Congratulations DCP

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

evolving wrote:So why do you continue to engage, and post on these type discussions? do you believe something different will happen each time you argue with your critics on BB's -- or -- is this some form of game play, an extreme form of mental masturbation?

I once had hope that I could reason with certain of my more persistent slanderers. That hope faded a long time ago.

After that, I decided that my purpose was simply to go on record as contradicting the claims of my most persistent slanderers -- not for their benefit, but for the possible benefit of the handful of people looking on here who might imagine that a lack of contradiction from me confirmed the slanderers' claims. I think that purpose is now largely fulfilled, at least for the small audience currently here. (New people will probably arrive with the passage of time, and my most persistent slanderers will, of course, persist. That's what they do. So I may have to come back and contradict their claims again, from time to time.)

In any event, I leave late tonight for a month off the continent, and I will not be posting here during that time. Whether I'll come back, when I return, at anything like the level of involvement I've had here recently is doubtful: As I say, my purposes for being here are largely fulfilled, and, in any case, I'll have a lot more (domestic) traveling in October and November, as well.

Aren't you glad you asked?
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Dr. Peterson wrote:I once had hope that I could reason with certain of my more persistent slanderers. That hope faded a long time ago.

After that, I decided that my purpose was simply to go on record as contradicting the claims of my most persistent slanderers -- not for their benefit, but for the possible benefit of the handful of people looking on here who might imagine that a lack of contradiction from me confirmed the slanderers' claims. I think that purpose is now largely fulfilled, at least for the small audience currently here. (New people will probably arrive with the passage of time, and my most persistent slanderers will, of course, persist. That's what they do. So I may have to come back and contradict their claims again, from time to time.)


I'm glad that you did decide to post with us, Dr. Peterson, and hope that you will continue. I respect the fact that you did defend yourself, and defended yourself directly on this board, with those who were speaking out against you.

I think that shows guts and integrity.

Have a safe trip to Europe! I hope you choose to share some highlights from your trip with us when you return.

:)
_evolving
_Emeritus
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:17 pm

Post by _evolving »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Aren't you glad you asked?


Yes I am -- thank you for the thoughtful response. Good luck on your trip..!..
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:The fact that we didn't include exhaustive scholarly footnotes on the controversy surrounding the definition of magic in a two-page book review in a non-scholarly magazine that dealt with other subjects as well proves that we had never done any research on the question of "magic"?

I note that you still won't say whether you in fact did the research to back up your "consensus" statement.

What manifest nonsense.

Indeed.

I understand that you're trying to taunt me into doing you a favor that you don't even remotely deserve.

No favors are needed. I'm simply requesting that the author of the article provide just one citation to back up his very broad "consensus" statement in that article. What is so wrong about that?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I note that you still won't say whether you in fact did the research to back up your "consensus" statement.

I already said so when you first suggested otherwise.

Repeating myself to you does no good, so why should I bother?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I note that you still won't say whether you in fact did the research to back up your "consensus" statement.

I already said so when you first suggested otherwise.

Repeating myself to you does no good, so why should I bother?

Nice dodge. You still won't answer my very simple question.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_evolving
_Emeritus
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:17 pm

Post by _evolving »

Daniel Peterson wrote: Repeating myself to you does no good, so why should I bother?


perhaps you are expecting a different result this time -- not unlike the 438 other times in the past 48 hours ?? the word insanity comes to mind..

~evolving
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:You still won't answer my very simple question.

I answered your question when the issue first arose.

I will say it again, one more time. (It's pointless, I know, but I'm occasionally irrationally optimistic.)

I've published several substantial items on this topic, by myself and by others. I've suggested where some of them are (e.g., in the FARMS Review, and in Bob Millet's oddly-named anthology To Be Learned is Good If . . .). They include scores of relevant references.

You're welcome to read them.

I will not do your research for you. I don't like you. You've been abusing me and maligning my character for a very long time, and I owe you no assistance whatsoever.

I realize that you intend to repeat this and repeat this and repeat this and repeat this and repeat this for a while. I hope that you will. It will keep you occupied and perhaps prevent you from doing worse things.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I've published several substantial items on this topic, by myself and by others. I've suggested where some of them are (e.g., in the FARMS Review, and in Bob Millet's oddly-named anthology To Be Learned is Good If . . .). They include scores of relevant references.

"Relevant" is one thing; back-up for your "consensus" statement is quite another. Are you now saying that those references were the basis for your "consensus" statement in the Sunstone review?

I will not do your research for you.

It's your statement, Bishop Dan. Ergo, the research is yours.

I don't like you.

Ouch!

You've been abusing me and maligning my character for a very long time ....

Not at all. I've simply been 'keeping you honest' in your writings. It's not my fault you have such a thin skin and equate any disagreement as an attack on your character.

... and I owe you no assistance whatsoever.

Agreed. Instead, you owe it to yourself. Again, it was your article and your statement. Back 'em up.

I realize that you intend to repeat this and repeat this and repeat this and repeat this and repeat this for a while.

Simply answer my question, and the issue will drop.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Simply answer my question, and the issue will drop.

You must be missing your Peterson-smeared-Mike-Quinn thread. You can repeat yourself fourteen thousand times daily, for all I care. Call Scratch in for back-up, if you want.

You could also read the materials I've suggested. That would be harder, though.
Post Reply