Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_Mister Scratch]

I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.

Good for you, LOaP! You certainly have one thing right. You are no star witness. Your incessant, petty references to Scratch by the female pronoun, as though this were some kind of insult, show exactly what kind of ignorant, minor-league twerp you are. You could say you saw Daniel walk on water, and the only thing it would prove is the profound depth of your sycophancy.

It's not intended as an insult. I really do believe Scratch is a woman.

Based on what? You have been terrified to say. I wonder why?

[_Mister Scratch]

I do nothing different from what routinely appears in the pages of FARMS Review.

Sometimes I almost think that Scratch actually believes that's true.

Yes, probably because it *is* true, as Dr. Shades and others have recognized.

Nor do I do anything much different than DCP's "RfM sig-line archive."

Which has now swollen to a massive 42 items, averaging roughly two lines each.

There's some pretty funny stuff in it. I use my little collection, mainly, as signature-line material in e-mails to friends.

Oh, is it really just 42? When I first inquired into this, you claimed it was only 19, and yet, a few weeks later, you were hauling out years-old quotes that weren't included in your original list. Furthermore, you have admitted that you save every single email you ever receive. Do you do that so you can later joke about it with your Mopologetics pals, and use the material to show how "wicked" all the "antis" are?

Never have I, for example, contacted somebody's family, as DCP has done.

I've known GoodK's father for roughly twenty years. There's no secret about GoodK's atheism; GoodK's father has been fully aware of it for a long time, as have I. That wasn't the issue. When I saw GoodK posting mocking words about his father on a public message board, though, and realized who GoodK must be (since his father had sent the same letter about GoodK's critically ill sister to me that GoodK was lampooning here), I was shocked and appalled. I went back and forth. I didn't want to add to my friend's stress, since having a daughter hospitalized at death's door was already horrible, but I reasoned that, if it were my son who was making fun of me as a superstitious fanatic and a blowhard on a public message board while my daughter (his sister) was fighting for her life, I would want to know. So, finally, after several hours of internal debate, I sent a note to GoodK's father calling his attention to GoodK's comments about him. I also apologized to GoodK's father if my action was inappropriate.

Did you apologize also for using the occasion as an opportunity to whine about the criticism you have received from people on this messageboard? That seems pretty disgustingly opportunistic, if you ask me.

Scratch can paint my action as malicious and underhanded if he wants.

Sort of like how you, with no evidence, tried to brand me a "brazen liar"?

I've never ripped into somebody's professional credibility, as have DCP, and Bill Hamblin, and many others who sought to destroy Quinn's career as a historian (and arguably succeeded, at least in certain circles).

None of us has ever "sought to destroy Mike Quinn's career as a historian." We don't have any capacity to do so in any event, and I have no reason to believe that anything I've done has anything to do with his career troubles. Frankly, they surprise me.

Then why, at practically every opportunity, do you tell LDS that his historical work "can't be trusted"? Why did you allow such tripe as "That Old Black Magic" to be published in FARMS Review? Why have you continuously made insinuations about how Quinn's sexuality played a part in his Church court? It just doesn't wash, Prof. P. You really do want Church critics to suffer, and to be punished. Your sparkly-eyed glee over the Keyes "open letter" is further evidence in favor of this. Your glib, peanut gallery comments on that infamous Murphy ZLMB thread are even further evidence. You genuinely love "sticking it" to Church critics. There can be no question about that.

As far as "ripp[ing] into somebody's professional credibility," well, that's occasionally what book reviews (and movie reviews and music reviews and drama criticism) do. If a book is bad, a reviewer has to say so. Will that reflect upon the credibility of the book's author? Yes.

There is a rather big difference between saying, "This is a flawed book" vs. "This historian can't be trusted."

Is it, to use Scratch's favorite word, a "smear"? No. Is it a "smear" to say that the dialogue in a play is stilted, or that a novel's plot is unimaginative, or that a symphony is unsatisfying, or that a film is dull, or that an actor's performance is poor? Not in any normal English-speaker's lexicon. Yet, in every such case, the reviewer has effectively "ripped into somebody's professional credibility."

It find it intriguing that all of the examples you use are drawn from the arts. Typically, these things are treated as "arts" rather than "professions." Furthermore, I strongly disagree that the examples you give are attacks on character in the same sense that your and Bill Hamblin's "Quinn is untrustworthy" are. Saying that an actor's [u]performance[/i] is poor is a commentary on the work. So, it's not the same as saying that someone is dishonest, or lazy, or that the person has an agenda, etc. I'm pretty sure you understand this difference. (Or, maybe you don't, hence why it continues to show up in FARMS publications?)

I've never engaged in the sort of real-life gossip akin to what Gee and The Good Professor were doing to Prof. Robert Ritner.

I have not gossiped about Professor Ritner. But there is more to the story of Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner than is generally known, and, as one of John Gee's former teachers, I know much of it, as I was in contact with Dr. Gee all through his years in graduate school at Berkeley and at Yale.

Yet another insinuation. Are you really so deluded that you cannot recognize this stuff?

Scratch and others would be well advised not to draw conclusions from the little portion of the story that they know (some of which, by the way, isn't true).

I don't need any more "portions" to understand that you and Gee were making insinuations designed to discredit Ritner, and to undo any questions about Gee's scholarly integrity.

Am I sometimes kind of a bastard, and do I sometimes question the character of Mopologists [sic]? Yes, that's no doubt true.

Finally, something that Scratch and I can agree on -- except that I would delete both occurrences of sometimes.

You think I am *always* a bastard? Wow.

But nowhere have I ever meddled in people's in real life worlds in the way that these Church defenders have.

I flatly deny any such meddling. I wouldn't do it, I can't do it, and I haven't done it.

Shalom!

Sorry! But, you have.

I'd like to offer you the opportunity to accept a truce once again, Prof. P. The choice is yours. Of course, this will mean that you'll have to make some unpleasant concessions, but would it be worth it? Just think: I would go away---permanently!! C'mon, there is no one alive whom you hate more than me. Would a minor apology be worth it, if it puts an end to my posting?

[_Trevor]

2) Many here are overlooking the fact that DCP contacted GoodK's father in part to whine about the criticisms he (I.e., DCP) receives from the posters here. Thus, it has long seemed to me that the principal reason behind the "meddling" was to get GoodK's father to lecture him about criticizing DCP.

Has Daniel made his email to GoodK's father public? You know its contents?

[_Mister Scratch]

2) Many here are overlooking the fact that DCP contacted GoodK's father in part to whine about the criticisms he (I.e., DCP) receives from the posters here. Thus, it has long seemed to me that the principal reason behind the "meddling" was to get GoodK's father to lecture him about criticizing DCP.

Has Daniel made his email to GoodK's father public? You know its contents?

It was a separate email (I think), and GoodK posted it on the board:

It seems that your son is posting as “Chap” now, rather than as “GoodK.”

What I admit that I don’t understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I’m wrong but that I’m either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who’ve never met their patient, they’re discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It’s really pretty funny.

Gee, does this seem like the work of someone who is just "looking out for an old friend"? I would imagine that DCP really wishes that this particular email had never surfaced. While he may have had something resembling a counter to charges of "meddling" in terms of the other email, I doubt he'll be able to offer up much of anything for this one. This is def. meddling, in my opinion.

[_Trevor]

You genuinely love "sticking it" to Church critics. There can be no question about that.

I have no doubt of that.

There is a rather big difference between saying, "This is a flawed book" vs. "This historian can't be trusted."

Indeed there is. The former is the better approach.

[_Chap]

Glad you liked my parody. I hope you see the point of it? If you can see DCP's publication list, why can't anybody else?

Ask Daniel. I have no idea.

I don't really see the point of your parody, except maybe to suggest that where I don't agree with you I must be a Mormon apologist. Is that the case, or do you have another point? Please enlighten me.

Now I have a question for you: how is Daniel's publication record related to the truth or falsity of Mormonism?

The rest of your post is a bit, well, "controlling" isn't it? The space you have taken up in rebuking me for asking if we can see DCP's publication list is a good deal more than what I took to ask my (in my view perfectly reasonable) question.

Rebuking? Isn't that a little melodramatic of you?

If by controlling you mean designed to help you avoid wasting your time with pointless and irrelevant arguments, then yes, it was controlling.

BYU as an institution, and its academic hiring, retention and promotion policies are intimately bound up with the nature, mission and central policies of the CoJCoLDS, which is the broad subject to which this board is devoted. Does BYU, for instance, hire and reward academics because of their professional eminence in their slated field, or does it have a policy of rewarding them for work which is mainly devoted to LDS apologetics? That is a quite proper question for us to discuss, even if an answer to it does not bear logically on the truth or falsity of foundational LDS claims, which are by no means the only proper topic on this board.

Knock yourself out, Chap. It does seem to me, however, that straying into the question of Daniel's credentials begins to look more like an assault on him than one on Mormonism. And, to the degree it is perceived to be such, it actually is to the benefit of the apologists. It looks petty, vindictive, and irrelevant.

Dear me! We have got our cranky pants on today, haven't we?

I don't really see the point of your parody, except maybe to suggest that where I don't agree with you I must be a Mormon apologist.

Silly Trevor! I was just trying to share my sense of irony (given that we are talking in an LDS context) that the Golden Plates of DCP's publication record were declared inaccessible, but a witness (you) declared that he really and truly had seen it, and it "showed quite clearly that he does publish in his field". I thought you would see the joke.

Now I have a question for you: how is Daniel's publication record related to the truth or falsity of Mormonism?

I have already said that DCP's publication record is logically disconnected from the truth value of LDS foundational claims. But it is by no means disconnected from the fascinating social, institutional and indeed economic mechanisms through which belief in those claims is maintained, despite what seems to non-LDS to be their deep implausibility. I am under the impression that those mechanisms are a legitimate topic of discussion on this board. I hope that doesn't irritate you beyond all bearing.

[_Trevor]

Dear me! We have got our cranky pants on today, haven't we?

Well, I am a little tired, but I wasn't feeling particularly cranky when I wrote that stuff.

Silly Trevor! I was just trying to share my sense of irony (given that we are talking in an LDS context) that the Golden Plates of DCP's publication record were declared inaccessible, but a witness (you) declared that he really and truly had seen it, and it "showed quite clearly that he does publish in his field". I thought you would see the joke.

D'oh! I should have. And it is a good one. I thought it was funny in the first place. Now I see it working on a number of levels. I love humor. Sorry I was too tired to clue into it all.

I have already said that DCP's publication record is logically disconnected from the truth value of LDS foundational claims. But it is by no means disconnected from the fascinating social, institutional and indeed economic mechanisms through which belief in those claims is maintained, despite what seems to non-LDS to be their deep implausibility. I am under the impression that those mechanisms are a legitimate topic of discussion on this board. I hope that doesn't irritate you beyond all bearing.

Oh man, now you have me laughing! Seriously, beyond all bearing? I can promise you that it does not irritate me nearly that much. I simply think that as a rhetorical strategy in sparring with apologists, it isn't particularly effective. If your interest is in a broader exploration of Mormon institutions, then by all means continue. I won't be surprised if Daniel cries foul and most of his buddies heartily agree with him.

[_Chap]

Trevor - I am glad we understand one another again.

[_Trevor]

It seems that your son is posting as “Chap” now, rather than as “GoodK.”

What I admit that I don’t understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I’m wrong but that I’m either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who’ve never met their patient, they’re discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It’s really pretty funny.

To this reader, the tone here is not of a man carrying out a solemn obligation to protect a friend.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thank you, Jersey Girl. I'm well. One of my sons was commissioned as a naval officer today. That was nice.

But I've got a lot of things to do before I fly off to Washington DC on Monday, and then on to Israel and Jordan on Wednesday. I enjoy travelling once I'm underway, but I always wonder, just before I leave, why I ever agree to do it. It's such a massive interruption of projects that I'm working on.

These two paragraphs are at odds with each other.

Not really. Scratch claims that I smear people, try to ruin their careers, etc.

I don't.

I wasn't claiming, though, that I have no human interactions and never affect any other person. I certainly hope that I do.

By contacting GoodK's father, you meddled in GoodK's world. What other word would you use?

I passed some information on to a friend about what someone close to him was saying about him in a public place -- as I hope he would have done for me, had the situations been reversed. I wasn't meddling in GoodK's life; I was being a friend to a friend. Who is, by the way, still a friend.

It wasn't your friend's life I was referring to, when I said "meddling". It was GoodK's. What from one perspective could be perceived as helpfulness from another's perspective could be considered meddling. Or don't you agree? Perhaps you didn't look at your actions from GoodK's perspective?

It's mildly shocking that you find DCP's actions abhorrent, but Good K's mockery of his father while his sister is critically ill is rather disgusting and disturbing. I hope you have voiced some criticism of Good K's actions as well.