You just don't get it, come back in three days!

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:34 am

skippy the dead wrote:And I'm sure Kevin is soothed by the fact that he is the topic of your correspondences with DCP.

And I'm sure DCP is soothed by the fact that he is the subject of much of Kevin's private correspondence.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:35 am

GoodK wrote:Queue the cheesy love music...

Now you're making me real cynical of your motives.

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:37 am

Ray A wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:And I'm sure Kevin is soothed by the fact that he is the topic of your correspondences with DCP.

And I'm sure DCP is soothed by the fact that he is the subject of much of Kevin's private correspondence.

Whatever. But Kevin's not running around reporting on it. It just seemed a silly thing to post.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:39 am

Well Kev, I have some information for you. I have had extensive correspondence with Dan, and he has never once called you an anti-Mormon. Of course he felt you were very negative, and unable to dialogue with civility, but he never consigned you to the realms of "Satan".

Since you bring this up, did you explicitly ask him if he thought I was an anti-Mormon, or are you simply inferring from his silence that he doesn't think that?

Not that it really matters what Dan thinks of me, but I can't think of any specific time when he said "Kevin is anti-Mormon." Although he has called me anti-Muslim, which is equally erroneous. What I am thinking of is when he described my comments as anti-Mormon, or something to that effect. Of course my memory could be bad on this, and I might have him confused with some of the other posters at MADB. Who knows?

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:40 am

Ray A wrote:
GoodK wrote:Queue the cheesy love music...

Now you're making me real cynical of your motives.

Well let me know when you nail down a hypothesis.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:40 am

skippy the dead wrote:
Whatever. But Kevin's not running around reporting on it. It just seemed a silly thing to post.

Maybe it was. And perhaps I should have PMed Kevin. With Scratch and GoodK around.....

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:41 am

Ray A wrote:
GoodK wrote:And I contend that your theory regarding "two posters" is manifestly false.

Why? Please explain.

I did. You should have left my quote intact.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:43 am

GoodK wrote:Well let me know when you nail down a hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that you got the boot with total justification.

And now you come here to get some glory. Empty glory. Don't forget to engrave that trophy: "I defeated Dan Peterson. (at least I think so)"

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:44 am

And I'm sure DCP is soothed by the fact that he is the subject of much of Kevin's private correspondence.

Privately? The only time I can think of talking about Dan privately is when people email me asking for the scoop on the stuff they heard at MAD. Other than this, there was the time when I emailed Ritner to confirm a rumor Dan had been spreading. And on another occassion I emailed Daniel Pipes and spoke well of Dan, which resulted in Dan's name being mentioned on Pipe's list of excellent scholars on Islam (I know, its hard to believe I could have been responsible for that). Aside from these examples, I don't speak to anyone "privately" who even knows who Dan Peterson is, so it wouldn't really make for great conversation. I'd say 99.999% of everything I have had to say about Dan is made public on the forums.

Not that I object to Dan discussing me in his private conversations, which I know happens because he speaks privately with so many people who know me.

by the way, Dan is right that I am negative. But I happen to be talking about topics that are negative.

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:48 am

Ray A wrote:
GoodK wrote:Well let me know when you nail down a hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that you got the boot with total justification.

And now you come here to get some glory. Empty glory. Don't forget to engrave that trophy: "I defeated Dan Peterson. (at least I think so)"

You are certainly correct - I was booted because I held silly beliefs to the fire and used an article Peterson himself wrote to prove him wrong. This was certainly justification enough for the moderators.

And I do take a little pride in the fact that I created a little noise in the apologetic community. Sue me.
And I'll be sure to engrave a trophy for you: "I talk to Dan Peterson" (or should it be DCP?)

Good grief.