To Mr Scratch

[_harmony]

The fact is (as pitiable as it is), li'l danny boy thrives on slavish praise.

So do I... thrive on lavish praise, I mean. I don't find it pitiful or pitiable or pitiness or pitition. Last week, a very important person in the academic world told a friend of mine that I was a very smart woman, and that he was delighted that my friend had asked him to work with one of the most distinguished experts in my field.

The comment made me happy. According to you, it shouldn't have.

[_Yoda]

The fact is (as pitiable as it is), li'l danny boy thrives on slavish praise.

So do I... thrive on slavish praise, I mean. I don't find it pitiful or pitiable or pitiness or pitition. Last week, a very important person in the academic world told a friend of mine that I was a very smart woman, and that he was delighted that my friend had asked him to work with one of the most distinguished experts in my field.

The comment made me happy. According to you, it shouldn't have.

Isn't slavish praise the only kind of praise worth thriving on?

[_Some Schmo]

The fact is (as pitiable as it is), li'l danny boy thrives on slavish praise.

So do I... thrive on lavish praise, I mean. I don't find it pitiful or pitiable or pitiness or pitition. Last week, a very important person in the academic world told a friend of mine that I was a very smart woman, and that he was delighted that my friend had asked him to work with one of the most distinguished experts in my field.

The comment made me happy. According to you, it shouldn't have.

There's a difference between needing it and it simply making you happy. Needing it is most certainly pitiable.

And if you think you do need it, then I guess I feel sorry for you.

[_antishock8]

I think Mr. Peterson is one of the most full-of-crap people I've ever seen. He's bluffed his way through 20 years of "academia". After seeing him get roundly drubbed by Robert Spencer in Las Vegas any doubt about his lack of mental prowess was laid to rest.

He mocks because that's all he has. He has no ability to have a sustained intellectual apologetic debate in a forum where he won't be protected. He knows it. We know it. So he does what he does best: Play the fool.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I feel fine about the debate with Robert Spencer in Las Vegas.

Let's take the Quinn gossiping accusation. Probably you'd file that under "flat-out falsehoods," right? I accused you of spreading malicious gossip about Quinn, and, in fact, that's exactly what you were doing. You were telling people, practically at every opportunity, that Quinn's books were "untrustworthy."

"Practically at every opportunity"? I go months at a time without the name of Michael Quinn ever crossing either my lips or my mind.

But it's simple nonsense to equate an evaluation of a book as unreliable with "malicious gossip." Theater critics aren't spreading "malicious gossip" when they pan a play. Movie critics aren't circulating "malicious gossip" when they give a film only half a star. Music critics aren't engaged in "malicious gossip" when they publish negative evaluations of concerts or new recordings. Book reviewers aren't "spreading malicious" gossip" when they write critical reviews of new publications.

it turns out that you once got compensated $20,000 for being the Chair of FARMS

Sigh. You're going to repeat this falsehood until the day you die, but it'll still be false.

Prove where I have ever told a "flat-out falsehood" about you. Here, let me up the ante: if you prove this, I'll permanently "retire."

I've done it multiple times. We've been over and over and over each of your various accusations against me, time and time again, and then repeated the discussion over and over again, and then rehashed it, and then gone over it again, and then repeated the going over, and then done it again, and then repeated it, and then, when you've reopened the question, repeated it, and then done it yet again, and then rehashed it.

But you haven't retired.

[_harmony]

I feel fine about the debate with Robert Spencer in Las Vegas.

Let's take the Quinn gossiping accusation. Probably you'd file that under "flat-out falsehoods," right? I accused you of spreading malicious gossip about Quinn, and, in fact, that's exactly what you were doing. You were telling people, practically at every opportunity, that Quinn's books were "untrustworthy."

"Practically at every opportunity"? I go months at a time without the name of Michael Quinn ever crossing either my lips or my mind.

I don't see how this is possible, since Scratch brings it up at least once a month, and you respond virtually every time.

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's take the Quinn gossiping accusation. Probably you'd file that under "flat-out falsehoods," right? I accused you of spreading malicious gossip about Quinn, and, in fact, that's exactly what you were doing. You were telling people, practically at every opportunity, that Quinn's books were "untrustworthy."

"Practically at every opportunity"?

Yes, Dan---practically every opportunity. Go over to MAD and do a search on Quinn. Then, scroll through the threads and find the places where you have popped in to post. Let me know how you responded. Let us know what you said. If your claims here are accurate, it should be very, very, very easy for you to demonstrate your innocence, and to show us all how frequently you were able to keep your snout out of the discussion.

And don't play dumb, acting as if you don't understand what the words "practically" and "opportunity" mean.

I go months at a time without the name of Michael Quinn ever crossing either my lips or my mind.

And this squares with the definition of "practically every opportunity" how? You see what I mean. You can't be this stupid, can you? Or, are you somehow claiming that these "months at a time" when the name of Quinn does not cross your mind somehow count as "opportunities" for you to tell the MAD posters about how he was ex'ed for homosexuality, or how his histories aren't "trustworthy," and so on?

But it's simple nonsense to equate an evaluation of a book as unreliable with "malicious gossip."

That's not what I'm equating, and you know it. The body of gossip I'm referring to includes both your dismissal's of Quinn's academic work, and your simultaneous whispers about how his "sexual orientation was known to his stake president." All of this adds up, and you know it. For you to try and claim that your assaults on Quinn's academic reputation are somehow occuring in a vacuum (particularly within the minds of TBMs at MAD), is outrageous.

So, try again, Dan: where is the "flat-out falsehood"? Or are you going to withdraw your completely baseless, maliciously-spun accusation?

it turns out that you once got compensated $20,000 for being the Chair of FARMS

Sigh. You're going to repeat this falsehood until the day you die, but it'll still be false.

In no way whatsoever is it "false," and certainly it is not a "flat-out falsehood," as you claimed. Clearly, the accounting and tax documents show that you were compensated (i.e., "paid") for this work.

You want to try again?

Prove where I have ever told a "flat-out falsehood" about you. Here, let me up the ante: if you prove this, I'll permanently "retire."

I've done it multiple times.

Where? When? *Nothing* I've said is a "flat-out falsehood." Far closer to a "flat-out falsehood" was your equivocation that "not one dime" of your salary went towards apologetics. You reek of BS, Dan.

We've been over and over and over each of your various accusations against me, time and time again, and then repeated the discussion over and over again, and then rehashed it, and then gone over it again, and then repeated the going over, and then done it again, and then repeated it, and then, when you've reopened the question, repeated it, and then done it yet again, and then rehashed it.

But you haven't retired.

You haven't proven anything. A person would have to be deliberately dishonest, completely stupid, or so biased as to be a drone, in order to not see that you engaged in malicious gossip. Likewise, only an extremely sympathetic sophist would ever see any problem in telling the plain truth, which is that you have gotten paid for apologetics. Over and over we shall go, until you simply man up and accept responsibility for this.

Pull your head out already, Professor Drama Queen. Boo hoo! Poor Dan can't admit when he's wrong! What's next: are you going to announce to all of us that you have an upcoming trip, so that you can bail out of the thread, and then turn up later, claiming ignorance? I, for one, have grown very, very sick and tired of your endless pretend ignorance, condescension, arrogance, equivocating, and sophistry. Maybe it's *you* who should retire.

[_Jason Bourne]

Shall we examine another example? How about the "flat-out falsehood" that you get paid for apologetics? Do you? Yes, it turns out that you once got compensated $20,000 for being the Chair of FARMS, and you admitted to collecting various sums for your editorial work. Is this a "flat-out falsehood", the claim that DCP gets paid for apologetics? No. Of course not. DCP is full of crap.

Dan denied receiving $22K of compensation. He explained what his time was for and that it was not apologetic related at least for the ancient text work he did. He also said this sum probably went to BYU for his time.I supplied page after page of explanation based on the instructions for a Form 990 to demonstrate that the report can show compensation to a person when in fact it goes somewhere else for that persons time.

Yet you refused to accept that and continues to claim he got paid $22k. Well unless you can produce the W-2 or 1099 that shows that this I consider a falsehood. I am sure most reasonable people will as well.

[_Mister Scratch]

Shall we examine another example? How about the "flat-out falsehood" that you get paid for apologetics? Do you? Yes, it turns out that you once got compensated $20,000 for being the Chair of FARMS, and you admitted to collecting various sums for your editorial work. Is this a "flat-out falsehood", the claim that DCP gets paid for apologetics? No. Of course not. DCP is full of crap.

Dan denied receiving $22K of compensation. He explained what his time was for and that it was not apologetic related at least for the ancient text work he did.

He did? Jason: FARMS is an apologetic organization. This means that part of the administrative work had to deal with apologetics. Again: my claim is simply this: Dan got paid for apologetics. Whether this was fifty bucks for an article, a hundred bucks for editing, or $20K for being the Chair of FARMS, the fact remains: Dan was paid for apologetics. *That*, and that alone, is my claim. We can get into the particulars if you like, since that seems to be where your beef lies, but, to reiterate, I am not claiming anything beyond the very simple, straightforward, unadorned fact that DCP has gotten paid to do apologetics.

He also said this sum probably went to BYU for his time.

Yes; part of his BYU salary was meant to cover his role as Chair of FARMS. I agree. His BYU salary ($20,000 thereof) was used to pay for his FARMS work. I understand, Jason. I get it. Do you? The point, once again, is that DCP has been paid to do apologetics. Would you care to explain how me saying that is somehow a "flat-out falsehood"? Cause then I can retire! Wouldn't that make you happy?

I supplied page after page of explanation based on the instructions for a Form 990 to demonstrate that the report can show compensation to a person when in fact it goes somewhere else for that persons time.

Yes, I know. The 20K actually represents a chunk of DCP's normal BYU salary. We've been over this. I get it. It does not change the basic facts of my claim: that DCP has gotten paid to be the Chair of FARMS, and that he has received compensation for apologetics.

Yet you refused to accept that and continues to claim he got paid $22k.

He did get paid. You seem to think that I'm claiming that he got this in addition to his normal salary. Well, Jason, that's not what I'm claiming.

Well unless you can produce the W-2 or 1099 that shows that this I consider a falsehood.

We've already looked at the 990 which states that he was paid to be Chair of FARMS. That's all I'm claiming, Jason. I get the sense that you are confused about what I'm claiming.

[_The Nehor]

I think Mr. Peterson is one of the most full-of-crap people I've ever seen. He's bluffed his way through 20 years of "academia". After seeing him get roundly drubbed by Robert Spencer in Las Vegas any doubt about his lack of mental prowess was laid to rest.

He mocks because that's all he has. He has no ability to have a sustained intellectual apologetic debate in a forum where he won't be protected. He knows it. We know it. So he does what he does best: Play the fool.

A cafeteria worker's opinion.