Page 3 of 4
Re: Your sucker punch, Kevin Graham (attention: Doc)
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:31 am
by _Dr. Shades
Jersey Girl wrote:Forgive my bluntness, Doc, or not. The only difference that I see is that when it's about you and your family, it's wrong. If it's about Daniel or Gee or Ritner or someone else, it's fair game and they can twist.
THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM: The two situations are NIGHT AND DAY. Kevin never, EVER posted Daniel's driver's license number. He never EVER posted the name of Gee's wife. Kevin didn't invent
anything out of whole cloth or pass along anything that wasn't both in a public forum and
meant for public consumption. Nor did he post anyone's work schedule, address, political preferences, leisure time activities, or anything else that was
in any way private.
What Mr. Itchy and the ZLMB trolls did was cyber-stalking in the fullest sense of the word. Kevin merely solicited information in order to resolve a question, NOTHING MORE.
Nothing that Kevin did can even remotely be construed as cyber-stalking, since he merely asked a question or two
directly to the involved party in the full light of day.
For that matter, Kevin didn't "twist" anything. Why you think so is bewildering, since there's
not one single solitary shred of evidence that Kevin misrepresented
anything at any time or in any way.
Do you now see the stark, black-and-white difference between Kevin and Mr. Itchy?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:44 am
by _Jersey Girl
Dr. Shades wrote:
I think it's a tempest in a teacup. Mister Scratch threatened to post a PM you had sent him. I understand that that may be aggravating to you, but at the end of the day, he did not threaten to tell everyone your phone number, worksite, mother's maiden name, and Social Security Number, unlike Mr. Itchy and the ZLMB trolls.
That's a tempest in a teapot and you misunderstand my position. If Scratch chooses to threaten people on this board, he will eventually shut himself down if he hasn't already become the pariah of this board, he soon will. The allowable threat itself is what I have a problem with, Shades, because it makes this board (to borrow a line from Pacino ;-) a "rat ship".
Dr. Shades wrote:I hope you can appreciate my situation.
And I hope you appreciate mine.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:52 am
by _DonBradley
for what it's worth, I think that using someone's private messages or e-mails against them on a public forum is in the poorest possible taste, and constitutes inappropriate message board behavior. I've had it done to me, and found it irritating and distressing.
I don't, however, think that posting Robert Ritner's e-mail in defense of himself violates either good taste or proper message board protocol. Apples and oranges.
Don
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:07 am
by _DonBradley
dartagnan wrote:Are the lives of sued critics any less important than the lives of sued scholars?
Just the right question.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:17 am
by _DonBradley
dartagnan wrote:A few years back when Brent Metcalfe was mopping the floors with everyone (including me) who tried to defend the Book of Abraham, I decided to send a request for help that was sent to the LDS Apologetics e-list. This was a list separate from FAIR which included only the elite in LDS apologetics. Doug Yancey tried to get me on it when I was living in Atlanta, but I never did because he and I could never seem to set a time where we could meet and he could verify that I had a temple recommend. Anyway, I passed the request on to Doug (or maybe it was Richard Hopkins) and within a day I received an email from John Tvetdness. This is, as most of you know, one of the elite scholars in the LDS Church. He rubs elbows with all the bright and popular ones.
What was the apologetic wisdom he sent me?
He essentially told me that Brent Metcalf was a charlatan who had taken advantage of a bereaved wife and convinced her to sell him the color photos of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He also said Brent worked as a security guard at the archives and was a spy for the Tanners – he literally stole material for them to copy and publish. Others shared stories about how Metcalfe was a good friend of Mark Hoffman so our natural association tendencies lead us where that may.
In fairness to John Tvedtnes, he appears to overwhelmingly hew to the substantive issues, without reference to personalities and personal histories (at least in publication; I haven' spoken with him in person). And he has,
in The FARMS Review, objected to some of his fellow reviewers being too personal and too mean-spirited. On the whole, he's a model of dealing with the issues instead of directing one's arguments "at the man." Others who seem to me exemplary in this regard include Stephen Ricks, Royal Skousen, Grant Hardy, Richard Bushman, my friend Mark Ashurst-McGee, and (of course) Kevin Barney.
If all apologetic scholars were like these, the very foundations of acrimony would be...<well, you know the rest>.
Don
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:05 pm
by _dartagnan
“As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me.
I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make.” (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM)
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=5150
Dan is getting his wish, according to his own words. He said he
wanted the personal side of this to come out into the open.
The problem is he thought it was an easy slam dunk for him and Gee. He thought Ritner would challenge nothing they had said. Now that he senses the possibility that his rumors were wrong, and that Ritner is willing to fight for his stance on the matter, he wants to act like he never wanted it to go this far.
He did. That is why he brought it up numerous times since 2002.
You got your wish Dan, but I guess someone should have told you to be careful what you wish for.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:04 pm
by _DonBradley
I have edited my first post above to ensure that I am correctly understood. I want no more part in these personal threads and will be leaving the board (with the possible exception of the Book of Mormon thread in the Celestial Forum) for at least a few days while it all (hopefully) blows over.
Ciao,
Don
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:16 am
by _dartagnan
Don't be gone too long Don. You were just starting to grow on me.
Re: Your sucker punch, Kevin Graham (attention: Doc)
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 12:32 am
by K Graham
So I was bored and while flipping through the archives I came across this thread. Wow, I barely remember this happening. Maybe I'm just getting too old. I'm astonished by a lot of the older posts I made as dartagnan simply because I have no recollection of them.
Re: Your sucker punch, Kevin Graham (attention: Doc)
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 1:23 am
by Jersey Girl
Who cares what Jersey Girl posted years ago? All she ever does is shoot off her big mouth.