Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_Mister Scratch]

Has it?

There's no possible way of knowing, since the FARMS Review has been carefully hidden, so that harmony can't read it, at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/

What was the quip?

I was reviewing some of the old posts on this thread, and I felt that it would be useful to summarize some of the unanswered questions:

1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

I've never heard of any "'quip' which clued [me] into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down."

Nor have I said any such thing. And I'm the only person on this board in a position to serve as a source about the quip.

What was the quip? You've been asked multiple times about it, and yet you dodge each time. Should we assume that it's a source of embarrassment for you?

5) Why, during this very tumultuous time, was the FARMS accountant terminated?

As I've pointed out to Scratch, that's absolutely none of his business.

You also pointed out that it was supposedly "confidential," which, if true, doesn't reflect very well on the fact that you were blabbing about it here on this messageboard.

And who said anything about a "tumultuous time"?

I think it's well implied by the articles I linked to, and it's certainly implicit in the fact that you nearly resigned over the stress of it all.

Does he make this stuff up deliberately, or is he just a poor reader? I can't quite decide.

Do you launch smear campaigns and treat people badly because you are a moral degenerate, or because you think it's funny?

[_Mister Scratch]

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

Has it?

I would say that it has toned down a bit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What was the quip? . . . What was the quip?

It began something like "Mister Scratch, Gadianton Scratch, Rollo Tomasi Scratch, and Kishkumen Scratch walked into a bar." I can't remember the punch line, though.

Should we assume that it's a source of embarrassment for you?

Why not?

You also pointed out that it was supposedly "confidential," which, if true, doesn't reflect very well on the fact that you were blabbing about it here on this messageboard.

I said we let him go. That's easily and publicly available. I've said nothing about the reason for it.

If you really think it's a violation of confidentiality for me to say that we let him go, why are you demanding that the reason(s) for that action be made public? Because you don't care about confidentiality?

Do you launch smear campaigns and treat people badly because you are a moral degenerate, or because you think it's funny?

It's something of a mix of the two. That's pretty much why I also push old widows down the stairs, steal wheelchairs, and torture kittens.

[_Mister Scratch]

What was the quip?

It began something like "Mister Scratch, Gadianton Scratch, Rollo Tomasi Scratch, and Kishkumen Scratch walked into a bar." I can't remember the punch line, though.

Gee, I wonder why you're trying so hard to avoid answering a very simple, very direct question? What might this say about you and your relationship with the Brethren?

Should we assume that it's a source of embarrassment for you?

Why not?

Of course you'd give this advice. You are the king of mind-reading and presumptuousness, after all.

You also pointed out that it was supposedly "confidential," which, if true, doesn't reflect very well on the fact that you were blabbing about it here on this messageboard.

I said we let him go. That's easily and publicly available. I've said nothing about the reason for it.

If you really think it's a violation of confidentiality for me to say that we let him go, why are you demanding that the reason(s) for that action be made public? Because you don't care about confidentiality?

Dan---you were the one who brought this up in the first place. We were discussing FARMS's huge, impressive budget, and the documented fact that you were paid $20,000 as FARMS Chair, and in the midst of this, you threw the accountant under the bus, saying that he had been fired for being "incompetent," or something like that---all in an apparent effort to make it seem as if the $20K entry was a mistake of some kind. (Why you would do this if there was a good, rational explanation for the figure of 20 grand is anybody's guess.) So don't try to claim that I am somehow doing something wrong here. I'm not the one who blabbed about the firing of the accountant in a rather desperate effort to hide the fact that I was paid to do apologetics.

Do you launch smear campaigns and treat people badly because you are a moral degenerate, or because you think it's funny?

It's something of a mix of the two.

I thought so. You've been spewing evidence of it over the course of your multi-decade career to defame and blacken the character of Church critics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!

Scratch, your day has passed.

Get used to it.

Find a new reason for existence that doesn't depend upon attention from me.

[_Mister Scratch]

yip yip yip yip yip yip yip!

Scratch, your day has passed. Get used to it.

Find a new reason for existence that doesn't depend upon my attention.

Wow, what a zinger. You sure got me there, Prof. P. (By the way: you have avoided telling us about the quip yet again!) I don't care whether you pay attention to what I say or not. Your avoidance of the issue says just as much about you as your earlier, more substantive posts on this thread. I'm sure the lurkers you've long been worried about are noticing this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the lurkers you've long been worried about

??????

I take it they're not the same ones who've written to me from time to time about what a nutjob they think you are?

This very troubling.

It galls me.

I think I need an apology from somebody.

It's a watershed moment in the history of lurkers.

[_Mister Scratch]

the lurkers you've long been worried about

??????

I take it they're not the same ones who've written to me from time to time about what a nutjob they think you are?

Oh? So you've conveniently got your own set of "anonymous informants"? (by the way: you still haven't told us about the quip.)

Anyways, I think it's time to call your bluff. You are perpetually attacking me, claiming I've "obsessively hostile," or "insane," or whatever else. And yet, on MAD not all that long ago, you admitted that you actually did not think that I'm crazy. If this is true, then it means that all your endless whining has just been a ruse---that, in effect, you've been lying about how supposedly "upset" you are at my criticism of you.

I'll tell you what: I've said before that I'd retire if you'd simply apologize or demonstrate some accountability for your less-than-admirable behavior. This time, I'll make a different offer: if you do genuinely think I'm a bad person, that I'm insane, or "hostile," or whatever else, then say so, in direct terms, and I'll depart for good.

[Guest]

I genuinely think that you're either a truly bad person or insane in some sense (I'm not a specialist). In either case, for reasons that I honestly cannot fathom, you're irrationally, unfairly, unceasingly, and absurdly hostile to me, personally.

I just can't make up my mind why you treat me the way you do.

And I haven't demanded that you leave, nor will I demand it even though I've apparently now fulfilled your conditions. I simply ask that you not approach me and everything I do with such all-consuming unfairness and hostility. You're far from stupid. You could probably make substantive contributions here.

[_harmony]

I just can't make up my mind why.

Psst... It's because you're so hot.