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

[_Yoda]

Not to further de-rail this already derailed thread, but just for the record....having different IP addresses does not rule out the possibility of two sign-ons being the same person.

This is just a little "Computer 101".

It is possible to access the same site on the same computer with two different IP addresses. It's called IP tunneling.

[_wenglund]

And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother.

You said it.

At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.

Oh, you suppose his hiding behind a single blind screen makes all the difference to the conspiracy theorists? NOT!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother.

You said it.

Of course I said it. Anyone who is here posts because Shades' gives them permission. He owns the site, both literally and figuretively.

At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.

Oh, you suppose his hiding behind a single blind screen makes all the difference to the conspiracy theorists? NOT!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[/quote]

Of course not. That does not change his status though. Those who live in fear (folks like DCP, Hamblin, Juliann, etc) are only cutting off their noses in spite of themselves, since everyone else is participating with enthusiasm here.

[_Pahoran]

Scratch,

just a couple of comments, since I am obviously never going to wean you away from your paranoid delusions about the SCMC.

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.

Yeah, like you'd believe either of them. You would, of course, simply accuse them of lying.

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.

Oh, well. Need I say more?

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.

That's all right; no need to apologise. Habitual liars invariably expect others to habitually lie.

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.

I think you're mistaken. But only because I can't for the life of me imagine why you would make that up.

You see, not only have I never told such a falsehood, I have no recollection of ever posting anything about the BYU basketball team. I have practically no knowledge of them so as to post anything about them anyway. But just in case you had made an honest mistake, I did a search to see what if anything I might have said about them that someone might possibly have misunderstood. I got one (1) hit in which I actually said anything at all about basketball. Here it is:

Basketball's okay. If you like to watch ten tall millionaires in their underwear jumping up and down regularly every 55 seconds.

There it is; my one and only basketball statement. Where's the lie?

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

Good.

And let us take a moment to reflect that the same highly reliable sources who think Kemara is female also think he's me.

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 delusions are becoming increasingly entertaining. Wilkinson has been dead for some considerable time.

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.

You're right: the way you manipulate these tales are indeed perfect examples of your technique.

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."

The only "subterfuge" consisted in not using a phrase that had gained a lot of unfair negative associations, by dint of the same kind of dishonest propaganda you are here propagating.

Since Professor Peterson was not actually employed by the SCMC in any capacity, that doesn't seem very much like "subterfuge" to me. It isn't as if he--just for instance--falsely pretended to be sympathetic with the person's views so as to blindside him, like certain parties habitually did on the FAIRBoards.

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.

Do I have to dredge up all the quotes where you keep saying things like "tell me what's wrong with my blog and I'll fix it?"

Yes, you asked.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, If I recall correctly). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.

[_Pahoran]

I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, If I recall correctly). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.

Nor do I see any problem with it.

The Church--in fact any church, because that's what "church" means whenever it isn't talking about a building--is a community of shared belief. To what extent should people be permitted to not share that belief and still demand to be included? Since when did "freedom of association" only go one way? Must those who actively oppose the Church and its mission be "free" to "associate" with us whether we want them or not, thus depriving us of the freedom to associate with believing Latter-day Saints in preference to them?

Why is it "orwellian" to expose the deceptions of those two-faced individuals who pose as believers, but oppose the Church behind our backs?

I find that in every regard a righteous work.

Regards,
Pahoran

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

Nor do I see any problem with it.

The Church--in fact any church, because that's what "church" means whenever it isn't talking about a building--is a community of shared belief. To what extent should people be permitted to not share that belief and still demand to be included? Since when did "freedom of association" only go one way? Must those who actively oppose the Church and its mission be "free" to "associate" with us whether we want them or not, thus depriving us of the freedom to associate with believing Latter-day Saints in preference to them?

Why is it "orwellian" to expose the deceptions of those two-faced individuals who pose as believers, but oppose the Church behind our backs?

I find that in every regard a righteous work.

Regards,
Pahoran

Regards,
Pahoran

There's the rub, Pahoran. I don't think it's that black and white. Where do you draw the line between those who have a disagreement with the church but still believe and those who are, as you put it, two-faced poseurs? Are you suspect if you don't subscribe to every last detail that comes out of Salt Lake? Can you be a believer and think the Book of Mormon is fictional? How do you determine who stays and who goes?

[_Pahoran]

There's the rub, Pahoran. I don't think it's that black and white. Where do you draw the line between those who have a disagreement with the church but still believe and those who are, as you put it, two-faced poseurs? Are you suspect if you don't subscribe to every last detail that comes out of Salt Lake? Can you be a believer and think the Book of Mormon is fictional? How do you determine who stays and who goes?

Fortunately (and I know you'll agree, but probably for different reasons) it's not my responsibility to make that decision. Neither is it the responsibility of the SCMC. But there are those whose responsibility it is, and I support them having as much relevant data as possible with which to make that decision.

Including, but not limited to, those things that some would rather conceal from them.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_wenglund]

I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, If I recall correctly). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.

I am not sure there is any cause to be "paranoid" except to the extent that one may fear being rightly held accountable and responsible for one's public actions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch,

just a couple of comments, since I am obviously never going to wean you away from your paranoid delusions about the SCMC.

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.

Yeah, like you'd believe either of them. You would, of course, simply accuse them of lying.

I've named my terms. If you want to "test" my ability to keep my word a second time, go ahead.

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.

Oh, well. Need I say more?

Knock yourself out.

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.

That's all right; no need to apologise. Habitual liars invariably expect others to habitually lie.

So... I guess that explains why you think I'm a liar?

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.

I think you're mistaken. But only because I can't for the life of me imagine why you would make that up.

You see, not only have I never told such a falsehood, I have no recollection of ever posting anything about the BYU basketball team. I have practically no knowledge of them so as to post anything about them anyway. But just in case you had made an honest mistake, I did a search to see what if anything I might have said about them that someone might possibly have misunderstood. I got one (1) hit in which I actually said anything at all about basketball. Here it is:

Basketball's okay. If you like to watch ten tall millionaires in their underwear jumping up and down regularly every 55 seconds.

There it is; my one and only basketball statement. Where's the lie?

Again, my memory on this matter is somewhat fuzzy. I will have to confer with my sources.

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

Good.

And let us take a moment to reflect that the same highly reliable sources who think Kemara is female also think he's me.

Sure, no problem.

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 delusions are becoming increasingly entertaining. Wilkinson has been dead for some considerable time.

No, the chain of command at the SCMC clearly flows downward from the ETB/Wilkinson era.

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.

You're right: the way you manipulate these tales are indeed perfect examples of your technique.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

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."

The only "subterfuge" consisted in not using a phrase that had gained a lot of unfair negative associations, by dint of the same kind of dishonest propaganda you are here propagating.

Since Professor Peterson was not actually employed by the SCMC in any capacity, that doesn't seem very much like "subterfuge" to me. It isn't as if he--just for instance--falsely pretended to be sympathetic with the person's views so as to blindside him, like certain parties habitually did on the FAIRBoards.

I think that folks can read for themselves and decide whether or not what he was doing was fully honest, and in whose best interests he was operating.

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.

Do I have to dredge up all the quotes where you keep saying things like "tell me what's wrong with my blog and I'll fix it?"

Yes, you asked.

Regards,
Pahoran

Go ahead and dredge. All you find is a bunch of your own complainst and whines, and my replies of, "Hey, if you're so bent out of shape, just tell me what you want change and we can talk." I'd be perfectly happy to leave in the bit about you being a homophobe. You are the one who took issue, Pah.