Adding harmony to the Universe

[_moksha]

QUOTE(Severian @ Apr 17 2007, 05:31 PM)
I am your defender over there

(Daniel Peterson) It's quite hopeless, you know.

Your obsessively malevolent comrade over there has long since convicted me of things I didn't do and compulsively condemns me for things that simply didn't happen. Not on this planet, in this dimension, anyway. Astoundingly bizarre. He has some kind of weird psychic itch that he evidently needs to scratch continually, and, for some unknown reason, I'm his chosen tool for the scratching.

(Severian) I do not see it as hopeless. I think the problem is the digital medium. If the two of you were to sit down over postum and donuts, much of the tension and misunderstanding between the two of you could be overcome and perhaps a mutual respect could be forged. I mentioned this idea to him in a thread over there a while back and he seemed amenable to the idea. If Palestinian and Israeli leaders could sit down together, it could work between the two of you. Mull this idea over. If it seems like a possibility, say so and I will send him a pm.

(Daniel Peterson) I'm doubtful. His behavior toward me and his comments about me have been consistently hostile, unjust, and offensive. His readings of what I write are, thus far, invariably biased and appallingly incompetent. Moreover, I have reason to distrust him.

I can talk to anybody. I don't bite. (Ask Shades.) If your friend believes his own malicious fantasies about my character, that's his problem. If my stalker wants to communicate with me directly, he can easily figure out how to do it. I don't hide.

That said, though, I would not sit there placidly while he repeated false accusations of grossly unethical behavior like those that he's been consistently, obsessively, continuously, publicly, and anonymously directing against me for the past year or so. Nor would I give him the gratification of arguing with him, since, despite his obvious fascination with me, I know considerably more about my life than he does. I would either walk away or show him the door.

(Severian)I think the ground rules would have to be that there would be no arguing and that any sort of attack would not take place. One thing I observe is that the two of you are both highly intelligent individuals. I suspect the two of you would be able to have a brilliant conversation without past baggage getting in the way.

There is so much hostility in the world. Wouldn't it be nice to bring peace to a war torn region. Perhaps we could start with our own area.

[_Who Knows]

You make a good point. Meeting in person does have a way of lightning things up.

I think Will Schryver's a complete ass (and he probably thinks the same of me). But when I met him at the FAIR conference, we shook hands, gave each other a little smile, and chatted congenially for a few minutes. No hostility whatsoever.

[_Mister Scratch]

QUOTE(Severian @ Apr 17 2007, 05:31 PM)
I am your defender over there

(Daniel Peterson) It's quite hopeless, you know.

Your obsessively malevolent comrade over there has long since convicted me of things I didn't do and compulsively condemns me for things that simply didn't happen. Not on this planet, in this dimension, anyway. Astoundingly bizarre. He has some kind of weird psychic itch that he evidently needs to scratch continually, and, for some unknown reason, I'm his chosen tool for the scratching.

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that he is referring to moi. The above is just flat-out dishonest, imho. He *did* engage in gossipmongering. He *did* try to sweep the 2nd Michael Watson letter incident under the rug. He *did* succeed in getting me banned from the ironically named FAIRboard.

If he wants to apologize for this stuff, and admit that he did wrong, I will gladly cease posting about him. I have said this before many, many times.

(Severian) I do not see it as hopeless. I think the problem is the digital medium. If the two of you were to sit down over postum and donuts, much of the tension and misunderstanding between the two of you could be overcome and perhaps a mutual respect could be forged. I mentioned this idea to him in a thread over there a while back and he seemed amenable to the idea. If Palestinian and Israeli leaders could sit down together, it could work between the two of you. Mull this idea over. If it seems like a possibility, say so and I will send him a pm.

(Daniel Peterson) I'm doubtful. His behavior toward me and his comments about me have been consistently hostile, unjust, and offensive. His readings of what I write are, thus far, invariably biased and appallingly incompetent. Moreover, I have reason to distrust him.

I have reason to distrust DCP, too. His comments have also been "hostile, unjust, and offensive." I don't recall ever saying that *he* was "mentally unbalanced."

I can talk to anybody. I don't bite. (Ask Shades.) If your friend believes his own malicious fantasies about my character, that's his problem. If my stalker wants to communicate with me directly, he can easily figure out how to do it. I don't hide.

I have no interest in "communicat[ing] with him directly." Trying to protest my innocence to him via email was a complete waste of time. He gets all bent out of shape that people accuse him of things he has supposedly "corrected them" on, but when it goes the other way, he is curiously indifferent.

That said, though, I would not sit there placidly while he repeated false accusations of grossly unethical behavior like those that he's been consistently, obsessively, continuously, publicly, and anonymously directing against me for the past year or so.

A simple apology would make it all go away. Why, I wonder, does the Good Professor have such difficulty apologizing for his wrongdoings?

Nor would I give him the gratification of arguing with him, since, despite his obvious fascination with me, I know considerably more about my life than he does. I would either walk away or show him the door.

(Severian)I think the ground rules would have to be that there would be no arguing and that any sort of attack would not take place. One thing I observe is that the two of you are both highly intelligent individuals. I suspect the two of you would be able to have a brilliant conversation without past baggage getting in the way.

There is so much hostility in the world. Wouldn't it be nice to bring peace to a war torn region. Perhaps we could start with our own area.

But what to talk about? His role for the SCMC? His other involvement in the smear campaign against Quinn? He is never going to admit that he's done anything wrong, and so there is nowhere to go, Moksha. He is going to have to apologize if your "peace accord" is ever going to work. Until then, he remains the smug, judgmental chief LDS apologist that he is. Intelligent? Yes. Entertaining? Absolutely. Eloquent? No question. But contrite? Not by a long shot.

[_Yoda]

Intelligent? Yes. Entertaining? Absolutely. Eloquent? No question.

Personally, I find Scratchy's intelligence and eloquence MUCH more preferable than DCP's.

;)

Love ya, Scratch!

[_Bond...James Bond]

So if lunch is out...how about that steel cage match?

[_moksha]

I doubt there had to be any apologies first, before any participants convened to meet at the Camp David Accords. There was no need to do so. Both parties there had their respective positions, but that first step of having people meet together was itself important. Does it really profit us in life to hold on to animosity? My guess is that it slowly erodes our humanity.

My thinking is that if the two of you were to sit down and talk, then you might realize the wisdom of removing the bullseye you had painted on each others back.

[_Gazelam]

So if lunch is out...how about that steel cage match?

Scratch looks on in dismay as DCP heads to the back of the arena, having bested Scratch with a Sumo power splash off the top rope, then heading for the door to make a hasty retreat.

[_Mister Scratch]

I doubt there had to be any apologies first, before any participants convened to meet at the Camp David Accords. There was no need to do so.

Hey, no problem. He is welcome to come to a "sit down" at this board any time he wants! He can send me PMs, or whatever. I, on the other hand, have been totally banned from doing such a thing at MAD. In fact, I have been banished to Purgatory.

Both parties there had their respective positions, but that first step of having people meet together was itself important. Does it really profit us in life to hold on to animosity?

What "animosity"? I can assure you, Moksha, I feel no animosity towards Prof. Peterson. I speak my mind about what he says, but that's pretty much it.

My guess is that it slowly erodes our humanity.

My thinking is that if the two of you were to sit down and talk, then you might realize the wisdom of removing the bullseye you had painted on each others back.

I never painted any "bullseye." Last time I checked, I was not the one responsible for establishing DCP as the "Krispy Kreme King" of LDS apologetics.