DiscussMormonism.com

liz3564 wrote:

Ok....got it. Is she still going to continue being a moderator on this forum? It seems that what she did would sorely undermine her effectiveness or influence on this forum now. The whole thing just strikes me as being a crumby thing to do.

Madison...I realize that you are new here.

I have been a Moderator on this board since virtually the creation of the board.

Shades and I are good friends, and I certainly hold no malice toward him. My board was not createtd to be in competition with this board in any way. The focus is simply different. It is a board for NOMs (New Order Mormons), and was created for those in this unique situation to be able to freely discuss issues in Mormonism without the fear of personal attack which tends to ensue from both sides of the aisle. Those I have invited to the board are personal friends of mine. Many of them are from MDB, but not all of them are. It is simply a private Internet message board. There are many on the Internet. Unfortunately, Scratch, upon finding out about it, made a grand gesture, and publicized its existance several months ago. I had not wanted to hurt people's feelings, but that is unfortunately what happened.

The Nehor, in reply to Timp wrote:Despite your qualifications I think you are wrong in judging it a compulsive addictive behavior. I suspect this stems from "When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome.

chickdeario wrote:ttribe
Quote:
Does that imply that Scratch just gets a pass from you? We should just "know" what he's going to do and act accordingly? That's giving Scratch A LOT of power.


Scratch has never gotten a "free pass" from me when I thought he was wrong. In point of fact, no one, including LDS, exLDS, nevermo, atheist or believer has ever gotten a "free pass" from me when I thought that what they were doing was wrong.

Daniel, above all others, should know what Scratch will do with a statement such as the assualt rifle comment and he himself acknowledged this at the time that he made it in 2008.

Tell me, ttribe, what you think would have taken place if Daniel had not posted about this on this board and MD&D?

The power is and always has been in Daniel's hands.

chickdeario wrote:Chickdeario
Moderator


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 140


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Astyanax wrote:Chickdeario wrote:

Daniel by his own admission on the thread where he posted the first assault rifle comment, knew that it would be used as fodder in the future or as he characterized it, "grist for Scratch's mill".


Though I have not read the original comment in context, I am sure you are correct.

Quote:
He could have deleted the comment, retracted his statement, identified it as a joke.

He could have done any number of things to self correct and he chose not to.


True.

Quote:
I cannot rightly cut him slack for this, As.


Quote:
Okay. Here is my question for you: what DCP did or did not do is in the past. Why is it okay for Scratch to use an obviously embarrassing comment like that as his signature line? The right thing to do, because we cannot change the past, is to call upon Scratch to remove the comment from his signature line, in my opinion. I mean, what is the purpose for Scratch to have that signature line?


This is gonna be a little choppy, As, just hang on and go with me, okay? I posted a link to these exchanges in a previous post on this board.

Here is the series of comments with the original assault rifle comment. they are dated July 2008.

GoodK

Quote:
Ironically, Scratch hasn't shown up once on this thread. I hope he is off vacationing somewhere nice, not thinking about you or this place.


DCP
Quote:
He may be hiding in the bushes outside my house.


Daniel Peterson wrote:
He may be hiding in the bushes outside my house.

Trevor
Quote:
Does that thought excite you?


Trevor wrote:
Does that thought excite you?

DCP
Quote:
It makes me wish that my assault rifle weren't in my neighbor's gun safe.

Do you realize that the barrel of that gun actually begins almost to glow when I fire a few rounds?




Trevor
Quote:
I'll take that as a big "yes."

Scratch couldn't have hoped for a better response from you.


DCP
Quote:
Absolutely everything I say is grist for Scratch's mill, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, etc., etc., and so forth.

If I tried to steer my life in order to avoid generating material for Scratch's exposés and creepy "dossiers," my only hope would be to change my name and retire to the Australian outback. Which would itself provide him fodder for years to come. Mit anderen Worten, it would be futile to try. (The German there is for Chap and Marg, who may be feeling left out.)

_____________________________________________________________

Now let me go to something else you said above.


Quote:
Okay. Here is my question for you: what DCP did or did not do is in the past. Why is it okay for Scratch to use an obviously embarrassing comment like that as his signature line?


Because it stands on MDB where it can be accessed and reposted as a sig line.


Quote:
The right thing to do, because we cannot change the past, is to call upon Scratch to remove the comment from his signature line, in my opinion. I mean, what is the purpose for Scratch to have that signature line?


Disagree. The right and wisest thing to do is ignore it. The purpose of Scratch having that sig line is to get a rise out of Daniel or Will.

And he succeeded with Daniel.

Daniel is an old guy with a PhD. He is an author, speaker, professor who travels the world. Are you telling me that he is so socially ignorant that he doesn't know enough not to feed this stuff into a frenzy?

You don't feed your attacker, As, you starve him out.

Next, Runtu surfaces to make a very important and resonant point about tribalism and Mopologetics:

Runtu wrote:Apparently Dan provided the original "grist", but scarier yet than putting this in Scratch's mill, it also hit Will's mill, who quickly converts Dan's stupid, and inappropriate statement about assault rifles and add's the reality of real life threats with it , directed at people who felt great fear over the issue (Blixa, Runtu etc.).


I'm not going to comment again on this except to say that I never felt any fear over the issue. I never took the threats seriously and never felt in any danger at all. I did, and still do, find it disgusting that they went after my wife, who has nothing to do with any of this other than being married to an evil apostate. No one has the right to do that, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Against my better judgment, I reread the original Wheat thread, and Wheat/Rick Patton/Nomad was apparently trying to prompt a reaction from me, and when he did, he said I was paranoid and saw demons in every corner or something like that. I wasn't paranoid, but I've always figured that if Wheat/Nomad/Rick Patton isn't Will Schryver, they are tag-teaming to try and unnerve me. Whatever.

Do I think someone is really after me? No. Was Wheat's comment completely inappropriate? Of course. But the only thing that really upset me was the threat to my wife. Anyone who stoops to that level is just plain evil.

I should also say I wish Scratch hadn't kept this going, as it serves no purpose, and Dan Peterson had nothing to do with it. He needs to find a better hobby. And I wish Dan would at least acknowledge that the nastiness in question was from Wheat and was directed at me, Ray A, and Blixa.

Is that too much to ask?

Harmony wrote:Runtu wrote:
Is that too much to ask?


Are you serious? Of course it is. It's too much to ask that Dan publically acknowledge that Will posted nasty evil things about the women on MDB. So he doesn't, and that's okay... the lack thereof puts him on the same side of the line as Will stands. Which says a lot.

Runtu wrote:timpanogos wrote:
Ouch, Dan's thread got 16 posts on MAD and is locked for an unspecified reason. The response thread on MD from the MAD thread, one page, two of nineteen posts from scratch. It never picked up any interest and seems to have ended in welcoming Runtu back.

Seems interest is waning from supporter and critic alike … about time.


No kidding. And, no, this had nothing to do with me coming back. I just figured that, since my book was being discussed, I'd respond. The only thing that bothered me about the MDD thread is the suggestion that Wheat may have been an exmo sockpuppet. If that's true, then he/she/it is a sick person. I know I didn't invent Wheat.

At last His Highness weighs in:

Dan Peterson wrote:Chickdeario wrote:
Yes, but why choose this particular comment, Daniel?

Because I felt like it.

I respond to some things, and I don't respond to other things. Time, interest, attention, mood, functioning hard drive (mine recently crashed) -- all play a role.

I don't believe that I'm obliged to account for why I take interest in this thread and not another, or why I respond to one post but not another. Certainly, I don't demand such accounting from anybody else.

Chickdeario wrote:
Up until perhaps a month or so ago, Scratch carried your original assault rifle comment as a sig line.

I've complained about his abuse of that comment two or three times, directly to him. With perfectly predictable results.

And I've publicly set the record straight on it. As is my right. Even, or so it seems to me, sometimes my obligation.

Chickdeario wrote:
Why address it now? What possible difference does it make?

I wanted to know whether the "Wheat" quote was authentic. I can't search on that site, but I was hoping that somebody else would do me the favor. I said that was what I wanted. I was very clear about that. I said it. Expressly. That's my explanation. There is no mystery.

Chickdeario wrote:
Your own sig line here on the Cafeteria is as follows:
Quote:
Daniel Peterson, "a man who's devoted his life to hurting other people" (Scratch, 24 September 2011)

How does your carrying that sig line here support your goal to publicly contradict false slander about yourself?

None of this makes any sense to me.

It's a kind of ironic denial. If it's too subtle, I apologize. Seriously.

timpanogos wrote:
I'd suggest that I'm the one here trying to act as a true brother and a friend to you.

Maybe you are, and maybe you're not. In any event, you've completely misdiagnosed the situation, and your effort to act as my self-appointed amateur therapist is very presumptuous and condescending.

I see, in fact, that you've now begun to characterize me as "insane," as well as "co-dependent." And I'm supposed to regard this as helpful and justified, coming from somebody with no training who doesn't even know me but who, coincidentally, has an ideological axe to grind? (The post from "Gramps" is pretty much in the same vein, but more transparent, without the veneer of faux healer's concern and pretend brotherhood.)

timpanogos wrote:
you hate me

Don't give yourself airs. I scarcely think about you.

timpanogos wrote:
this sick relationship between scratch and you.

Scratch continuously, incessantly, anonymously, and publicly accuses me, by name, of all manner of unethical behavior and immoral character, and I sometimes publicly contradict his claims (virtually all of which are false) -- and that, in your world, makes us equally culpable?

Good grief.

timpanogos wrote:
there is NOTHING to be gained by your refuting scratch's absurd accusations.

His accusations, while virtually always false, aren't always obviously absurd. He's bright enough to make many of them seem plausible.

What is to be gained by refuting them? That's simple: Truth is put on the record.

I see nothing "sick" or co-dependent or psychologically crippled in defending oneself against slander or in speaking up for the truth. I would see failing to do so as very problematic, though.

What I do find somewhat odd, though, is your manifest urge to go on and on and on about this.

I make a simple statement, and you turn it into a lengthy thread. You've done this several times now. That seems rather strange.

timpanogos wrote:
I've observed this here before, you only respond to negative things that are said about you. If someone desires to engage you, they must negatively engage you. That is all you will respond to, and you are predicable, and repeatedly follow this pattern.

That's flatly false, as a simple survey of my posting history here will easily demonstrate.

However, it's becoming truer, on this message board. And, ironically, you're the principal person responsible for it. You attack and criticize me, and I respond. Increasingly, and tiresomely, that's what this board is becoming for me. It's déjà vu all over again, and it's a monumental bore.

timpanogos wrote:
Well, I know you're angry at me and my speaking more on this topic will not help. I'm asking your other brothers, sisters and friends here to speak up.

A pop-psychology "intervention"!

I've always despised reductionistic pop psychology. Always.

timpanogos wrote:
Put me in my place if I'm totally wrong on this, or try and help your brother and friend break this horrible cycle.

You're the one who's transformed simple posts into massive threads . . . about how I supposedly won't "let it alone"!

I don't call that a "horrible cycle." That's far too dramatic and far too self-important. It's just tiresome and silly.

Chickdeario wrote:
What he's done is simply spread it to two more boards.

And, amusingly, though you're quite a ways behind him, you've been second only to timpanonogos -- his accomplice, as it were -- in turning simple one-off comments (or even, as in this case, a request) into lengthy threads about my supposed desire to keep things going.

Chickdeario wrote:
Quote:
I no longer have search capabilities on the Stalker's board, so I can't look to see whether "Wheat" actually posted such a statement back in early September of 2008.

I'm mildly curious, though. So, if anybody has those capabilities and cares to check, I would be somewhat interested to know whether the statement was actually made.

Daniel, do it yourself.

Don't get upset. Nicer people than yourself have already long since accommodated my request -- and without any apparent need to gripe or insult.

Chickdeario wrote:
Quote:
Blixa, I no longer post on my Stalker's board. I trust that you will bring the statement above to his attention.

Daniel, do it yourself.

I was fulfilling a request from Blixa. I've imposed no burden on you; you don't really need to complain. Why do you imagine that you do? With all the pop psychologizing going on here, one is, perhaps, entitled to wonder. Reductionist amateur therapy, after all, is a sword that cuts both ways. Or, at least, it would, if I cared.

Chickdeario wrote:
As a matter of fact, I have been the focus of a public smear campaign that lasted for about 11 years.

If so, you have my sympathy.

But how you handled it is precisely none of my business.

Chickdeario wrote:
Quote:
These things will remain on the Internet forever.


And you attempt to solve the problem by plastering it yourself on two more boards?

I asked a question. I made a request. I was very clear about this. I was not unclear about this. There is no mystery about it.

But, yes, I think that posting public contradictions of public falsehoods is a legitimate thing to do. You may disagree. Perhaps you thought it best to allow eleven years of public smears to stand, uncontradicted. If so, we disagree. But how I choose to respond is, precisely, none of your business.

liz3564 wrote:It is a board for NOMs (New Order Mormons), and was created for those in this unique situation to be able to freely discuss issues in Mormonism without the fear of personal attack... .

sock puppet wrote:Without those fearing incoming personal attacks, but free to lob them out. Nice.

liz3564 wrote:Exactly who else, besides Tim, "lobbed out personal attacks" at you on my site, Sock Puppet?

RockSlider wrote:Sock puppet (and others),

In all fairness, the conversation about you was in passing and an isolated instance. The majority of what has been lifted and is yet to come was NOT attacks from that board to members on this board who were unable to defend their selves.

RockSlider wrote:This was an in-house squabble, and I was the main perpetuator. This whole nastiness actually started when I tried to get some personal attention from Dan and it was not given in my impatient time frame. My feelings were hurt and I put down some pretty heavy fire on Dan well before “act 1” that was given here and very much had Dan on the defense. I cannot blame him for that.

RockSlider wrote:As far as Harmony, hell Dan and Harmony love the hate each other … like siblings always swatting at each other. Nothing new there.

RockSlider wrote:Through all of this, Liz must have been very torn, as to her value of long term friendships, like Dan and Ray, and a new comer to her circle stirring it up.

RockSlider wrote:She has maintained her values of free speech,

RockSlider wrote: and stretched her goals/desires of the boards purpose/rules in an effort, I assume, to let some important issues try and settle out, via those personally involved, for the long term betterment of the board.

This was personal, between us, and yet we have been violated in this.

This is a good woman, quick to think the best of people, always the peacemaker, forgiven before even asking, seldom on the attack, and if she is, someone has gone way overboard.

She does not deserve this.

Sock Puppet wrote:liz, really? You know I do not have access to your private board. You don't seem the catty type. So why would you be asking unless there were others, and you are trying to probe what more I may know about your board's postings. I only know what has appeared here, in the open, on MDB. So now, do tell who exactly are these other you have alluded to by implication?

Now, from the snippets that have been posted, we know there is the vultures comment (yuk-yuk) and that MDB is "less mature" than MDD. There's been ttribe who jumped to the conclusion that because I got my money out my U2 tickets through ticket office refund rather than sale to him I had it out for him (doesn't even make logical sense, does it? I hope he has more basis for connecting the dots when he does his forensic accounting investigations). There's been DCP's lampoon of harmony's Mormon creds--oh, well, that one was intramural there, not interboard.

Open up your board to public view, and then might have access to the information with which I could answer your question. Otherwise, we'll await your report, since you obviously have that information and think it relevant here, having asked it of me here.

There's been DCP's lampoon of harmony's Mormon creds--oh, well, that one was intramural there, not interboard.

sock puppet wrote:RockSlider, did the passing comment draw a moderator's scold? No.

So it indicates a nonchalance at thecafeteria towards lobs by its posters at those of MDB, the board against which thecafeteria was created.

So it is a place for which personal attacks may not be made towards another registered poster, but is okay to make against those who would have no way of even knowing it is occurring.

For all I know, RockSlider, you are respectful to me here, but backstabbing me at thecafeteria. You see, liz's little experiment has given the cover of darknesses to, as ttribe might say, cockroaches that run around in the dark, but scurry when the lights are turned on. The posters there did not start out as cockroaches (except for perhaps DCP), but the metamorphosis is underway. Dr Scratch has turned on just a key chain flashlight on a few posts, and look at the excrement on the floor of thecafeteria.

Having read what Dr Scratch has posted, and I understand you to have written, I don't see why you are here falling on your sword.

But wasn't the reason and justification for thecafeteria not to have personal attacks, whether from new sources or old?

Yes, since thecafeteria was a place DCP could go and not be questioned, and there you were calling him on his egotism and pomposities. I'm sure her soul was twisting in the wind.

No, her value for thecafeteria was a no personal attack zone. What a triumph!

liz no doubt appreciates your loyalty.