Were DCP and other BYU Apologists Ordered to "Tone it Down"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratchitus: Tacitus without the substantive content, the sunny disposition, and the charity?

[_Pokatator]

If it was a "witty remark" why not state it and be done with it?

But you would rather be the monkey on the end the chain. You the one who left is now back posting non substance on a regular basis.

Old habits die hard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If it was a "witty remark" why not state it and be done with it?

Because, with Scratch, to state it would be never to be done with it.

The quip was entirely innocuous, but it would become just one more element in the elaborate demonology of Scratchism.

How do I know this? Three long years of experience with Scratch's absurd malignancy.

As I've indicated above, any non-Scratch who wants to know the full, unexpurgated, epic saga of this monumentally important quip can write to me at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu, and the truth shall be revealed in all its world-historical significance. My offer has been on the table for nearly twenty-four hours now, and no non-Scratch appears to have mustered enough interest in this epoch-making tale even to click on daniel_peterson@BYU.edu and ask to hear it.

But you would rather be the monkey on the end the chain. You the one who left is now back posting non substance on a regular basis.

Old habits die hard.

While you, by contrast, invariably post such richly substantive essays as the one just quoted -- at least, in my experience with you.

.

[_Joey]

Three long years of experience with Scratch's absurd malignancy.

On par with "five long years plus of Peterson sensationalizing things that are irrelevant and ignored"!?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Speaking of irrelevancy:

Ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum, etc.

[_TAK]

Speaking of irrelevancy:

Ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum, etc.

And you claim you don’t do substance...

Bravo !

[_Doctor Scratch]

If it was a "witty remark" why not state it and be done with it?

But you would rather be the monkey on the end the chain. You the one who left is now back posting non substance on a regular basis.

Old habits die hard.

He won't say because it is more evidence that people don't like the Review, and he is very, very sensitive about any criticism of his Baby Publication. You see, it is very important to him that people get the impression that Mopologetics sits well with the Brethren, and with BYU administrations, and so on. The truth is that what he's doing with the Review is contentious and controversial, and that bothers him. Like most men with power in Mormonism, he wants obedience, and not "murmuring."

I actually don't even need to be told what the quip was. It's mere existence is enough to prove a basic point. By dragging this out and being so terrified of just reciting the quip, The Good Professor is only digging himself in deeper, revealing his insecurities, and showing just how precarious of a position the Review is actually in.

[_Daniel Peterson]

He won't say because it is more evidence that people don't like the Review, and he is very, very sensitive about any criticism of his Baby Publication.

As previously advertised on this board: Any non-Scratch who's interested is entirely welcome to learn about the quip and its context by simply writing to me and requesting it at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu. Yes, I'm that terrified, that committed to keeping it a secret.

I actually don't even need to be told what the quip was. It's mere existence is enough to prove a basic point.

It's always been apparent that Scratch was going to use The Quip for the entirely predictable, never-varying Scratchite agenda The actual content of The Quip is, and has always been, completely irrelevant to him. Scratch's cunning capacity to spin -- a genuine skill of his that is, in its low way, remarkable -- and his insatiable desire to do so guarantees that it will be used in his never-ending crusade to discredit me, whatever it says. Providing The Quip to Scratch would simply gratify his weird obsession with me and provide fodder for his bizarre on-going three-year-old crusade.

I choose not to subject myself any more to his agenda-driven Scratchoscopic interrogations. He can still cite his creepy alleged network of secret "informants," though, and fantasize to his grim heart's content. Thus, by declining to share The Quip with him, I do him no actual harm.

By dragging this out and being so terrified of just reciting the quip, The Good Professor is only digging himself in deeper, revealing his insecurities, and showing just how precarious of a position the Review is actually in.

The Quip is available to any non-Scratch who cares to ask for it, at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.

I haven't looked for a couple of hours, but, at last glance -- I'll look again, shortly -- nobody has shown even the slightest interest in it.

I'm happy to give it out, but I think, if anybody asks for it, that I'll request that it be neither posted here nor shared in any way with any Scratch. That's my little contribution to Scratchist paranoia and, more significantly, my little gesture of non-cooperation with the never-ending Scratchoscopy and its foregone, predetermined conclusions.

[_Ray A]

I haven't looked for a couple of hours, but, at last glance -- I'll look again, shortly -- nobody has shown even the slightest interest in it.

Check your emails thoroughly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Check your emails thoroughly.

Will do. I'm not on my home computer, and the form in which I view my e-mails at a distance is a bit unwieldy. (It's BYU's new system.) But I have looked, several times.

Any non-Scratch who really wants to know the mighty tale of The Quip and to ponder its significance for the future of humanity can, as noted, write to me at daniel_peterson@BYU.edu. And it might be wise to put the word quip in the title, so that I don't miss his or her request.