DCP as symbol/placeholder

[_Jersey Girl]

So, to expand the theory a bit, I believe that DCP's "lightning rod" status functions in part to draw attention away from other apologist such as Hamblin or Kerry Shirts (as per Tarski), along with John Tvedtnes, Lou Midgley, and countless other individuals who have behaved more badly that The Good Professor. Not only does he accomplish an enormous amount on his own, he is also serving as cover for the many screw-up Mopologists and their many screw-up activities.

Exactly how does Daniel draw attention away from other apologists such as those you named?

While I'm not familiar with all of those whom you listed, I am familiar with Kerry Shirts so let's use him as an example. Kerry and his apologetics are now easily accessible on youtube where he has 400+ videos posted for viewing, discussion, debate and what have you.

If you are interested in drawing attention TO other apologists, Kerry and his apologetics are available for topical discussion on this board.

However, in terms of this board, that's not what takes place on your part.

Does Daniel draw attention to himself or do YOU draw attention to Daniel? You virtually ignore other apologists and continue to create threads regarding Daniel as one who is engaged in a crime of passion against someone who has "done them wrong" on a personal level and stabs their intended victim repeatedly.

You continue to stab Daniel.

How does it make sense to assert that Daniel draws attention away from other apologists when it is YOU who draws attention to Daniel?

[Guest]

Tarring people's reputations; ganging up on people; mocking; ridiculing; harassing; stalking; committing ad hominem attack; sneakily milking people for money; putting people down; leaking private information; etc., etc.

Let's not forget, FARMS is the most honest institution on the planet. And Skinny-L is an object lesson in a gentle tone.

[_Jersey Girl]

And who is it though, who shows up, takes the jolt, and somehow works the conversation around himself?

The person responding to Scratch's threads about him.

[_Tarski]

That's an interesting extension of the lightning rod metaphor. Because in fact, it is true that many times Midgley and Hamblin and their hatchet jobs or game-playing have been exposed. In fact, it seems to me more attention has been paid to the other FARMS members who really have taken the warfare against critics to the next level. And who is it though, who shows up, takes the jolt, and somehow works the conversation around himself?

Tarring people's reputations; ganging up on people; mocking; ridiculing; harassing; stalking; committing ad hominem attack; sneakily milking people for money; putting people down; leaking private information; etc., etc.

Yes. And lets not forget tax evasion, as FARMS took a 20k deduction that it lied about paying to Dr. Peterson. And while others on this board might not care, I do believe the merciless burning of fellow apologist rcrocket out of the canyon shows the kind of backstabbing and betrayal FARMS is capable of.

It seems that there may be a bunch of stuff going on that I am not aware of. For the record, I also haven't bothered to read FARMS reviews much--sounds likely to be boring and the expected bias is a given.
So, as I say in the OP, my perspective is limited.

I wonder, does it seem to you guys that Dr. Peterson is the same as always or does he seem to have changed?

[_Gadianton]

That's a good question Tarski. I think the early Peterson in full Skinny-L form was a little harsher than the middle Peterson. I think his latest presentation at FAIR at least indicates on a subconscious level that he knows ultimately exchanging barbs doesn't help the cause long term.

But you know, I will be entirely honest here, while I will take issue with what I will take issue with, the next wave of apologist that the church will support financially -- and this might be many years in the future -- will be entrenched in public relations protocols. While Dr. Peterson can be shifty at times, he bleeds too. And this human side of him ultimately makes him "one of the group". But future apologists may not get offended so easy. They may be evil through and through, past feeling at all, and behavioristically changing their interaction style and material as needed per market research to optimize whativer the objective will be.

[_harmony]

I wonder, does it seem to you guys that Dr. Peterson is the same as always or does he seem to have changed?

Changed. Mellowed. Considerably.

[_harmony]

Yes. And lets not forget tax evasion, as FARMS took a 20k deduction that it lied about paying to Dr. Peterson. And while others on this board might not care, I do believe the merciless burning of fellow apologist rcrocket out of the canyon shows the kind of backstabbing and betrayal FARMS is capable of.

Tax evasion? What are you talking about?

[_Ray A]

I wonder, does it seem to you guys that Dr. Peterson is the same as always or does he seem to have changed?

I believe he has changed in some ways. As noted, I base this on my reading of the Review since 1989. He was little merciful to the Tanners, for example, in some of those reviews, but I feel that in the 2000s he came to feel that the Tanners were pretty tame in comparison to some of the "new anti-Mormons", and even had some integrity in comparison to them. Real ironic. He was very hard on Signature in the 1990s, viewing them as "enemies of the Church", but I've subsequently seen much more willingness to drop the hyperbole. When Will Shryver first came on FAIR, he referred to Vogel as an "anti-Mormon" with "ulterior motives". My recollection is that Dan did not support this view point then, which he did hold in the early '90s.

A change of view isn't a sin, right?

I don't believe he has changed his basic views. I recall, even in the '90s, reading his view that the Book of Mormon was a "50-50" proposition, and he could understand why people would choose to not believe it. The "refiner's fire" was for those who veered to the spiritual evidences, so to speak, which would tilt them towards belief, helped of course by the physical evidences.

I think he's still either/or, you are with him or against him, with Mormonism, or against it. I think it's only when people become personal, or slander his character, that he'll become "more animated". I don't think he has a real problem with unbelievers, but I do think he has a problem with mockery of him or his faith, or his motives, and people who don't take the time to try to understand him better.

JMO.

[_harmony]

... but I do think he has a problem with mockery of him or his faith, or his motives, and people who don't take the time to try to understand him better.

JMO.

Hmmm... I'm just wondering when he took the time to try to understand someone else...especially if the someone opposes or disagrees (thinking Trixie here).

[_Ray A]

Hmmm... I'm just wondering when he took the time to try to understand someone else...especially if the someone opposes or disagrees (thinking Trixie here).

I don't disagree with you there at all. As I said previously, there should be give and take.