The Origin of FAIR/MAD

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .

At any rate, I freely admit to having posted under the moniker of "Freethinker." I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue. But I soon tired of the charade, and, anyhow, I think my style gives me away. To try to disguise it would be too much work, and would involve a degree of cunning that strikes me as ethically problematic and unpalatable.

But I don't specialize in spinning sources and twisting history in order to assault and malign the character of other people, and I certainly don't do it from behind the cover of anonymity. You, on the other hand, do.

My name and address are in the telephone book. I don't hide.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Bond---

I believe very strongly that this rates among the most important Mopologetics threads *ever.* So, in a sense, this is the "creme de la creme" of all Hall of Fame threads.


So does it get to be in a special category on your blog (as yet still in pre-existence)? Or does it get an all bolded title or what?
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .


Was this a rip on me, or you Porter? Or perhaps both of us?
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .

At any rate, I freely admit to having posted under the moniker of "Freethinker." I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue. But I soon tired of the charade, and, anyhow, I think my style gives me away. To try to disguise it would be too much work, and would involve a degree of cunning that strikes me as ethically problematic and unpalatable.


Yes, I found it especially "ethically problematic" when you began talking to/about yourself, as it were. I find it further "ethically problematic" that you continue to rail against anonymity despite practicing it at length yourself.

But I don't specialize in spinning sources and twisting history in order to assault and malign the character of other people, and I certainly don't do it from behind the cover of anonymity. You, on the other hand, do.

That's ridiculous. I analyze the data, and report my findings. If you'd care to disagree, I---and everyone else---am listening.

I have no more intention of "maligning" anyone anymore than you, juliann, Allen Wyatt, Bill Hamblin, and all your other pals have of "maligning" Tom Murphy, or any other critic.


My name and address are in the telephone book. I don't hide.


Who's hiding? I'm right here! I'd be happy to address any of your concerns. Further, you *do* hide certain bits of information. For example, you have been rather mum on certain question pertaining to your involvement with the SCMC, or the questions I posed to you regarding the Mike Quinn debacle.
_A Light in the Darkness
_Emeritus
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Post by _A Light in the Darkness »

Daniel Peterson wrote:But I don't specialize in spinning sources and twisting history in order to assault and malign the character of other people, and I certainly don't do it from behind the cover of anonymity.


It is hard to see the full story without any links to the thread in question. Could you elaborate on how he is twisting history? For instance, when Juliann claims to have read a transcript described "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" and later completely abandons that claim, she appears to be lying. Is Scratch cherry picking quotes to give that impression? I wouldn't be surprised. Is this how you remember it?
_A Light in the Darkness
_Emeritus
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Post by _A Light in the Darkness »

Yes, I found it especially "ethically problematic" when you began talking to/about yourself, as it were.


Can you substantiate this claim? I've read on this board people saying Dr. Peterson posting "Freethinker" would say he recieved a letter from Dr. Peterson and post it thus implying he was a distinct person from Dr. Peterson. Are you talking about that?

Did that happen Dr. Peterson? I assume there is more to the story than this biased telling?
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

Wow, talk about Epic length posts! Too bad there is not a double column feature for these size posts. It would make reading them much easier.

While I am glad Mr. Scratch and Dr. Peterson are talking, I wish it could be done in an amicable way sans any name calling.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:But I don't specialize in spinning sources and twisting history in order to assault and malign the character of other people, and I certainly don't do it from behind the cover of anonymity.


It is hard to see the full story without any links to the thread in question. Could you elaborate on how he is twisting history? For instance, when Juliann claims to have read a transcript described "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" and later completely abandons that claim, she appears to be lying. Is Scratch cherry picking quotes to give that impression? I wouldn't be surprised. Is this how you remember it?


Hello, ALitD. I do my best to interpret things accurately, and do not "cherry pick" quotes. I'm more than happy to supply you with a link. You can read the entire thread for yourself by following this:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/6818

Let's all hope that Calmoriah (a.k.a. CalRobinson) doesn't go in and delete the incriminating evidence. (Hey, they have no problem *inventing* evidence, so they surely wouldn't have any problem with destroying it, either.)

Edited to add: as you read the thread, I'm sure you'll noticed that I left out a great deal. (It was a 28-pg. thread, after all.) Among the things I omitted were numerous analyses of juliann's behavior, in which it was quite fully established that she had distorted the truth. But I urge you to read the thread for yourself.

As to your question about DCP talking to himself, and pretending to be a separate person, I would urge you to read my earlier account, "The Many Faces of Daniel C. Peterson," which can be found elsewhere on this board. (And on my blog.)
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:you continue to rail against anonymity despite practicing it at length yourself.

How long was that, precisely?

I presume that you have all the data at your overworked fingertips.

Mister Scratch wrote:I analyze the data, and report my findings.

You may even really believe that!

Mister Scratch wrote:If you'd care to disagree, I---and everyone else---am listening.

I do, I have, and you're not.

Mister Scratch wrote:I have no more intention of "maligning" anyone anymore than you, juliann, Allen Wyatt, Bill Hamblin, and all your other pals have of "maligning" Tom Murphy, or any other critic.

You're responsible for what you do. I'm responsible for what I do. I'll take responsiblity for what I write, and for what I edit for publication. I'm happy to do that, and am willing to defend my actions. I bear no responsiblity for what anybody else posts, however. And it's quite likely, in most cases, that I haven't even read it.

As for discussions of Tom Murphy's work in the FARMS Review, I stand behind them. And they in no way resemble your continuing campaign of character assassination against me. Lay not that flattering unction to your soul.

Mister Scratch wrote:Who's hiding?

You are. You obsessively track others -- particularly me -- in order to discover or invent materials that you can use to further your crusade of personal destruction.

Mister Scratch wrote:Further, you *do* hide certain bits of information. For example, you have been rather mum on certain question pertaining to your involvement with the SCMC,

There's nothing to hide. I've publicly recounted the entire story of my entire involvement with the Strengthening Church Members Committee. There's nothing more to tell.

That you want to spin it into a massive conspiracy that will sear the screen is none of my concern, and I'm not inclined to make things up to help you in your quest.

Mister Scratch wrote:or the questions I posed to you regarding the Mike Quinn debacle.

Apart from his excommunication, I'm aware of no "Mike Quinn debacle." I've told what happened, so far as I'm aware of it. There's nothing more to tell.

Granted, I've declined to give you any more names to blacken in your cowardly anonymous internet campaign, so, yes, to that extent, I do withhold certain information from public view. I also won't publish my Social Security number or give you the combination to the lock on my front door.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

moksha wrote:Wow, talk about Epic length posts! Too bad there is not a double column feature for these size posts. It would make reading them much easier.

While I am glad Mr. Scratch and Dr. Peterson are talking, I wish it could be done in an amicable way sans any name calling.

Sorry. So long as he's committed to a crusade of malicious slander and character assassination against me, we're not exactly going to be friends. I regard him with contempt, as he clearly does me.
Post Reply