What the MADmods Don't Know

[_dartagnan]

Then...according to Bob a.k.a. Plutarch's definition, that would make all who participate there hypocrites.

And "despicable cowards" to boot.

[_Yoda]

Then...according to Bob a.k.a. Plutarch's definition, that would make all who participate there hypocrites.

And "despicable cowards" to boot.

Somehow, Kev, I think that Bob reserves the "despicable coward" definition to the likes of you and me.

;)

At least we're in good company!

LOL

[_Runtu]

Then...according to Bob a.k.a. Plutarch's definition, that would make all who participate there hypocrites.

And "despicable cowards" to boot.

Somehow, Kev, I think that Bob reserves the "despicable coward" definition to the likes of you and me.

;)

At least we're in good company!

LOL

A couple of years ago, Pahoran berated me mercilessly for being too free with my identity, saying that I was jeopardizing my family. I think he had learned the same way I have about being more circumspect. After all, when I was using my name on a.r.m., so was Pahoran. So, is it cowardly to protect your family? I think not. One of the few times I wholeheartedly agree with Pahoran.

[_Alter Idem]

I've tried to read through this thread, I think some are obscuring what was meant by being "cowards" for not using real names. I think we all know there is good reason for not using real names on the internet--you can end up being personally attacked and even cyber stalked. It is a good idea to be careful of giving out too much information.

The problem as I see it, is that "Mr. Scratch" as well as some others on this board are attacking Dr. Peterson from a position of anonymity. They don't just discuss his scholarship, they lampoon and ridicule the man--not his anonymous cyber-nickname. The worst is that they practice character assasination--such as when they accuse him of being a gossipmonger. While some of it is in jest, a lot is not. Since Dr. Peterson is not anonymous, the repercussions to his reputation could be serious, so I can see why he does not just ignore it.

Personally, I see "Mr. Scratch's" attacks on Dr. Peterson to be similar to what "Mr. Itchy" did to Dr. Shades when he went after him. It was an anonymous person attacking the "real" Dr. Shades in that blog and it was meant to intimidate and publicly humiliate him, from a safe (I'm sure many of you would even call it "cowardly") position of anonymity.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've tried to read through this thread, I think some are obscuring what was meant by being "cowards" for not using real names. I think we all know there is good reason for not using real names on the internet--you can end up being personally attacked and even cyber stalked. It is a good idea to be careful of giving out too much information.

The problem as I see it, is that "Mr. Scratch" as well as some others on this board are attacking Dr. Peterson from a position of anonymity. They don't just discuss his scholarship, they lampoon and ridicule the man--not his anonymous cyber-nickname. The worst is that they practice character assasination--such as when they accuse him of being a gossipmonger.

Hi, A.I.. The truth is that I respond to the information I am given, and to DCP actual posts. Prof. P. is often very cagey with his information, and so I do my best. I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that I have since revised my assessment of his behavior as "gossipmongering." It seems instead that he was guilty of a far more benign kind of gossip. Again: I go by whatever information I have.

Further, your claim that I "don't...discuss his scholarship" is ignorant. I have posted lengthy responses to two of his FARMS articles, and I also began a thread discussing an important slip-up in his citations. Naturally, these things get completely overlooked by TBMs and apologists. They are every bit as uninterested in discussing this stuff as you claim *I* am.

While some of it is in jest, a lot is not.

You are right. The stuff that deals with scholarship, or with facts, is not really "in jest" per se.

Since Dr. Peterson is not anonymous,

I think you need to bear in mind the reason Prof. P. uses his real name. He does this by choice, after all. It would be quite easy for me and any number of other critics to use our real names and tout our credentials, but I, for one, prefer that the discussion not deteriorate into non-stop ad hominem attack, which is de rigueur amonst Mopologists. This brings me back to my original point. DCP posts under his real name because:
1) It provides him with instant credibility among TBMs
2) He likes the admiration and adoration he gets from TBMs
3) He can use it to launch convenient straw man/ ad hom. attacks on anonymous critics
4) It provides him with a sense of power.

Let me state this again: No one forced him to use his real name. He does this by choice.

the repercussions to his reputation could be serious, so I can see why he does not just ignore it.

Bull. The only time he would ever possibly be in jeopardy would be if he did not support the Brethren, or Church orthodoxy.

Personally, I see "Mr. Scratch's" attacks on Dr. Peterson to be similar to what "Mr. Itchy" did to Dr. Shades when he went after him.

This is quite a ridiculous comparison, A.I.. Itchy dug up stuff which, to my knowledge, had never been posted online anywhere. (Including private IP information.) I have always and only reported on stuff which the individuals themselves have posted on the various LDS messageboards. Never have I done anything such as put up people's home addresses, or listed the names of their spouses, etc. The stuff on my blog is culled from information given out by the participants themselves.

It was an anonymous person attacking the "real" Dr. Shades in that blog and it was meant to intimidate and publicly humiliate him, from a safe (I'm sure many of you would even call it "cowardly") position of anonymity.

If that is the case, then the difference here is that I have no intention of "intimidating" or "publicly humiliating" Prof. P. If he is "humiliated" by the gossipmongering affair, then that is his own fault: he should not have gossiped, and he should not have posted about it on the FAIRboard. My "intention" is reportage, A.I..

[_Bond...James Bond]

Personally I think that the anonymous route is the safest thing to do...call me a coward or whatever...but the name will always be:

Bond...James Bond

[_Alter Idem]

Mr. Scratch said: "Further, your claim that I "don't...discuss his scholarship" is ignorant. I have posted lengthy responses to two of his FARMS articles, and I also began a thread discussing an important slip-up in his citations. Naturally, these things get completely overlooked by TBMs and apologists. They are every bit as uninterested in discussing this stuff as you claim *I* am."

Alter Idem: Oops, you pulled a "Tanner" and took out the "just" from my comment (adding the .....) which changed the meaning. I did not say you don't discuss his scholarship, I know you do and I have no problem with that. You've got every right to critique his scholarly works. It's the other stuff; picking him apart on a personal level that I disagree with.



Mr. Scratch: "This is quite a ridiculous comparison, A.I.. Itchy dug up stuff which, to my knowledge, had never been posted online anywhere. (Including private IP information.) I have always and only reported on stuff which the individuals themselves have posted on the various LDS messageboards. Never have I done anything such as put up people's home addresses, or listed the names of their spouses, etc. The stuff on my blog is culled from information given out by the participants themselves. "

Alter Idem: I did not mean to imply that you were exactly like Mr. Itchy--If I gave that impression, I'm apologize. I only meant that it's probably upsetting to Dr. Peterson in a similar way.

Mr. Scratch: "If that is the case, then the difference here is that I have no intention of "intimidating" or "publicly humiliating" Prof. P. If he is "humiliated" by the gossipmongering affair, then that is his own fault: he should not have gossiped, and he should not have posted about it on the FAIRboard. My "intention" is reportage, A.I.."


Alter Idem: While it may not be your intention, I do believe you can be intimidating because of the situation you enjoy here at MD. As I stated on the other thread, you may think that you just "report" but if you'll look at your own threads, you'll see you also "interpret"--and this fuels others on the threads to interpret and expand as well. For the person who you've got in your cross-hairs, there is not much of a way to counter this. If they try to come here to defend themselves, they'll just get trampled. You might give them a fair hearing, but there are too many others on this board who won't.

Mr. Scratch, I mentioned earlier, that I enjoy your dossiers--I've always assumed they were meant to be humorous--of course with a bit of a sharp, cutting edge. Some may not be flattering, but I'd say they can be an honest assessment of the person's posting style. While some may not appreciate the attention, I think they should at least be flattered that they were noticed and I don't think they are humiliating or intimidating, so I hope you'll keep them up.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oops, you pulled a "Tanner" and took out the "just" from my comment (adding the .....) which changed the meaning. I did not say you don't discuss his scholarship, I know you do and I have no problem with that. You've got every right to critique his scholarly works. It's the other stuff; picking him apart on a personal level that I disagree with.

Don't you mean a "rcrocket"? ; ) Anyways, the point is that I have almost always stuck to stuff which he posts.

Mr. Scratch: "This is quite a ridiculous comparison, A.I.. Itchy dug up stuff which, to my knowledge, had never been posted online anywhere. (Including private IP information.) I have always and only reported on stuff which the individuals themselves have posted on the various LDS messageboards. Never have I done anything such as put up people's home addresses, or listed the names of their spouses, etc. The stuff on my blog is culled from information given out by the participants themselves. "

Alter Idem: I did not mean to imply that you were exactly like Mr. Itchy--If I gave that impression, I'm apologize. I only meant that it's probably upsetting to Dr. Peterson in a similar way.

How can it be "similar" when the stuff being done---and the intent---is totally different?

Mr. Scratch: "If that is the case, then the difference here is that I have no intention of "intimidating" or "publicly humiliating" Prof. P. If he is "humiliated" by the gossipmongering affair, then that is his own fault: he should not have gossiped, and he should not have posted about it on the FAIRboard. My "intention" is reportage, A.I.."

Alter Idem: While it may not be your intention, I do believe you can be intimidating because of the situation you enjoy here at MD.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here, A.I.. You feel I'm "intimidating" merely because I post on this board? The only "situation I enjoy" on this board that I'm aware of, is the "situation" of free expression. As you no doubt no, I was silenced by the Moderating team at FAIR (Nomos/Dadof7 in particular). Do you really feel that my being able to freely express myself is "intimidating"?

As I stated on the other thread, you may think that you just "report" but if you'll look at your own threads, you'll see you also "interpret"--and this fuels others on the threads to interpret and expand as well.

Again, I think this is quite a silly point. So what if others "interpret and expand"? That is their right and privilege, and it is not my responsibility to police other people's opinions and observations. We are all adults here, after all. MDB is not the kiddie sandbox, in need of constant "adult supervision", that the MADboard is.

Mr. Scratch, I mentioned earlier, that I enjoy your dossiers--I've always assumed they were meant to be humorous--of course with a bit of a sharp, cutting edge. Some may not be flattering, but I'd say they can be an honest assessment of the person's posting style. While some may not appreciate the attention, I think they should at least be flattered that they were noticed and I don't think they are humiliating or intimidating, so I hope you'll keep them up.

Very well, and thank you for the compliment! One of these days I will surely get around to doing a dossier for you too, A.I..

[_rcrocket]

Don't you mean a "rcrocket"? ; ) Anyways, the point is that I have almost always stuck to stuff which he posts.

Pretty easy to slander me behind your anonymity. Isn't it?

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

I think you need to bear in mind the reason Prof. P. uses his real name. He does this by choice, after all. It would be quite easy for me and any number of other critics to use our real names and tout our credentials, but I, for one, prefer that the discussion not deteriorate into non-stop ad hominem attack, which is de rigueur amonst Mopologists. This brings me back to my original point. DCP posts under his real name because:
1) It provides him with instant credibility among TBMs
2) He likes the admiration and adoration he gets from TBMs
3) He can use it to launch convenient straw man/ ad hom. attacks on anonymous critics
4) It provides him with a sense of power.

Or, maybe, he is an honorable person who does not hide behind anonymous names to criticize the views of others.

I can't conceive of posting critical comments of living people[*fn] (and in your case, often libelous) behind a fake name. Show some courage.

rcrocket

[*fn] Of course, before your arrival on this Board, I used a fake moniker to criticize myself. So, I am not entirely guilt-free.