My Experience With Daniel Peterson

[_Yahoo Bot]

A person who has to claim that he is credentialed in order to improve his argument, yet fails to prove his credentials when challenged, is a liar.

Hmmm...what are your credentials I wonder...

You only need click on my sig line to find out. But, I don't argue my credentials to make any points here.

[_Yahoo Bot]

A person who has to claim that he is credentialed in order to improve his argument, yet fails to prove his credentials when challenged, is a liar.

Hmmm...what are your credentials I wonder...

You only need click on my sig line to find out. But, I don't argue my credentials to make any points here.

[_lostindc]

A person who has to claim that he is credentialed in order to improve his argument, yet fails to prove his credentials when challenged, is a liar.

Hmmm...what are your credentials I wonder...

I am not sure he is pushing his credentials in this thread in order to prove an argument?

[Guest]

This thread has turned out to be, the bulk of it anyway, another in a long line of examples of how petty people can be when it comes to discussing religious matters.

edited to add: yep, just read the post immediately below this one.

[_DrW]

Give the information/links to someone like Harmony or Liz.

I still do not believe the background claims due to your inability to develop and subsequently focus on an argument. I believe you would have developed these skills if you published as often as you claim to publish.

So anyways, BS, on your claims.

Dr. Scratch was provided with a list of my patents, links to my books on Amazon and elsewhere, and links to examples of my peer reviewed papers, including a couple on JSTOR. He was also provided with links to published press releases regarding my appointment to the Board of Directors of a publicly traded company and then to CEO.

About the only information about me that he was not provided with was a copy of my (now expired) temple recommend, honorable discharge from the US Marine Corps, and tax returns.

Dr. Scratch has come on this board and confirmed that what I wrote about my background could all be independently verified.

Do you not see it as ironic that you are apparently quite willing to believe the unverifiable and/or falsified truth claims of a documented historical liar, adulterer, fornicator and scam artist, while choosing not to be believe the verified claims of a contemporary scientist?

Are these your Mormon decision making and critical thinking skills at work?

So now you are calling both Doctor Scratch and me liars - on no basis whatsoever, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Tell you what. I sent the information to Doctor Scratch because he mentioned an interest in googling me on this message board. That is more than Simon, or to may knowledge anyone else here, has done in terms of verifying their background on the board.

As far as I am concerned, if you wish to hold unfounded beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is your right (and some would say your obligation) as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

However, since you are now also calling Doctor Scratch a liar, and he should have every right to defend himself with the evidence he has been provided, he has my full and public permission, at his sole discretion, to forward the information I sent to him to the board moderator of his choice, so long as he forwards my entire PM message, with links intact, and so long as he has an agreement with said moderator that said moderator will provide a written assessment of the information to the board as Doctor Scratch so kindly did.

Personally, were I Doctor Scratch, I would tell you and Simon both to go pound sand.

[_lostindc]

Then I guess we shall see! Show me the evidence to the contrary. May I ask why you cannot forward the PM yourself?

by the way, you have no idea about my beliefs.

So now you are calling both Doctor Scratch and me liars - on no basis whatsoever, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Tell you what. I sent the information to Doctor Scratch because he mentioned an interest in googling me on this message board. That is more than Simon, or to may knowledge anyone else here, has done in terms of verifying their background on the board.

As far as I am concerned, if you wish to hold unfounded beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is your right (and some would say your obligation) as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

However, since you are now also calling Doctor Scratch a liar, and he should have every right to defend himself with the evidence he has been provided, he has my full and public permission, at his sole discretion, to forward the information I sent to him to the board moderator of his choice, so long as he forwards my entire PM message, with links intact, and so long as he has an agreement with said moderator that said moderator will provide a written assessment of the information to the board as Doctor Scratch so kindly did.

Personally, were I Doctor Scratch, I would tell you and Simon both to go pound sand.

[_Simon Belmont]

So now you are calling both Doctor Scratch and me liars - on no basis whatsoever, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I said I took your word for it, though your poor critical thinking skills are evidence to the contrary, and I don't see it as relevant at all (other than to brag). I still take your word for it.

PMing it to Scratch does nothing for your case, though. Scratch doesn't exactly have a good track record of telling the truth, so I am confused as to why you chose him to reveal your publications to. Why don't you PM it to someone more trustworthy? In fact, why don't you post it here if you are so concerned about it.

I am not concerned about it, because I don't see it as relevant at all. I don't really care who you are or what your background is, and why should I?

Personally, were I Doctor Scratch, I would tell you and Simon both to go pound sand.

Yes, of course you would, because if you were Scratch you would be a known prevaricator.

[Guest]

Then I guess we shall see! Show me the evidence to the contrary. May I ask why you cannot forward the PM yourself?

by the way, you have no idea about my beliefs.

So now you are calling both Doctor Scratch and me liars - on no basis whatsoever, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Tell you what. I sent the information to Doctor Scratch because he mentioned an interest in googling me on this message board. That is more than Simon, or to may knowledge anyone else here, has done in terms of verifying their background on the board.

As far as I am concerned, if you wish to hold unfounded beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is your right (and some would say your obligation) as a faithful member of the LDS Church.

However, since you are now also calling Doctor Scratch a liar, and he should have every right to defend himself with the evidence he has been provided, he has my full and public permission, at his sole discretion, to forward the information I sent to him to the board moderator of his choice, so long as he forwards my entire PM message, with links intact, and so long as he has an agreement with said moderator that said moderator will provide a written assessment of the information to the board as Doctor Scratch so kindly did.

Personally, were I Doctor Scratch, I would tell you and Simon both to go pound sand.

I could forward the PM myself. But I have no personal interest in playing "bring me a rock" with you just because you called me a liar.

If Dr. Scratch wishes to defend himself, or to prove you wrong, that is his prerogative. He has my permission to forward the PM as described above.

[_Simon Belmont]

If Dr. Scratch wishes to defend himself against your slander.

Um... slander = transitory, libel = written.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Dr. Scratch has come on this board and confirmed that what I wrote about my background could all be independently verified.

Have you a clue about "independent verification?"

However, I'm told there are plenty of credentialed folk on this board. They let their writing do their convincing.

And, you're no Scratch, both in terms of the written word and not being baited.