Response to DCP before it is removed
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:18 pm
#1 Xander
Brings Forth Plants
Contributor
3,229 posts
Joined 22-June 11
Posted Today, 03:34 PM
Apparently, Dan started a thread attacking some things I had said on another forum. I see the thread has been shut down, but I hope the mods will allow me to respond since it stood for two days and I never had the chance to read it or respond to it until now.
Quote
I've noted before that Xander/Kevin tends to brand those who disagree with him as unscrupulous, cowardly, incompetent, and/or lying, which is one of the reasons that I stopped interacting with him even back in the days when he was still a Latter-day Saint. Life is short, and I have no patience for such rhetoric or such treatment.
Yes, and you falsely note this for the purposes of poisoning the well, as I have noted every time you do this. It is one of the reasons why I have such a negative opinion of you. You absolutely refuse to address the plethora of evidences that run contrary to your assertions attacking others like me. Between the two of us, only I am able to maintain strong friendships with people on both sides of the aisle. How is this even possible, if, as you assert, I tend to label everyone with whom I disagree, a liar? Why don't you call up your friends David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid and ask them what they think of your theory. You know, people who actually know me. Or does the truth matter so little to you that a quick phone call to credible sources is just beyond what you're willing to do?
As we both know, the primary reason why you stopped interacting with me is because you failed miserably in your initial attempt to prove me wrong on a point related to Islam. That reflects poorly on your ego, not my alleged intolerance. When I provided authoritative Islamic references, at your request, you then realized you could not respond effectively so you decided to leave the forum and head on over to this one where you could then attck me the same as you do everyone else who proves you wrong on any given matter. You informed your audience that I was too spiritually deficient for you to engage and thus the anti-Kevin rhetoric began. It is what you do, after all. And the fact that you are starting these hit threads, in the context of defending yourself against the charge that you engage in hit pieces, is nothing short of proving our point.
Quote
That's not particularly interesting in itself, nor really worthy of much note.
But you thought you'd go ahead and intoxicate your audience with a healthy dose of well poisoning. After all, why mention this at all if, as you admit, it is not particularly interesting or worthy of note?
Quote
But he's raised a couple of old accusations against me to which I feel I need to reply, if only cursorily, because of their seriousness. I take them in steeply ascending order:
1) He's again accusing me of cowardice for not agreeing, many years ago, to a formal public debate with somebody named Bob McCue, and he's attributing to me a whole host of more or less lame excuses for my failure to engage Mr. McCue.
This is not accurate. Someone brought up the McCue incident which I vaguely remembered, and it dove-tailed nicely with what we already knew of you. The McCue incident is hardly the first time you've teased people into thinking you were ever interested in a dialogue, and then bailed when it became clear you were not equiped to defend your arguments. If you want to seriously represent me correctly, then you'd share with your audience the example I provided on the thread, which dealt with your numerous challenges on the forum you hate so much. Challenges, to which you responded by claiming you were too busy with all your scholarly activities (conference speeches, flights to Europe, teaching assignments, "I think I'm more important than I really am" anonymous meetings, etc) to respond to questions that were presented to you in a very civil manner.
Then weeks later we discover that you wrote a editor's introduction attacking web-based "anti-Mormons" with a broad brush, ignoring every issue we raised but instead focused on easy straw man statements made by irrelevant, obscure internet posters who, for all we know, were sock puppets you created for your own straw man purposes. Your "introduction" to the FARMS review was roughly 14,000 words and 56 printed pages, which undermines your claim that you had no time on your hands to deal with online concerns made by folks on the forums. In fact, you were obsessed with them, but didn't have the integrity to approach them directly, let alone treat them like humans deserved to be treated.
But as I said, you do this to a number of people. Here is another example just before you left the forum, promising to respond to a question you said was substantive. You said, and I quote, "That's an actual substantive charge, which can be discussed. And which I will discuss, when I'm ready to do so." And yet the cricketts are still chirpping over on that thread. A number of your claims were challenged; claims which you published back in the 1994 Ensign. In another thread you went gunning for the lowest hanging fruits while ignoring questions posed to you by someone who you actually knew, MsJack. You gave no reason for ignoring her substantive questions except to whine about how you're free to ignore who you will and nobody can force you to respond if you don't want to. So please stop pretending I'm the guy you refuse to debate and that you do so because I'm uncivil. I have proved that I am perfectly capable of civil discourse. In reality, you refuse to debate a wide variety of folks who have substantive criticisms of your apologetics, and you refuse because you represent the losing side that is lacking truth. Civility has nothing to do with it because MSJack and others were perfectly civil and yet you still flee the scene after promising to respond. For you it is better to just ignore us all, so that you can claim you haven't lost because you never engaged. Which would be fine if you left it at that. Instead, you run over here to misrepresent what we've said and then you use the Church funded publication to launch your attacks, knowing perfectly well you're going to have the privilege to say pretty much whatever it is you want ; that is, until a General Authority catches wind of what it is you think accurately represents the mission of the Church, and is pulled. This in and of itself proves once and for all that you're living in fantasy land when you claim you do not do hit pieces. You want us to believe that some General Authority pulled your publication for no reason other than anti-Mormon intimidation. Again, we witness your inability to admit wrongdoing at every turn. Even when your own Church authorities get involved you're still making excuses and blaming those you have attacked.
Quote
(a) I debated in high school, rather successfully, and, perhaps for that very reason, I have little faith in formal, timed debates as a way of getting at the truth.
Who said anything about formal debates? Just answer basic questions without running off. You always present yourself on these forums and you spend countless hours morning afternoon and night, posting thousands upon thousands of rhetorical quips. But when you're presented with basic questions, you flee the scene. What's worse, you run over to this forum complaining that no one wants to have a "civil dialogue" with you and for that reason you consider the other forum "toxic." This also counts as a "hit" against your credibility and character because those of us who have endured your waves of rhetoric, always going for the lowest hanging fruit while ignoring those of us who have something substantive to say, understand that Daniel C. Peterson was never someone who was interested in civil dialogue with anyone. It is a charade you put up when venting your complaints over here.
Quote
I'm not scared of debates, and have engaged in them (against such genuinely able, high-stature, and experienced debaters as William Lane Craig and Robert Spencer and, albeit on a radio show, James White) with, to my mind, respectable results. I'm willing, on occasion, to engage in formal public debates. They're just not high on my list of priorities.
Again, we're not talking formal debates. We're talking about your inability to admit being wrong on any given matter. It proves you're not really interested in what's true or what can be called "civil dialogue." Standard etiquette in civil dialogue presupposes a willingness to reciprocate by answering just as many questions as you pose to your perceived opponents. But you usually answer none unless you feel it they are safe questions to answer.
.As a perfect example, you once stated that the Islam of Avicenna is not comparable to the militant Islam we see on the news. I pointed out to you a statement by Avicenna which runs contrary to your claim. Avicenna believed that non-Muslims should be fired upon using catapults, even if innocent women and children were on the other side of the wall. It doesn't require a "formal debate" to own up to the fact that you were clearly wrong on this point. But you can't even respond cordially with something along the lines of, "Good point Kevin, I didn't realize Avicenna had that view." This is what separates your bombastic approach from the scholarly humility that is exhibited by folks like Bokovoy and Hauglid, both of whom have absolutely no problem conceding that they actually learned something, however minor, from an evil apostate such as I.
You could have just admitted you were wrong and then we could have moved and there would have been no need to marginalize me as an eternal enemy of you and the Church. But divisive rhetoric is what you enjoy. The fact that I ever dared to disagree with you in public, especially on an issue for which you're supposed to be an authority, has been the foundation of your 10 year of resentment towards me.
Quote
(b) I'm aware of no obligation on my part to debate X simply because X demands it or because Y and Z think that I should. That is to say that, from my perspective, the default answer, when I'm challenged to a debate, isn't "Yes!" unless and until I can scramble to come up with a reason not to do so that will satisfy X, Y, and Z. It's my life, and my time, and I'll choose to do what I think is most important for me to do.
Yes Dan, it is your life. You have every right to pretend to be interested in civil dialogue just as you have every right to claim you're too busy to engage your "enemies" when it is convenient, and then publish a 14,000 word "introduction" about how stupid online anti-Mormons really are. Because we both know that you never make distinctions when criticizing anti-Mormons in a general way.
Quote
He's accusing me of callously endangering another man's life, roughly a decade or so back, via a book review that I published. (This is a depth of moral depravity to which even my implacably obsessive Malevolent Stalker rarely attempts to assign me; he's probably bitter with envy right now.)
Your propensity to perceive every little criticism in the worst possible way, just to score you points on the well poisoning meter, is again one of the things that counts as a hit against your character. You do this all the time and you only do it here or on your blog because, as we were saying, you prefer to misrepresent your critics to their backs where you'll get an obsequious round of applause from other apostate haters, rather than to their face where you'll have to deal with refutation.
The fact is you refused to remove the offending detail from the online publication, and you never really gave me a reason as to why. I suspect that you believed JP was lying about his use of a pseudonymn, in which case you never really believed you were putting his life in danger, which would also preclude you from doing so "callously." So you are essentially wrong here and have misrepresented what I said.
Quote
Now, I'll readily concede that I only vaguely recall this episode. It doesn't loom anywhere near as large in my mind as it plainly does in Xander/Kevin's
And what does this say about your desire to build bridges with others, as you once claimed?
Quote
I'm pretty confident in saying that the Dan Peterson of a decade ago would have been no more inclined than is the Dan Peterson of today to casually expose another man to the risk of violent death.
Which was never the argument, as you well know. The fact that JP's life was in danger is irrelevant to the fact that you clearly thought he was lying.
Quote
I mean really
Good grief.
Precisely the kind of response your straw man deserves.
Quote
As it happens, though, when Xander/Kevin raised this accusation two or three years ago elsewhere, it so surprised me that I actually wrote to the man involved, expressing my regret to him if anything I had done had inadvertently put him in danger.
Given the position you were in at the time, you really had no choice did you? When the initial incident took place, I was just an apologist who was willing to lay down and let the abuse go unnoticed. You felt no reason to issue an apology for something that wasn't known to anyone beyond that four-way email exchange. But years later, as an "apostate" I made the issue known to the forums, at which point you felt you had to diffuse the issue with a written apology. Of course this doesn't explain why no apology was written when Jp had originally written you years earlier, or why you refused to remove the name from FARM's domain.
Quote
s response -- which I may perhaps still have somewhere, despite the passage of time, a couple of major computer failures, and etc., if anybody absolutely must see the actual exchange in order to dissect and parse it for lingering traces of my blood-guilt -- it was pretty plain that he's no longer upset about the matter, if indeed he ever was, and that (or so it seemed to me) he scarcely remembers or thinks about it anymore.
Yes, and that is to his credit. JP Is quite the forgiving soul. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The reason this issue was brought up was because of the Dehlin controversy, and yours and Hamblin's ludicrous assertions that FARMS scholars do not engage in hit pieces. That is precisen what you gave JP holding when you assigned review duities to hatchet man, Russell McGregor. The guy whose "research" consisted of googling JP Holding's enemies, particularly atheist Farrell Till, which is where McGregor discovered JP's use of a pseudonym. Apparently, all FARMS needs if for some antagonistic atheist to make a claim somewhere on the web, and suddenly it is passed off in a FARMS review as established fact. For all McGregor really knew, Till was just making it all up, and JP Holding wasn't using a pseudonym at all. Of course he got lucky, and he was right in his review, but it certainly wasn' because of his rigorous researching skills. The point here is that you signed off on something to be published by FARMS that could have ver well been rumor. You did nothing beyond taking the word of someone who has been harrassing JP and his family for years.
Quote
I just wanted to put my responses to these two matters on record. At least some of the people on Xander/Kevin's home board seem inclined to take what he says at face value, as simply one more redundant illustration of my apparently boundless moral evil.
Just to be clear, those are your words, not ours.
I really have no time to post online except on the weekends, but this was brought to my attention and I felt it necessary to correct your misrepresentations. I'll respond to Pahoran's ridiculous and false comments later if this thread is allowed to remain open through the weekend. I'll just say that the details of that incident will be coming to light, including email exchanges, soon enough. And at that point Russell won't be able to avoid accountability for his deceptions. And about his wife's email information, the way he made it sound is as if I just dug up her information like a dedicated stalker would, and posted it for no apparent reason...
The fact is when he claimed he had apologized to JP, I provided the email exchanges online to prove he was lying about that. JP said he never received an apology and Russell's emails at the time made it clear he was not apologetic in his tone. Instead, he was mocking JP's excuse for using a pseudonym. So I cut and pasted the original email exchanges between he, JP and I, and his email address happened to include the name of his wife, which I hadn't realized at the time. For example, mine would be "Kevin and Karina Graham" drtagnank@gmail.com.
When he PMed me about it I immediately removed it and expained it was an accident. And here he is pretending it was intentional all along, and that I might do it again. Sigh. Reality is stranger than fiction sometimes.
#1 Xander
Brings Forth Plants
Contributor
3,229 posts
Joined 22-June 11
Posted Today, 03:34 PM
Apparently, Dan started a thread attacking some things I had said on another forum. I see the thread has been shut down, but I hope the mods will allow me to respond since it stood for two days and I never had the chance to read it or respond to it until now.
Quote
I've noted before that Xander/Kevin tends to brand those who disagree with him as unscrupulous, cowardly, incompetent, and/or lying, which is one of the reasons that I stopped interacting with him even back in the days when he was still a Latter-day Saint. Life is short, and I have no patience for such rhetoric or such treatment.
Yes, and you falsely note this for the purposes of poisoning the well, as I have noted every time you do this. It is one of the reasons why I have such a negative opinion of you. You absolutely refuse to address the plethora of evidences that run contrary to your assertions attacking others like me. Between the two of us, only I am able to maintain strong friendships with people on both sides of the aisle. How is this even possible, if, as you assert, I tend to label everyone with whom I disagree, a liar? Why don't you call up your friends David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid and ask them what they think of your theory. You know, people who actually know me. Or does the truth matter so little to you that a quick phone call to credible sources is just beyond what you're willing to do?
As we both know, the primary reason why you stopped interacting with me is because you failed miserably in your initial attempt to prove me wrong on a point related to Islam. That reflects poorly on your ego, not my alleged intolerance. When I provided authoritative Islamic references, at your request, you then realized you could not respond effectively so you decided to leave the forum and head on over to this one where you could then attck me the same as you do everyone else who proves you wrong on any given matter. You informed your audience that I was too spiritually deficient for you to engage and thus the anti-Kevin rhetoric began. It is what you do, after all. And the fact that you are starting these hit threads, in the context of defending yourself against the charge that you engage in hit pieces, is nothing short of proving our point.
Quote
That's not particularly interesting in itself, nor really worthy of much note.
But you thought you'd go ahead and intoxicate your audience with a healthy dose of well poisoning. After all, why mention this at all if, as you admit, it is not particularly interesting or worthy of note?
Quote
But he's raised a couple of old accusations against me to which I feel I need to reply, if only cursorily, because of their seriousness. I take them in steeply ascending order:
1) He's again accusing me of cowardice for not agreeing, many years ago, to a formal public debate with somebody named Bob McCue, and he's attributing to me a whole host of more or less lame excuses for my failure to engage Mr. McCue.
This is not accurate. Someone brought up the McCue incident which I vaguely remembered, and it dove-tailed nicely with what we already knew of you. The McCue incident is hardly the first time you've teased people into thinking you were ever interested in a dialogue, and then bailed when it became clear you were not equiped to defend your arguments. If you want to seriously represent me correctly, then you'd share with your audience the example I provided on the thread, which dealt with your numerous challenges on the forum you hate so much. Challenges, to which you responded by claiming you were too busy with all your scholarly activities (conference speeches, flights to Europe, teaching assignments, "I think I'm more important than I really am" anonymous meetings, etc) to respond to questions that were presented to you in a very civil manner.
Then weeks later we discover that you wrote a editor's introduction attacking web-based "anti-Mormons" with a broad brush, ignoring every issue we raised but instead focused on easy straw man statements made by irrelevant, obscure internet posters who, for all we know, were sock puppets you created for your own straw man purposes. Your "introduction" to the FARMS review was roughly 14,000 words and 56 printed pages, which undermines your claim that you had no time on your hands to deal with online concerns made by folks on the forums. In fact, you were obsessed with them, but didn't have the integrity to approach them directly, let alone treat them like humans deserved to be treated.
But as I said, you do this to a number of people. Here is another example just before you left the forum, promising to respond to a question you said was substantive. You said, and I quote, "That's an actual substantive charge, which can be discussed. And which I will discuss, when I'm ready to do so." And yet the cricketts are still chirpping over on that thread. A number of your claims were challenged; claims which you published back in the 1994 Ensign. In another thread you went gunning for the lowest hanging fruits while ignoring questions posed to you by someone who you actually knew, MsJack. You gave no reason for ignoring her substantive questions except to whine about how you're free to ignore who you will and nobody can force you to respond if you don't want to. So please stop pretending I'm the guy you refuse to debate and that you do so because I'm uncivil. I have proved that I am perfectly capable of civil discourse. In reality, you refuse to debate a wide variety of folks who have substantive criticisms of your apologetics, and you refuse because you represent the losing side that is lacking truth. Civility has nothing to do with it because MSJack and others were perfectly civil and yet you still flee the scene after promising to respond. For you it is better to just ignore us all, so that you can claim you haven't lost because you never engaged. Which would be fine if you left it at that. Instead, you run over here to misrepresent what we've said and then you use the Church funded publication to launch your attacks, knowing perfectly well you're going to have the privilege to say pretty much whatever it is you want ; that is, until a General Authority catches wind of what it is you think accurately represents the mission of the Church, and is pulled. This in and of itself proves once and for all that you're living in fantasy land when you claim you do not do hit pieces. You want us to believe that some General Authority pulled your publication for no reason other than anti-Mormon intimidation. Again, we witness your inability to admit wrongdoing at every turn. Even when your own Church authorities get involved you're still making excuses and blaming those you have attacked.
Quote
(a) I debated in high school, rather successfully, and, perhaps for that very reason, I have little faith in formal, timed debates as a way of getting at the truth.
Who said anything about formal debates? Just answer basic questions without running off. You always present yourself on these forums and you spend countless hours morning afternoon and night, posting thousands upon thousands of rhetorical quips. But when you're presented with basic questions, you flee the scene. What's worse, you run over to this forum complaining that no one wants to have a "civil dialogue" with you and for that reason you consider the other forum "toxic." This also counts as a "hit" against your credibility and character because those of us who have endured your waves of rhetoric, always going for the lowest hanging fruit while ignoring those of us who have something substantive to say, understand that Daniel C. Peterson was never someone who was interested in civil dialogue with anyone. It is a charade you put up when venting your complaints over here.
Quote
I'm not scared of debates, and have engaged in them (against such genuinely able, high-stature, and experienced debaters as William Lane Craig and Robert Spencer and, albeit on a radio show, James White) with, to my mind, respectable results. I'm willing, on occasion, to engage in formal public debates. They're just not high on my list of priorities.
Again, we're not talking formal debates. We're talking about your inability to admit being wrong on any given matter. It proves you're not really interested in what's true or what can be called "civil dialogue." Standard etiquette in civil dialogue presupposes a willingness to reciprocate by answering just as many questions as you pose to your perceived opponents. But you usually answer none unless you feel it they are safe questions to answer.
.As a perfect example, you once stated that the Islam of Avicenna is not comparable to the militant Islam we see on the news. I pointed out to you a statement by Avicenna which runs contrary to your claim. Avicenna believed that non-Muslims should be fired upon using catapults, even if innocent women and children were on the other side of the wall. It doesn't require a "formal debate" to own up to the fact that you were clearly wrong on this point. But you can't even respond cordially with something along the lines of, "Good point Kevin, I didn't realize Avicenna had that view." This is what separates your bombastic approach from the scholarly humility that is exhibited by folks like Bokovoy and Hauglid, both of whom have absolutely no problem conceding that they actually learned something, however minor, from an evil apostate such as I.
You could have just admitted you were wrong and then we could have moved and there would have been no need to marginalize me as an eternal enemy of you and the Church. But divisive rhetoric is what you enjoy. The fact that I ever dared to disagree with you in public, especially on an issue for which you're supposed to be an authority, has been the foundation of your 10 year of resentment towards me.
Quote
(b) I'm aware of no obligation on my part to debate X simply because X demands it or because Y and Z think that I should. That is to say that, from my perspective, the default answer, when I'm challenged to a debate, isn't "Yes!" unless and until I can scramble to come up with a reason not to do so that will satisfy X, Y, and Z. It's my life, and my time, and I'll choose to do what I think is most important for me to do.
Yes Dan, it is your life. You have every right to pretend to be interested in civil dialogue just as you have every right to claim you're too busy to engage your "enemies" when it is convenient, and then publish a 14,000 word "introduction" about how stupid online anti-Mormons really are. Because we both know that you never make distinctions when criticizing anti-Mormons in a general way.
Quote
He's accusing me of callously endangering another man's life, roughly a decade or so back, via a book review that I published. (This is a depth of moral depravity to which even my implacably obsessive Malevolent Stalker rarely attempts to assign me; he's probably bitter with envy right now.)
Your propensity to perceive every little criticism in the worst possible way, just to score you points on the well poisoning meter, is again one of the things that counts as a hit against your character. You do this all the time and you only do it here or on your blog because, as we were saying, you prefer to misrepresent your critics to their backs where you'll get an obsequious round of applause from other apostate haters, rather than to their face where you'll have to deal with refutation.
The fact is you refused to remove the offending detail from the online publication, and you never really gave me a reason as to why. I suspect that you believed JP was lying about his use of a pseudonymn, in which case you never really believed you were putting his life in danger, which would also preclude you from doing so "callously." So you are essentially wrong here and have misrepresented what I said.
Quote
Now, I'll readily concede that I only vaguely recall this episode. It doesn't loom anywhere near as large in my mind as it plainly does in Xander/Kevin's
And what does this say about your desire to build bridges with others, as you once claimed?
Quote
I'm pretty confident in saying that the Dan Peterson of a decade ago would have been no more inclined than is the Dan Peterson of today to casually expose another man to the risk of violent death.
Which was never the argument, as you well know. The fact that JP's life was in danger is irrelevant to the fact that you clearly thought he was lying.
Quote
I mean really
Good grief.
Precisely the kind of response your straw man deserves.
Quote
As it happens, though, when Xander/Kevin raised this accusation two or three years ago elsewhere, it so surprised me that I actually wrote to the man involved, expressing my regret to him if anything I had done had inadvertently put him in danger.
Given the position you were in at the time, you really had no choice did you? When the initial incident took place, I was just an apologist who was willing to lay down and let the abuse go unnoticed. You felt no reason to issue an apology for something that wasn't known to anyone beyond that four-way email exchange. But years later, as an "apostate" I made the issue known to the forums, at which point you felt you had to diffuse the issue with a written apology. Of course this doesn't explain why no apology was written when Jp had originally written you years earlier, or why you refused to remove the name from FARM's domain.
Quote
s response -- which I may perhaps still have somewhere, despite the passage of time, a couple of major computer failures, and etc., if anybody absolutely must see the actual exchange in order to dissect and parse it for lingering traces of my blood-guilt -- it was pretty plain that he's no longer upset about the matter, if indeed he ever was, and that (or so it seemed to me) he scarcely remembers or thinks about it anymore.
Yes, and that is to his credit. JP Is quite the forgiving soul. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The reason this issue was brought up was because of the Dehlin controversy, and yours and Hamblin's ludicrous assertions that FARMS scholars do not engage in hit pieces. That is precisen what you gave JP holding when you assigned review duities to hatchet man, Russell McGregor. The guy whose "research" consisted of googling JP Holding's enemies, particularly atheist Farrell Till, which is where McGregor discovered JP's use of a pseudonym. Apparently, all FARMS needs if for some antagonistic atheist to make a claim somewhere on the web, and suddenly it is passed off in a FARMS review as established fact. For all McGregor really knew, Till was just making it all up, and JP Holding wasn't using a pseudonym at all. Of course he got lucky, and he was right in his review, but it certainly wasn' because of his rigorous researching skills. The point here is that you signed off on something to be published by FARMS that could have ver well been rumor. You did nothing beyond taking the word of someone who has been harrassing JP and his family for years.
Quote
I just wanted to put my responses to these two matters on record. At least some of the people on Xander/Kevin's home board seem inclined to take what he says at face value, as simply one more redundant illustration of my apparently boundless moral evil.
Just to be clear, those are your words, not ours.
I really have no time to post online except on the weekends, but this was brought to my attention and I felt it necessary to correct your misrepresentations. I'll respond to Pahoran's ridiculous and false comments later if this thread is allowed to remain open through the weekend. I'll just say that the details of that incident will be coming to light, including email exchanges, soon enough. And at that point Russell won't be able to avoid accountability for his deceptions. And about his wife's email information, the way he made it sound is as if I just dug up her information like a dedicated stalker would, and posted it for no apparent reason...
The fact is when he claimed he had apologized to JP, I provided the email exchanges online to prove he was lying about that. JP said he never received an apology and Russell's emails at the time made it clear he was not apologetic in his tone. Instead, he was mocking JP's excuse for using a pseudonym. So I cut and pasted the original email exchanges between he, JP and I, and his email address happened to include the name of his wife, which I hadn't realized at the time. For example, mine would be "Kevin and Karina Graham" drtagnank@gmail.com.
When he PMed me about it I immediately removed it and expained it was an accident. And here he is pretending it was intentional all along, and that I might do it again. Sigh. Reality is stranger than fiction sometimes.
