Buffalo wrote:Example: I started a thread on the new Superman costume. No interest from DCP until Scratch posted something in there, whereup DCP stepped right up to respond. I'm pretty sure DCP had a window open with Scratch's forum profile at all times, so he could follow all of Scratch's posts and respond to them.
That's dedication!
huh? Peterson responded in a thread after Scratch? Buffalo, let's be a little reasonable. To take your view seriously, we'd have to see that Peterson only responds to threads in which Scratch has already responded. is that the case? One time doesn't really draw the conclusion that Peterson has a window open with Scratch's forum profile at all times. Its completely foolish to conclude this based on what youve observed. But it appears its easy to conclude such things from your guys' viewpoint. I don't think you realize the cloudy viewpoint your coming from. Sadly.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
OK, stem, tell us why you think DCP is less obsessed with Scratch than Scratch is of DCP. This should be interesting.
I believe to most observers this is plainly obvious.
Well, you seem to believe a lot of dubious things.
stemelbow wrote:Peterson himself has claimed to leave it all alone for extended periods only to return to see that Scratch has persistently been at the attacks. I mean do you want me to verify that This has happened? Do you want me to show that Peterson has been gone and returned to see the attacks being kept up? I get that you can't believe Peterson, but it seems quite reasonable. Also, reading the content of their posts seems to bare this out some too.
To the biased eye, I'm sure that's true, stem.
Keep in mind that I'm not claiming Scratch is not obsessed with DCP, whereas you seem to be claiming DCP isn't so obsessed with Scratch. I wonder who's really letting their bias show.
Hey, lots of people criticize DCP, but DCP only seems to make sure to respond to every little comment Scratch makes. Why is that if Scratch is so outrageous and DCP is not obsessed with what Scratch says?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:To the biased eye, I'm sure that's true, stem.
Keep in mind that I'm not claiming Scratch is not obsessed with DCP, whereas you seem to be claiming DCP isn't so obsessed with Scratch. I wonder who's really letting their bias show.
Well obviously you--since you and I both know DCP is hardly obsessed with Scratch.
Hey, lots of people criticize DCP, but DCP only seems to make sure to respond to every little comment Scratch makes. Why is that if Scratch is so outrageous and DCP is not obsessed with what Scratch says?
I think its quite plain that Scratch has targetted DCP for years, and people here actually buy into that targetting. Its not as if some random guy disagrees with Stak here.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Some Schmo wrote:To the biased eye, I'm sure that's true, stem.
Keep in mind that I'm not claiming Scratch is not obsessed with DCP, whereas you seem to be claiming DCP isn't so obsessed with Scratch. I wonder who's really letting their bias show.
Well obviously you--since you and I both know DCP is hardly obsessed with Scratch.
Kind of like you and I both know the church is true?
Gotcha.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Buffalo wrote:Example: I started a thread on the new Superman costume. No interest from DCP until Scratch posted something in there, whereup DCP stepped right up to respond. I'm pretty sure DCP had a window open with Scratch's forum profile at all times, so he could follow all of Scratch's posts and respond to them.
That's dedication!
huh? Peterson responded in a thread after Scratch? Buffalo, let's be a little reasonable. To take your view seriously, we'd have to see that Peterson only responds to threads in which Scratch has already responded. is that the case? One time doesn't really draw the conclusion that Peterson has a window open with Scratch's forum profile at all times. Its completely foolish to conclude this based on what youve observed. But it appears its easy to conclude such things from your guys' viewpoint. I don't think you realize the cloudy viewpoint your coming from. Sadly.
It's a reasonable conclusion. I don't think DCP is a fan of comic books. He likes hoity toity artsy fartsy stuff, not disposable pop culture.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote: I think its quite plain that Scratch has targetted DCP for years, and people here actually buy into that targetting. Its not as if some random guy disagrees with Stak here.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote: everyone thinks in black and whites at some point. Anywho...you are obviously wrong, but I won't change your opinion. Peterson has said that he has attempted to stop responded for extended periods of time but the attacks just keep coming (I believe he said he did for a year at one time only to learn the attacks were still coming unabated). Its interesting how quick people will give characters like Scratch a pass, but will be so opposed to an LDS dude for the slightest of things. Interesting and a bit adorable in a weird way.
Making bad assumptions again. I do not give scratch a pass. I ignore him like I do many posters. Dan would do well to follow other well known apologists who ignore it all. The problem is I think he likes the attention, even if negative. Their are some well known apologist who keep things low key and spend their time on LDS issues. Dan spends most of his time on these forums on trivial matters usually about him. If he could just stick to the issues and ignore people like scratch, but then it's easier to do that then to deal with the hard issues like the evidences he presented for the Book of Abraham that were proven wrong.
The problem is I think he likes the attention, even if negative.
I think he's said numerous times he does not and the reason he hasn'tignored it in the past is because he feels it could be detrimental to his professional image. There are those who buy into it. Perhaps you and I woudln't know what it could do. He has felt he needs to rebut the claims lest in going unrefuted he might be negatively effected.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I think he's said numerous times he does not and the reason he hasn'tignored it in the past is because he feels it could be detrimental to his professional image. There are those who buy into it. Perhaps you and I woudln't know what it could do. He has felt he needs to rebut the claims lest in going unrefuted he might be negatively effected.
His professional image? Is that as an apologist or as a professor in Islamic studies. If the ladder I fail to see how. I am sure people like Dawkins get way more crap said about him, but I doubt he spends much time worrying about it. He would do well to follow their example, but then as I said, I think he like the attention. He posting career that I have seen for many years seem to suggest this, while many other apologists do not.
