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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

liz3564 wrote:My view as a Moderator...and this view was a minority view which was criticized....was that I felt that posters who were pro-LDS should avoid getting snarky on a personal level with other posters. Debate the issues, and let your research stand on it's own merits. What always frustrated me about you was that you had such awesome research, and then you would lash out at someone personally when you really didn't need to do that! I felt like doing that discounted all of the wonderful debating techniques you had put into use in your favor! When I mentioned to the other Mods that I wanted to address this with you, Nighthawke, and a few others, I was shut down. And, since majority ruled, I respected that, even though I disagreed.


What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

I think you're an asset to FAIR. They're lucky to have you. I think your positions would be even stronger if you took my advice. ;)


I dunno, Liz... I kinda like having him around here. ; )
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

And you are here to function as what? A rabid hyena?

Regards,
Pahoran
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

And you are here to function as what? A rabid hyena?

Regards,
Pahoran


No, my dear Pah! As I have said many times, I'm here to have fun!

Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed _____.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

And you are here to function as what? A rabid hyena?

Regards,
Pahoran


No, my dear Pah! As I have said many times, I'm here to have fun!

Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed _____.

You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Pahoran wrote:You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.


I hereby conclude that you are the former President of the United States who's son is currently the President.

By the way, you don't move your lips when you type, do you? ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

asbestosman wrote:
Pahoran wrote:You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.


I hereby conclude that you are the former President of the United States who's son is currently the President.

By the way, you don't move your lips when you type, do you? ;)

No, I speak what I'm typing out loud, as I press the keys with the only finger I can get to work. That's why I have to take my chewing gum out first; so I can talk without dropping it.

Mind you, I have to take it out before crossing the road too, but that's because crossing the road requires concentration.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

And you are here to function as what? A rabid hyena?

Regards,
Pahoran


No, my dear Pah! As I have said many times, I'm here to have fun!

Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed _____.


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran


Very well, then you are indeed _____, author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com, then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog. I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving. So: if you fear for your safety, or if you are threatening legal action, or something legitimate, then let me know, and I won't put the name back up. Otherwise, in the interest of making the blog more informative, it's going back up.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed [Deleted].


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Very well, then you are indeed [Deleted], author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com,

That last is as truthful a statement as any you have ever made in any Internet forum: it is blatantly, flagrantly false. I have "admitted" no such thing.

Reporter: "Mister Scratch, is it true that you have twenty million bucks in the bank?"
Scratch: "I will not discuss my bank balance with you."
Reporter: "So you admit it!"

The transparency of that sophistry should be obvious even to you.

then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog.

Your obsessive hate blog is yours to do with as you please.

I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving.

You mean--almost, but not quite, as badly as you?

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?

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.

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

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
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed [Deleted].


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my in real life identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Very well, then you are indeed [Deleted], author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com,

That last is as truthful a statement as any you have ever made in any Internet forum: it is blatantly, flagrantly false. I have "admitted" no such thing.

Reporter: "Mister Scratch, is it true that you have twenty million bucks in the bank?"
Scratch: "I will not discuss my bank balance with you."
Reporter: "So you admit it!"

The transparency of that sophistry should be obvious even to you.


No. Since I said, "I will assume that you're the author if you remain silent," sort of like you did to me elsewhere, it's not really the sort of "sophistry" you're claimin.

then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog.

Your obsessive hate blog is yours to do with as you please.

I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving.

You mean--almost, but not quite, as badly as you?

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.

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? 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.

Another point: it is easy enough for people to track you down via the article at FARMS. Have you requested that that be removed, too? Maybe it's time to consider a new screen name.

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.

The legal adivice 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.

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!
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

*PLEASE READ!*

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Oh man, where to go with this?

This is a rather delicate issue, since an article posted somewhere under the author's real name ought to be legitimate grounds for discussion. So, for example, the FARMS article referenced earlier ought to be allowable, with the author's name posted for due credit and attribution.

ON THE OTHER HAND, should someone want his/her in real life information to remain private, I think we ought to respect that wish, whether with or without a good reason--or any reason--given by the person him/herself.

But what happens when these two goals conflict, as we've seen in this thread? I.e., what happens when the author of an article posted under his/her real name is also a participant here posting under a pseudonym?

I've never come across this conundrum before, since, for example, DCP's articles have come under scrutiny on other boards but yet he uses his own name with which to post.

So, how about we all make an ad-hoc rule? In order to keep as many people happy as humanly possible, let's say we can mention an author's name in connection with an article, but refrain from "outing" that author as an actual poster here. Let's also say we must delete a person's in real life information if the person requests it--even if it was in the course of authorial attribution--whether or not a reason is given.

How to handle the blogs, though? It's been my goal to not touch those, since they aren't in the message board part of this site, but I guess "responsibility" for them ultimately falls on me as founder (as it were) of MormonDiscussions. Yet it appears that even these have raised considerable ire.

So, how about this: Let's all observe the "outing" rule in the blogs just the same as we do the message boards, okay?

I hope this makes everyone happy. I REALLY hope I'm not accused of being as bad as the FAIR mods for this request. Rather than become a tyrant, I'm open to suggestions and opinions on either side of the equation.

So, can we all follow this procedure from now on, please?

(Mister Scratch: Perhaps you think I should've discussed this with you privately rather than here in front of everyone, but I think it's important for other people to see it so they, too, will know what to do--or not do, as the case may be--in the future. I apologize in advance if I've offended you in any way.)
Post Reply