Daniel C. Peterson: well-respected scholar? or not?

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, did Pahoran actually make threats? Or did he say that was the advice he received?

"Legally" speaking, it was implicit in what he said, in my opinion. ; )

And just to clarify, Scratch, I'm not taking sides in this. I think both you and Pahoran make some good points. I have no horse in this race. It's the most interesting debate I've seen in a long time.

Terrific, and I really think that's the whole point, Ray. Good debate. Interesting (even if heated) conversation. My sense is that Pahoran just doesn't want to be held accountable for the way he has treated others on the MBs. But oh, well. I said I would keep in real life names off the blog, and I've done so.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Mister Scratch

You are cool and no you are NOT like the MOD's on FAIR.

I am no lawyer and I hope I have never claimed that I was, but I do know that the privacy laws that are protecting you and your BLOG are still protecting you.

Legally Paharon would have a REALLY REALLY hard time suing you, but I am sure you already know that.

The privacy laws were written before the Internet and I doubt anyone will be writing new laws concerning privacy laws any time soon.

They have better things to do, and there is too much money that is being made by the lack of privacy laws.

You Mister Scratch have simply proven a point that FAIR has never allowed any of us to do, we can and do know how to act like adults.

I do not know what Paharon is trying to prove, nor do I care.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

just checking

[_Pahoran]

Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?

All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help alot.

So your word is only worth something as long as you still like the person to whom you have given it? Did you really want to say that?

3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.

So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being?

That's right. It's happened before in fact, but I'm just being paranoid when I suppose it could just as easily happen again.

Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.

No, I'm not afraid of you or any of you. I'd just rather not have to wade through and delete a whole pile of obscene, vituperative, impotent threats from my inbox on a daily basis. Thanks just the same.

4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish. Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

The legal advice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.

Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.

That's not quite what I'm doing here, Scratch. As you know, I'd be without any legal recourse of any kind if your allegations were strictly accurate.

But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

5) _____ might not want his in real life information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

Regards,
Pahoran

The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!

Oh, don't do that, Scratchy. I'd feel left out if I wasn't featured in one of your orwellian "dossiers."

Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mister Scratch]

Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?

All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help alot.

So your word is only worth something as long as you still like the person to whom you have given it? Did you really want to say that?

3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.

So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being?

That's right. It's happened before in fact, but I'm just being paranoid when I suppose it could just as easily happen again.

Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.

Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.

No, I'm not afraid of you or any of you. I'd just rather not have to wade through and delete a whole pile of obscene, vituperative, impotent threats from my inbox on a daily basis. Thanks just the same.

So you are afraid then. Not of "any of us," but afraid that you might have to delete some messages.... I see. Especially since you find it necessary to utterly grind these apparently "impotent" threats out with lables like "obscene" and "vituperative." You could have just said, "I get a lot of spam." Or, "I get a lot of hate mail." Why the extra stuff?

4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this. I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara. You're the only one claiming otherwise. Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.

3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.

Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?

But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, in my opinion.

Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.

No. It also conducts surveillance of speeches, and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet. Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.

4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?

The legal advice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.

Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.

That's not quite what I'm doing here, Scratch. As you know, I'd be without any legal recourse of any kind if your allegations were strictly accurate.

Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).

But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.

5) _____ might not want his in real life information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

Regards,
Pahoran

The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!

Oh, don't do that, Scratchy. I'd feel left out if I wasn't featured in one of your orwellian "dossiers."

So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it. Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.

[_Pahoran]

Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.

Not only is that not the case, I fail to see how you can plausibly claim to believe that it is so. I am here in the same user name as I usually use. How does that "avoid being made accountable?"

4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?

You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.

Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.

2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.

I've already done so. How many times do I have to post the same supporting data before you realise you cannot claim not to have seen it?

Here it is again:

On your obsessive hate blog, your "dossier" on me includes the following lie:

Ironically, Pahoran himself has reportedly engaged in what can only be described as a form on online minstrelsy, when he posed, via a sockpuppet, as a Maori woman named Kemara.

I posted a reply in the which I pointed out that I am not Kemara, and added:

I also think you will find Kemara is male.

In response, you smarmily sneered:

Finally, I have little doubt that "Kemara" is actually male, but thank you very much for clearing that up for us!

In other words, reiterating your baseless accusation that I am Kemara.

However, on the FAIRBoards, in the thread "Are you more than 'just a Utah Mormon?'" Kemara, on Apr 11 2006 at 12:04 pm wrote:

Sure do, I have got myself, my wife and my children - all Maori.

Thus, not only is the claim that I am Kemara false, but the claim that Kemara claims to be a woman is proven to be false.

Scratchy, you should probably check your sources before trusting them with idiotic rumours. No-one with an IQ above room temperature actually believes I am Kemara, and only the most brazen liars claim that I am.

Now, thank me for helping you get your blog right.

And so much for the reliability of your "sources."

3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.

Just as nobody was ever "up for four hours in an interrogation on account of" the SCMC. That is a consciously counterfactual spin.

Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?

I am perfectly happy with the Church's justification for what the committee actually does.

But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, in my opinion.

Great. In this instance, the joke is on you.

Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.

No.

Yes.

It also conducts surveillance of speeches,

"Surveillance?" Pure rubbish. You should keep the black helicopter slides yourself, along with your foil helmet.

and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.

Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet.

Just like all of the SCMC's material has been drawn from publicly available sources. Your distinction is...?

Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.

But then, you have always been immensely proud of your double standards, haven't you?

4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?

I wasn't there; no doubt because of the number of issues discussed. Dan's report--which is your only source for this story anyway--concluded with:

Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

Since he didn't think he'd been "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation," your claim that he was is a pure fabrication in the finest anti-Mormon tradition.

Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).

Not really. It was purely a casual off-board discussion with a friend, who happens to be a lawyer about another subject; some time before your obsessive hate blog had come into being, in fact. It just so happens that his expert advice pertained to your blog, not that it was about it.

But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.

Take a pat on the back then. You are a skilful manipulator who got what you wanted.

So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.

Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it.

So, once again, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon arrogance, you decree that you will flout the rules of engagement based upon your own personal warmth of feeling.

I understand completely.

Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.

No, you ought to keep it private because that is the understanding upon which PM's--i.e. Private Messages--are sent.

You refuse to agree to behave like a civilised person, so no, I won't be sending it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mister Scratch]

Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.

Not only is that not the case, I fail to see how you can plausibly claim to believe that it is so. I am here in the same user name as I usually use. How does that "avoid being made accountable?"

4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?

The Dude, among others. Also, it's worth pointing out that most of the posters here who were canned from FAIR were not permitted to "confront their accusers." How's that for a double standard?

You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.

I don't consider you to be a reliable source on this. Sorry.

Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, you got caught in a lie some time ago that involved, I believe, the BYU basketball team.

2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.

I've already done so. How many times do I have to post the same supporting data before you realise you cannot claim not to have seen it?

Here it is again:

On your obsessive hate blog, your "dossier" on me includes the following lie:

Ironically, Pahoran himself has reportedly engaged in what can only be described as a form on online minstrelsy, when he posed, via a sockpuppet, as a Maori woman named Kemara.

I posted a reply in the which I pointed out that I am not Kemara, and added:

I also think you will find Kemara is male.

In response, you smarmily sneered:

Finally, I have little doubt that "Kemara" is actually male, but thank you very much for clearing that up for us!

In other words, reiterating your baseless accusation that I am Kemara.

However, on the FAIRBoards, in the thread "Are you more than 'just a Utah Mormon?'" Kemara, on Apr 11 2006 at 12:04 pm wrote:

Sure do, I have got myself, my wife and my children - all Maori.

Thus, not only is the claim that I am Kemara false, but the claim that Kemara claims to be a woman is proven to be false.

Okay, no problem---I will remove the bit about Kemara being female.

Now, thank me for helping you get your blog right.

And so much for the reliability of your "sources."

Thanks, and I work with what I've got.

3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.

Just as nobody was ever "up for four hours in an interrogation on account of" the SCMC. That is a consciously counterfactual spin.

The person in DCP's anecdote was in the meeting for four hours. Also, Quinn reports of a non-Mormon female who was detained by the SCMC for several hours, too.

Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?

I am perfectly happy with the Church's justification for what the committee actually does.

Okay.... (???)

But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, in my opinion.

Great. In this instance, the joke is on you.

And what's the punchline?

Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.

No.

Yes.

No, it manifestly does not "merely" collect clippings. It does other things, too.

It also conducts surveillance of speeches,

"Surveillance?" Pure rubbish. You should keep the black helicopter slides yourself, along with your foil helmet.

Gee, is Wade's problem spreading? I said "side."

and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.

Not just published, but spoken, too. There's good reason to believe that the SCMC maintains files on BYU students---i.e., material gathered by BYU's spying rings.

Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet.

Just like all of the SCMC's material has been drawn from publicly available sources. Your distinction is...?

I don't think this is the case. And what do you mean by "publicly available"? Your in real life name is "publically available," but you don't exactly want it going on my blog, now do you? Likewise, do you really think that innocent members want the SCMC creating files on them? (And in secret, no less. At least you can view my blog.)

Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.

Well, I definitely think it has the power to do that. I think the two stories---DCP's acquaintance and the women discussed by Quinn---are perfect examples.

But then, you have always been immensely proud of your double standards, haven't you?

What, you mean like calling yourself "FAIR" and then giving special priveleges to certain posters?

4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?

I wasn't there; no doubt because of the number of issues discussed. Dan's report--which is your only source for this story anyway--concluded with:

Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

Since he didn't think he'd been "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation," your claim that he was is a pure fabrication in the finest anti-Mormon tradition.

What you've cited proves nothing, especially nothing vis-a-vis the SCMC. All this demonstrates is that the man thought DCP was a nice guy. That there was a certain degree of subterfuge going on (i.e., DCP was acting like a sort of "secret agent", operating for the same agence that the man had issues with) certainly doesn't help to efface the label of "Orwellian."

Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).

Not really. It was purely a casual off-board discussion with a friend, who happens to be a lawyer about another subject; some time before your obsessive hate blog had come into being, in fact. It just so happens that his expert advice pertained to your blog, not that it was about it.

Well, Pahoran, I'm glad to know that you hadn't planned to sue me.

But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.

Take a pat on the back then. You are a skilful manipulator who got what you wanted.

And so what is it that you want?

So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.

I never asked you anything. You and smac and your pals at ZLMB were the ones who started complaining in the first place. And I have made multiple revisions to your dossier, such as the removal of the word "homophobe."

Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it.

So, once again, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon arrogance, you decree that you will flout the rules of engagement based upon your own personal warmth of feeling.

I understand completely.

What rules? And who put you in charge?

Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.

No, you ought to keep it private because that is the understanding upon which PM's--i.e. Private Messages--are sent.

You refuse to agree to behave like a civilised person, so no, I won't be sending it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[/quote]

Is it worth pointing out that the FAIRmods read people's "Private Messages"? Since you are obviously a self-appointed defender of FAIR, you ought to be aware that "Private Messages" aren't really "private" on your home turf.

[_harmony]

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).

[_wenglund]

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).

In other words, Big Brother is watching. That should shift the conspiracy theories into high gear--that is, were there some semblance of consistency among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).

In other words, Big Brother is watching. That should shift the conspiracy theories into high gear--that is, were there some semblance of consistency among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If Kemara posted here, and the IP matched Pahoran, that would irreparably harm Pahoran's denial, so no way is Kemara ever going to post here. And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother. At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.