very next criticism of LDS that they have marked on their list ignoring and bypassing LDS comments--shooting shot guns right in my face. Its absurd to me that many posters here for whatever reason rarely if ever concede much positive about LDS when it gets down to the "nitty-gritty".

I get there are some annoying LDS posters out in cyberspace. I get that its fun to pick apart LDS posters and do whatever it takes to make them appear evil, duped, or whatever is the goal. Its probably a little cute. Its probably quite a refreshing feeling for so many posters here. I don't' know. But its pathetic. Its conversation inhibiting and its childish.

There I said it. Feel free to offer me feedback.

I get frustrated because this place has a lot to offer - smart people who have the ability to engage in thoughtful discussion about LDS issues - yet it's offerings are overshadowed by a pervasive vitriol between posters.

That said, I still like this place better than the alternative because for all it's faults, the people here exhibit a kindness towards me that I haven't experienced elsewhere.

H.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As I pointed out, Bushman, Givens, Ostler, et al. probably have as much "visibility" as you do, if not more. Your point might be valid with Bokovoy, but it's not valid in general. It's not a good explanation for why you have so many enemies.

They aren't active on line. They don't write weekly newspaper columns.

Doesn't Kathleen Flake write a column? Or doesn't she contribute on a somewhat regular basis to a newspaper? And furthermore, do you think that you've collected more enemies since you began doing the column? Most of the things I mentioned--RfM, MC, etc.--date back several years prior to the column, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by mentioning it.

But you're right--as far as I know, they don't have anywhere near the online presence that you've developed. (Though doesn't Ostler run a blog, or something like that?) Even so, Jeff Lindsay, Kerry Shirts, and Blair Hodges are quite active online. Do they have as many enemies as you?

but my guess is that he'd get a different reception from them because he would treat them differently that you have.

I've had no interaction whatever with most of the people who insult me on the "Recovery" board. At least, they haven't claimed any, and I don't recall any. I haven't "treated" them in any way, well or ill.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Let me rephrase: rather than "treat them differently," how about we say, "approaches them differently" or "regards them differently"? David has shown a lot more sympathy for the "recoverer"'s plight than you have. For example, I can't imagine him maintaining a "quote archive," or as describing the atmosphere on RfM as "psychologically fascinating," or dismissing the lot of it like you did in your "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism" piece.

My confident prediction is that David would be denigrated, mocked, and insulted just as I am if he were as visible to them.

Well, maybe that's the thing: he just wouldn't ever wind up being as "visible" (or visible in the same kinds of ways).

You have no evidence for your guess.

I said at the outset that my remarks were speculative, but I think that I *do* have evidence: namely the sheer amount and varieties of enemies you've collected in comparison to other apologists, and David's strikingly different attitude towards those and ex-Mormons. Unlike you, he doesn't seem to view things in the terms of warfare.

[_why me]

Sorry, why me, but the fact is that Dr. Peterson has just done too many really cruel things during his 25+ year Mopologetic career. He'll either atone for this in some way, or it will be his legacy. Frankly, I think I've been doing him a favor.

You do realize just how foolish you seem to others doing this. If you think that you are doing him a favor abusing him on the Internet, I think that you should revaluate your position.

My guess is: your position is personal and he has done something to you personally. You have informers around FARMS or the Maxwell Institute so you know people in those organizations if you are not a member yourself.

But really scratch, you need to give it up. Even Quinn does not have such a fetish against Dan. But then again, maybe you are Mike Quinn.

[_why me]

Unlike you, he doesn't seem to view things in the terms of warfare.

Loaded words designed for affect. Have you noticed your posts? All of your posts about Dan are coded in what you would term 'warfare'.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have informers around FARMS or the Maxwell Institute so you know people in those organizations if you are not a member yourself.

I don't believe that he has any "informers" in or around the Maxwell Institute, nor any real contacts in it.

First of all, the "intel" that he's posted about the Institute has been, without any substantial exception that comes to mind, laughably wrong.

Second, the Maxwell Institute isn't all that big. And the circle of those with access to its finances and its academic planning is significantly smaller still, and I know all of them very, very well. It simply isn't plausible that any of them would be feeding "intel" to the likes of Scratch.

Don't credit his claims of "informers."

He's either making one or more of them up out of his fertile imagination, or he's being played for a fool by a clever and manipulative cynic.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But then again, maybe you are Mike Quinn.

Hello Mr. Whyme,

Ha! Lol. I'm surprised your brain is powerful enough to sustain autonomous breathing.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Doctor Scratch]

My guess is: your position is personal and he has done something to you personally. You have informers around FARMS or the Maxwell Institute so you know people in those organizations if you are not a member yourself.

That's an interesting guess, why me. I mean, how else would I have known that Brian Hauglid and one other person were largely responsible for getting Schryver's publication canned so far in advance? I was the one who broke the news re: Hauglid. I'd like to see Dr. Peterson explain that one away.