Eric.

[_Eric]

Despite my obvious and desperate quest to make this thread about me, nobody here has any obligation to judge a family that doesn't even post here, and nobody here is in any position to do so justly or fairly.

Okay, last time.

You don't have an obligation to pretend as if you're defending a family that doesn't know you. Nor do they want you to speak for them.

I think I just heard an inflated ego shatter in the distance.

Mr. Peterson, they don't want you to speak for them. I spoke with my mother this morning and asked if she or my step-dad had spoken to you (she has no idea who you are, by the way) about me or commissioned your services and she said "absolutely not."

You act as if your side of the story is theirs. It is not. You are not in a position to speak for my family. They can and do speak for themselves. Stop hiding behind them. Stop being a willful deceiver and shaming your faith.

I'll say it again, Mr. Peterson doesn't know my family, doesn't have a personal relationship with my step-dad, and isn't privy to any "insider" information. I know him as well as he knows me, and that isn't very well at all. Dan's slimy, plainly deceptive assertions are disgraceful and goes back to the sole reason I chose not to participate on this discussion board anymore. The behavior by the Mormons who contribute here is, for the most part, disgusting and shameful. The two LDS bishops that contribute the most have demonstrated that they have no qualms about lying, being otherwise dishonest, and deliberately trying to create chaos in the lives of others. If I were to judge the Mormon culture by its largest Internet ambassador, Daniel C. Peterson, I would loathe them all. What he does - and seems to stand for - is a disgusting form of amateurish damage control for Internet Mormons and considers only the reputation of his faith, not the real people he is involved in hurting. I would view Mormons as I view him, not as simple people who believe what they believe and are willing to live and let live.

[_harmony]

Despite my obvious and desperate quest to make this thread about me, nobody here has any obligation to judge a family that doesn't even post here, and nobody here is in any position to do so justly or fairly.

Okay, last time.

You don't have an obligation to pretend as if you're defending a family that doesn't know you. Nor do they want you to speak for them.

I think I just heard an inflated ego shatter in the distance.

Mr. Peterson, they don't want you to speak for them. I spoke with my mother this morning and asked if she or my step-dad had spoken to you about me or commissioned your services and she said "absolutely not."

You act as if your side of the story is theirs. It is not. You are not in a position to speak for my family. They can and do speak for themselves. Stop being a willful deceiver and shaming your faith.

I'll say it again, Mr. Peterson doesn't know my family, doesn't have a personal relationship with my step-dad, and isn't privy to any "insider" information. I know him as well as he knows me, and that isn't very well at all.... blah blah blah.

I don't see Daniel as speaking for your family or your step dad. I see him saying no one can do that, but them.

And yet here you are, speaking for them. Again. How convenient.

Perhaps they could speak for themselves. Or perhaps not. But as long as it's only you... well... it's still only you.

(I certainly don't expect you to reply civilly, but still... I'm interested to see the explosion of temper... again).

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've known Eric's stepdad for nearly a quarter of a century. We're not intimate friends, and I've never claimed that we are, but we've met on numerous occasions in both Utah and California, and we typically speak by phone several times each year. (And not merely on "apologetic" issues. We're both fathers, and we've discussed the challenges of parenthood many times, with specific references to our own situations.)

I have no idea exactly how Eric posed his question to his mother, nor exactly how she responded. I've never claimed to know Eric's mother, let alone to have been "commissioned" by Eric's parents to "speak for" them. (I don't claim to "speak for them.") But I've spoken with Eric's stepdad. I've spoken with him several times since this latest nastiness with Eric and, in the most recent cases, we haven't spoken about apologetics at all.

[_AlmaBound]

Dan is the MDB bean bag. He just gets thrown around by people hoping that he will end up in someone's mouth.

This thread sucked from the very beginning.

Yikes. What on earth are you talking about?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I've known Eric's stepdad for nearly a quarter of a century. We're not intimate friends, and I've never claimed that we are, but we've met on numerous occasions in both Utah and California, and we typically speak by phone several times each year. (And not merely on "apologetic" issues. We're both fathers, and we've discussed the challenges of parenthood many times, with specific references to our own situations.)

I have no idea exactly how Eric posed his question to his mother, nor exactly how she responded. I've never claimed to know Eric's mother, let alone to have been "commissioned" by Eric's parents to "speak for" them. (I don't claim to "speak for them.") But I've spoken with Eric's stepdad. I've spoken with him several times since this latest nastiness with Eric and, in the most recent cases, we haven't spoken about apologetics at all.

So what did Eric say that was so concerning that you felt compelled to rat him out? What was so bad that you felt you had a duty to interfere in another human's life? Maybe there is a reason some folks post anonymously, with jack boots like you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So what did Eric say that was so concerning that you felt compelled to rat him out? What was so bad that you felt you had a duty to interfere in another human's life? Maybe there is a reason some folks post anonymously, with jack boots like you.

To repeat: I don't think that sharing a link with a friend to a post on a public message board that's about that friend is "ratting out" the poster or seriously "interfering in another human's life," let alone the act of a "jack boot."

You can repeat your sentiments a few more times, if you'd like. I'll probably contradict them each time. It'll be fun, and very valuable.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

So what did Eric say that was so concerning that you felt compelled to rat him out? What was so bad that you felt you had a duty to interfere in another human's life? Maybe there is a reason some folks post anonymously, with jack boots like you.

To repeat: I don't think that sharing a link with a friend to a post on a public message board that's about that friend is "ratting out" the poster or seriously "interfering in another human's life," let alone the act of a "jack boot."

You can repeat your sentiments a few more times, if you'd like. I'll probably contradict them each time. It'll be fun, and very valuable.

Well, you can say that. Throws doubt on your mental abilities. Oh wait, I am talking to an apologist, here. You are incapable of seeing reality. Yes, you ratted him out. Yes, you ratted him out. Yes, you ratted him out. If you can't accept this indisputable fact, maybe some region of your mushy head recognizes the crime you have committed.

You ratted him out. Ask him. Eric, did the good bishop rat you out? Ask anyone else here. Anyone else, did lumpy rat Eric out? As far as I know internet link in emails do not exempt reality.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, you can say that. Throws doubt on your mental abilities. Oh wait, I am talking to an apologist, here. You are incapable of seeing reality. Yes, you ratted him out. Yes, you ratted him out. Yes, you ratted him out. If you can't accept this indisputable fact, maybe some region of your mushy head recognizes the crime you have committed.

You ratted him out. Ask him. Eric, did the good bishop rat you out? Ask anyone else here. Anyone else, did lumpy rat Eric out? As far as I know internet link in emails do not exempt reality.

GP, I've taken you seriously twice over the past few days when you've spoken of turning over a new leaf, of starting over again, of taking a more civil approach.

As the saying goes: Fool me once? Shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me.

It won't happen again.

[_Eric]

To repeat: I don't think that sharing a link with a friend to a post on a public message board that's about that friend is "ratting out" the poster or seriously "interfering in another human's life," let alone the act of a "jack boot."

You keep failing to mention the incident in which you sent my step-dad an email saying, "Your son appears to be posting as 'Chap' now..."

I just wanted to remind the board that it wasn't simply a single act of "sharing a link" with a friend.

My step-dad isn't a "friend" of his. The only time this century that Mr. Peterson visited my step-dad was when he brought the professional FARMS fund raiser Ed Snow with him to, as my step-dad described, hit him up for donations.


Please stop being dishonest and spiteful, bishop. I have no desire to post here anymore. I regret the time I've spent already.

Best,

Eric

[_Doctor Scratch]

Frankly, though I should probably know better, I still find myself surprised that DCP hasn't apologized to Eric for this. I mean, consider this: even Liz--Liz, of all people!--told Dan that what he did was wrong. That ought to have been an enormous red flag to the Good Professor, and yet he continues to go on acting as if he was completely justified. I guess at this point the only conclusion one can make is that his attorney has urged him to deny any and all accountability. Or, maybe he learned to do this during one of the past half a dozen times or so that he's been sued by critics he verbally assaulted. It seems clear that he is so megalomaniacally obsessed with attacking critics that nothing will ever stop his behavior.