Kiwi57 offers a free lesson in double standards with this one:
"That sounds like something a certain poster I know might think of as a way to make himself look important and "connected."
Pretty funny, from the troll who relishes shutting people down with demands for sources when he dislikes statements of fact or first-hand insight.
Kiwi57: I don't like what you're saying, sources or shut up!
Kiwi57: I don't like your sources, stop showing off!
LOL!!
Gee whiz, Dr. Moore--didn't you donate, like, $1,000 to Interpreter? And this is the thanks--and disrespect--that you get in return?
Doctor, personal respect and thanks were was never a term of the contract between Dr. P and myself.
It was a far simpler transaction:
* I donated money to the Interpreter (over and above the $1,000 "thank you" prize, by the way, as it was the second of two offers)
* He agreed to a long-term model of not trash talking MDB and its people.
That was it, no other specific constraints. Therefore, I cannot suggest any breach of covenant when Dr. P chooses to express contempt for me personally.
I'm in Dr. Shades' camp on this one. I don't think conversations, as agitating as they might be, ought to filter back into one's real life. One of the great things about the Internet and anonymity (or even using one's in real life name) is the unfiltered nature of it all. In vino veritas holds true if you look at the Internet as one's truth serum. More honesty and more dialogue has occurred because of the Internet than has probably ever happened in the history of Man. The fact that we can get so angry with one another and there's standoff is an incredibly valuable tool in the process of revealing the nature and facts of a topic.
This goes away when conversation is used as an agitprop to destroy one's life. Why? Because the conversations held over the Internet aren't the sum total of the person or persons engaged in them. To use just one facet of a man's words against him to levy retribution is, imho, immoral.
No, Doc, it's not null and void. It is being neglected, in bad faith, by Dr. Peterson.
Every time he makes or allows comments derogatory to MDB, he is dishonestly acting in bad faith to our contract.
I would love to see how Kiwi57 wiggles Dr. Peterson out of the case of plagiarism that I found this morning. Once he gets past his sanctimonious indignation, I'm sure he'll find a way.
Dr Moore said, "I would love to see how Kiwi57 wiggles Dr. Peterson out of the case of plagiarism that I found this morning. Once he gets past his sanctimonious indignation, I'm sure he'll find a way."
You'll be waiting for all time and eternity, my friend. Just like we're waiting on all those 'manuscripts' Mr. Peterson is, for sure, going to turn into a book one day.
No, Doc, it's not null and void. It is being neglected, in bad faith, by Dr. Peterson.
Every time he makes or allows comments derogatory to MDB, he is dishonestly acting in bad faith to our contract.
I would love to see how Kiwi57 wiggles Dr. Peterson out of the case of plagiarism that I found this morning. Once he gets past his sanctimonious indignation, I'm sure he'll find a way.
Well, one time he did it by equating my outing of Peterson’s plagiarism with MsJack’s outing of schryver’s misogyny. Why he considered that a positive is beyond me. Here are some relevant posts (note, kiwi thought I was Nyal):
Kiwi wrote:Incidentally, Nyal, just so you know: accusations are not proof. For instance, just because a vindictive arch-feminist cherry-picked and cropped a few quotes as part of an obsessive campaign to make someone look like a "bubbling cauldron of deception and misogyny," that doesn't mean that he is one. It just means that one toxic man-hater decided to accuse him, and a bunch of mindless Mormon-haters all cheered and clapped on cue.
Lemmie wrote:Also, according to kiwi, if you notice plagiarism you are an arch-feminist?!!! Is this like Midgley's comment that homosexuality renders one unable to do history?
Xenophon wrote:I may be way off here but I read that initially as a reference to Ms Jack's expose on Schryver. Kiwi probably thinks lumping the two incidents together puts a stain on yours but personally I'd consider you in good company there.
Res Ipsa wrote:I was wondering why Kiwi was harshing on Lemmie. Ms. Jack would make more sense as his target...
I can provide a bit more context on this.
About a year after l'affaire du Schryver, there was a thread at MADB wherein Pahoran and William kept calling me things like "man-hater" and "feminazi," you know, the kind of things MRA'ers say of women they don't like. I am, of course, rather conservative as feminists go, so the fact that even my pro-life evangelical feminism is enough to elicit such epithets and slurs from them says a lot about their attitude towards women.
Later, on Liz's private forum, Pahoran decided that repeatedly calling me a "man-hater" was a brilliant strategy. I asked him for examples of my loathsome man-hating and the only thing he could pony up was that most of my high-profile conflicts with LDS apologists have been with men (him, Schryver, Dan Peterson, etc.). Because apparently there are binders full of female LDS apologists out there whom I am giving a free pass to on account of their gender, and I've never been critical of Valerie Hudson or Juliann Reynolds or anything like that. (Ironically, I believe this went down on a thread where I had been ever-so-mildly critical of Cassandra Hedelius.)
I can't provide links or exact quotes since I left Liz's forum, but this is all to say, Pahoran (a.k.a. kiwi57) calling women who are critical of LDS apologists "man-haters" and "feminazis" and "arch-feminists" is just par for the course with him. And pretty much a badge of honor for us.
Yeah, I guess he could try and flip it all the way around like that. I might then be tempted to respond by sending dear Kiwi57 a few samples of how his beloved hero condemns his online temperament behind his back when it bolsters his personal cause.
The really dumb thing about Scryver's misogyny is that FARMS itself told him to get the hell out of there and NEVER come back, he was completely and totally excommunicated from FARMS academics DUE TO HIS MISOGYNY. And they are STILL defending Scryvner?! Perhaps they ought to go ask why FARMS kicked his ass between his shoulders and told him adios loser....... MsJack did one of the most solid and intense thorough investigative analysis of Scryvner's misogny in the entire world. ALL the evidence is there. But of course, evidence does not count when it is against Mopologists, but name calling is sure in order.