SMPT in Claremont in Less Than Two Weeks

[_LifeOnaPlate]

To recap: Gad was "joking," though he made several here believe he was serious. For what purpose I do not know.

So says you. I deny it. My presentation was real. It turns out, rather ironically, that DCPs presentation may have been a "put-on" according to his recent comments in this thread.

Let's be clear, because you and Scratch seem to be on different pages at this point. moderator edit by harmony: rule #3

Now you insist you really presented, but you are being vague. So let's go through a series of specific questions, ones that are not designed to "discover" who you really are, or "unmask" you or whatever. Now, your answers will determine to my complete satisfaction whether you are claiming to have physically and actually presented at the conference, or whether you are simply playing games and trying to score rhetorical points (or worse- lying). Notice these are "yes" or "no" questions, and any dissembling on your part will essentially signal to me that you did not actually present, thus are either joking or lying.

1- Did you write an actual proposal consisting of apx. 1000 words and submit it via email to SMPT as per the call for papers instructions?

2- Did you receive an email of acceptance from SMPT notifying you that your paper was accepted? [Bonus extra credit: include some of the text from the email as evidence.]

3- Did you then write a full paper using actual words on paper or on a computer?

4- Was the title of your paper and your name printed on the actual conference program? (Since all presenters were listed on the program this will not give away your identity any more than you claim to have presented there.)

5- Were you physically, bodily, located at Claremont during the conference where you stood at an actual podium in from of people who actually attended the conference and deliver your paper?

6- Did you field questions during a q and a session following the delivery of your paper?



Gad, enough games, you can answer these simple questions that everyone who actually literally physically and really presented at the conference would be able to answer affirmatively. Yes or no is really the only acceptable answer depending on the very nature of the questions. I look forward to your response.

[_Yoda]

For the record, I'm with LOAP on this one. Answers to these questions in a yes or no fashion will not "out" you anymore than your letting us know you were presenting in the first place.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I offer myself as an example of how these questions would be answered by somebody who actually participated in the conference in Claremont:

1- Yes. I wrote an actual proposal consisting of aproximately 1000 words and submitted it via email to SMPT, as per the instructions in the call for papers.

2- Yes. I received an email of acceptance from SMPT notifying me that my paper had been accepted accepted. [It read, in part, as follows: "Thank you for your fine submission for the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology's 2009 Annual Meeting. I am pleased to write that the Executive Committee has accepted your paper proposal."]

3- Yes. I then wrote most of a full paper, using actual words on paper and on a computer (though some of my actual presentation was from notes rather than from a polished text).

4- Yes. The title of my paper and my name were printed on the actual conference program.

5- Yes. I was physically, bodily, located at Claremont during the conference, where I stood at an actual podium in front of people who actually attended the conference and delivered my paper.

6- Yes. I fielded questions during a Q&A session following the delivery of my paper.

These questions are easily answered. If Gadianton actually participated at Claremont, he can readily answer these questions with perfect clarity, yet without in any way compromising his identity. Since, for "bonus points," I've quoted directly from the form acceptance letter that was sent out by SMPT to conference participants, his reply would be particularly convincing if he were to quote an authentic but different sentence or two from that multi-paragraph letter. I realize, of course, that he might well have received such a letter but discarded it. Still, if he were able to quote it, that evidence would be difficult to refute.

[_truth dancer]

Maybe I missed something but is there some reason why this is important?

If Gad was teasing, we can all smile.

If he did present, it must have been a very nice presentation.

[_Trevor]

moderator edit by harmony: rule #3.

I would imagine the only thing that distinguishes Scratch from Gad on this point would be how long the joke should run.

Also, I am with truth dancer on this. Not important.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe I missed something but is there some reason why this is important?

If Gad was teasing, we can all smile.

If he did present, it must have been a very nice presentation.

In one sense, these attempts at discussion are sort of fruitless. Especially when you factor in Scratch's multi-year campaign against Dan Peterson and the Internet's "disinhibition effect" with the problems of anonymous forums generally.

I'm not a killjoy, however, and Dan isn't either, I like to joke. I swear!

But I don't particularly care for this particular brand of joking, especially when it isn't apparent at all that people are joking. (Ask other posters on the board who thought Gad was being entirely serious about presenting.) So in seeking clarification I am hoping to help deflate some of this rhetorical game-playing especially when it deals with real people and real situations.

Also, I am with truth dancer on this. Not important.

But importance is a subjective judgment, so while it may not be important to you it may be important to others. (And on my list of importance it isn't particularly high, I'm not losing sleep over this, just seeking definite clarification for all who have been involved in the discussion.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's important at least in this sense: Gadianton has given absolutely no hint that he's been joking on this matter. And he has persisted in his claim for several months. Yet he may have been joking. If he was joking, and yet writing as if he were totally serious, that means that nothing that Gadianton says, however earnest he may appear to be in what he's saying, can be confidently taken to be serious.

Which would be a useful datum. I've suspected for quite some time that Gadianton's grossly exaggerated Scratchism was intended satirically, and his sustained faux-earnest spoof here (if that is what it is and was) seems clearly to support that understanding of him.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The apologists are taking this issue seriously because it would shake them to the core to learn that Gad was one of their "Brothers in Arms." moderator edit by harmony: rule #3 I think you can imagine how upset DCP and LoaP would be about that.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

For the record, I would be neither upset, nor shaken to the core. I am the world's leading authority on how I would feel about it.

[Guest]

The apologists are taking this issue seriously because it would shake them to the core to learn that Gad was one of their "Brothers in Arms." moderator edit by harmony: rule #3 I think you can imagine how upset DCP and LoaP would be about that.

The questions that LOAP formulated are easily answered, and answering them truthfully would disclose absolutely nothing about Gadianton's real life identity.