Peterson at it again, blasting away in the comments

[_stemelbow]

Stem, thanks, I've read it but perhaps I'm being a bit dim today. Can you quote the specific post(s) where you call someone out for whining?

Cheers

I'm not sure why you're specifying the word whining. I said I've called out LDS for poor behavior on this forum before. But, if you wish to be so technical I think you can start on page-ish 5 and start reading. I think you can technically call Nomad and perhaps even Wade's behavior as whining and though I don't believe I used that word to describe them, it applies.

[_jon]

Stem, thanks, I've read it but perhaps I'm being a bit dim today. Can you quote the specific post(s) where you call someone out for whining?

Cheers

I'm not sure why you're specifying the word whining. I said I've called out LDS for poor behavior on this forum before. But, if you wish to be so technical I think you can start on page-ish 5 and start reading. I think you can technically call Nomad and perhaps even Wade's behavior as whining and though I don't believe I used that word to describe them, it applies.

I think there are those from both the LDS defender and the critics side who can admit that others can come to a different conclusions and still be reasonable people, albeit I acknowledge there are those who can be pretty dogmatic on both sides too.

Did you mean this?

[_stemelbow]

Did you mean this?

I don't see how that quote is doing anything of the sort. Did you read the three pages I had mentioned? I specifically addressed Wade suggesting he take a different approach (oops that was on a page before page 5). And I specifically addressed Nomad when he attacked Runtu.

This was really just meant as one example. I hope you're able to see things as they really are.

[_Themis]

Hey there, Themis, I'm not really interested in playing your games again. I did nto say my first post in this thread was where I addressed the reasons why exhaustively. I thought the post that started this thread spoke for itself so when I first replied I did so snarkily, assuming most would get that. Apparently you and Buffalo didn't get that (although to Buffalo's credit he got it after I pointed it out.)

I have never played games with you, but I can see you like to think so. Nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, take care. I'm sorry you're so beside yourself about me.

All I have done is suggest a better alternative that would be more substantive then what you have been doing. It certainly does not bother me, but it apparently has got you upset. Sorry.

I'll probably maintain my position of pointing out foolishness or calling people out when I see fit. You can continue to complain about me when I do so, ignoring the original offender all you like in some weird game of going after the LDS dude.

Now playing the victim stem? I can tell you are upset. I see no reason you should be when I have never attacked you here. Again I gave constructive crtism, but I know that is something we can have a hard time accepting without getting our defenses up. Have fun stem. :)

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, a few points to clarify.

You seem to have avoided answering my question to you about whether or not you believe that Infymus has the exact same rights as DCP. Yes or No?

If you are unable to realize that my position does not match what you believe my position is, then there is little I can do for you. Everyone has the same rights.

You have also avoided answering my question to you about whether or not you believe that Infymus has breached those rights. Yes or No?

Please show me where I indicated that Infymus breached any rights.

You seem to be whining about the OP which you think is Infymus whining about DCP. Can you possibly see the irony in that?

If it were as you paint it, then yes there would be irony. However, this thread is about Infymus attacking DCP for merely posting "if anyone is interested, here is a link." That's it. That's all he posted. I don't consider that "blasting away in the [HuffPost] comments" do you? I don't think that deserves hatred and Internet stalking, do you?

You seem to be suggesting that there is a threshold on the number of posts that can be whined about. Is there an actual numerical threshold, beyond which you believe whining to be acceptable?
If not, why do you whine so much?

Again, your basic understanding is off. Infymus set the threshold by saying that DCP was "blasting away in the comments." Do you believe 3/386 ratio constitutes "blasting away?"

You ask me to provide you with specific examples of where the Church has been proven false to you. I can't, because the Church has never been proven false to you.

And it never will be.

I can provide you with an extremely long list of examples of where the Church has been proven false to literally billions of other people - but there's no point. What matters is what it would take for you to believe the Church to be false.
So, Simon, what would it take?

Literally billions of other people? Okay, go ahead. This should be good.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

I think you might be surprised at the depth and breadth of the animosity that DCP has generated towards himself and the LDS Church on the internet.

I am definitely awestruck at the animosity toward DCP. I do not believe he has generated it, nor do I believe he (or anyone) deserves it.

If you took the time to look, you would find a lot of people who have an active and often expressed dislike for DCP. Among LDS apologists, even Will Schriver, with his sexual innuendos, open distain for women and bad apologetics, does not even come close to DCP in terms of animosity generated.

And again, I am simply awestruck.

Some of DCP's detractors are prolific and quite articulate. For example, the writings of a certain female moderator on exmormonforums and former contributor to postmormon.org concerning DCP make the observations of Dr. Scratch appear kind and empathetic in comparison. If you like, I could probably dig up a few odes to DCP and some other far less flattering material than is generated by Dr. Scratch. If you were really interested in the general public's reaction to DCP, you would have already done so yourself.

Yes, I know. DCP is hated. I just don't know why. I've read almost everything DCP has written. I read the FARMS review (now Mormon Studies Review). I've read his postings on message boards. I've read his correspondences with people like James White and Infymus.

I have seen nothing like what you're describing. I have seen nothing that deserves decade-long campaigns to malign, ridicule, and blacken a professional academic's career or his reputation. I have seen nothing even close to the caricature Scratch portrays here.

So before you ask how anyone can deserve such a thing, perhaps some reading and research to find out what dozens or even hundreds of people on the internet have to say about DCP, and the reasons they have to say it, might be in order.

As I've said. I've read nearly everything DCP has written. So show me... just one thing that deserves this kind of treatment. Please. Start a new thread if you'd like.

In this thread, I just want to know what he did to specifically Infymus, that causes so much hate.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yes, Simon--we get it. You don't understand why people get upset over the LDS Church. You're baffled that anyone might be irked at the apologists in general or Dr. Peterson in particular. None of it makes any sense to you. Yes, it's true that Dr. Peterson messed up Eric's relationship with his family, but that's all hunky-dory, right? He doesn't deserve a dressing down for that, does he? Yes, he was enmeshed in online smear campaigns directed at Robert Ritner, Tal Bachman, Steve Benson, Mike Quinn, and dozens of other people--but that's just cornflakes and poppycock, right?

What you are saying is akin to someone telling you that you've got no business feeling upset about the General Conference protestor(s) that got up in your face that time. In fact, I bet, Simon, that you're painting a caricature of that person. Whoever that was doesn't deserve your vicious attacks.

[_Simon Belmont]

Yes, Simon--we get it. You don't understand why people get upset over the LDS Church.

Well, getting upset is one thing. Getting upset is a normal, valid emotion. I can understand specific cases where someone might feel offended at something someone at church said, for example.

Hate is inexcusable.

You're baffled that anyone might be irked at the apologists in general or Dr. Peterson in particular. None of it makes any sense to you.

Look, I understand that some apologists have taken cues from some critics about tactics and behaviors. We must not forget, however, that critics and anti-Mormons defined these tactics and behaviors.

So yes, I understand why someone might be irked by some of these behaviors. I certainly am each time I attend an LDS pageant or conference. You don't see me relentlessly stalking a particular critic, for years, both on and offline, attempting to smear and damage his professional and personal reputation. No one deserves that.

Yes, it's true that Dr. Peterson messed up Eric's relationship with his family, but that's all hunky-dory, right? He doesn't deserve a dressing down for that, does he?

Eric had nothing to do with the nature of his relationship with his family?

I do not deny that the aftermath of Dr. Peterson telling Eric's father that Eric had been posting anti-Mormon propaganda online was unfortunate. Did DCP deserve a "dressing down?" I don't know, but I do know he got one, and continues to get one. How long does this dressing down need to go on? It's been what... 3 or 4 years at least for just the Eric episode.

Yes, he was enmeshed in online smear campaigns directed at Robert Ritner, Tal Bachman, Steve Benson, Mike Quinn, and dozens of other people--but that's just cornflakes and poppycock, right?

For the sake of this discussion, I will agree with you on these (though Benson and Bachman are, or were, some of the most viscous anti-Mormons around).

So how much "punishment" does one man deserve? A decade of slander and libel, virtual tarring a feathering, Internet stalking? How long until Infymus and you feel that your vendetta is over?

What you are saying is akin to someone telling you that you've got no business feeling upset about the General Conference protestor(s) that got up in your face that time. In fact, I bet, Simon, that you're painting a caricature of that person. Whoever that was doesn't deserve your vicious attacks.

Feeling upset is a normal, human emotion. Internet stalking, slander and libel is not. Feel upset, it's okay. How long do you think someone should let this emotion consume them? A decade?

And, by the way, I was upset at that conference protester, but I have never named him by name. I have never sought to do harm to him.

[_Buffalo]

I do not deny that the aftermath of Dr. Peterson telling Eric's father that Eric had been posting anti-Mormon propaganda online was unfortunate.

Anti-Mormon propaganda here being a code word for "disclosing the extent of his physical and mental abuse at the hands of the church."

[_jon]

Simon, if someone interfered in your relationship with your parent to the point where you separated and were irreconcilable how long before you got over it?

Let's say you had a sibling who was homosexual, and the words and teachings of Apostles and the Church caused him to feel so much guilt that he took his own life.

Would you be 'offended' 'upset' or do these words not accurately describe how you might feel?