Some parts may or may not be literally true, but I still feel good about it.
Some parts appear to be non-literal, but that is irrelevant to the nucleus of truth as established by my feelings.
Of course some parts of the story are untrue, and I never said they were true. My good feelings relate only to the true parts of the story.
The idea that I ever claimed this story was true, is a vicious lie told by my critics.
Critics use a straw man argument that somehow the clearly non-literal parts of the story must have been true. The truth of my feelings is further confirmed by these critics.
Steps 1 through 7. Well said. The road to (somewhere?) is paved with good intentions.
Also, defending one’s gullibility seems to drive DCP down this path frequently. It’s interesting that the end result is inevitably ‘when people disagree with me it means I am being attacked, and I am a victim. My victimhood, therefore, means I was right.’
It is absurdly illogical, but we do seem to see it a lot. (Ahem-Kyler.)
See how easy it is to fool a man with a PhD in 2021? A man who has instant access to google and Wikipedia and copies from them all the time.
Imagine how easy it was for a skilled conman to fool 3 credulous 19th century men who believed in folk magic in the forest. You might even be able to convince them they saw some golden plates, if only they tried hard enough to “see” with their spiritual eyes!
That’s an excellent point.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Daniel Peterson wrote:D6 "I find it odd that after being given reason to think this may not be an authentic transcript you are intent on leaving it up as a way to show respect to those who died?"
I'm not "intent" on leaving it up. Having indicated that it's of dubious authenticity and only partially accurate, I simply see no particular reason to take it down, and I've been on the road pretty steadily for the past week, with little computer time. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I posted something from a friend that seems to have been dolled up a bit. There's nothing in the transcript that puts Todd Beamer and his colleagues in a bad light or speaks ill of them, nothing that is untrue to the apparent spirit of Ms. Jefferson's conversation with Mr. Beamer. Did they pray together? Apparently yes.
Moreover, my respect for those who died is, as I've said, quite independent of the specific verbiage of the purported transcript. They knew that they were probably going to die, and they took heroic action. I admire and respect them for that.
D6 "you're doing very little to respect those who died"
That's a pretty nasty thing to say. But, no doubt, your 11 September blog entry was much more eloquent than mine.
I realize, of course, that the folks over at the Obsession Board are doing cartwheels over this matter and drawing many of their usual foreordained conclusions from it about me. I wish them joy.
Being "on the road" apparently didn't stop him from having time to toss up a few other blog entries, along with several comments. And of course he's not "embarrassed," because how can you be embarrassed when you have no shame? And this is inaccurate: "There's nothing in the transcript that puts Todd Beamer and his colleagues in a bad light." Wrong. The "dolled up" portions of the transcript make him seem like a cliché from some crappy Christian movie--perhaps something out of the Kirk Cameron oeuvre.
And, really, it just doesn't get any cheaper that this: celebrating the dead of 9/11 by posting a fake transcript. Absolutely, 100% shameless.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The amount of weasel words and phrases Peterson can conjure up in a single paragraph is impressive.
"dubious authenticity" instead of fake
"partially accurate" instead of fake
"dolled up a bit" instead of fake
"nothing that is untrue to the apparent spirit" instead of fake
"independent of the specific verbiage" instead of fake
I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn’t have change for cab fare! I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!
The amount of weasel words and phrases Peterson can conjure up in a single paragraph is impressive.
"dubious authenticity" instead of fake
"partially accurate" instead of fake
"dolled up a bit" instead of fake
"nothing that is untrue to the apparent spirit" instead of fake
"independent of the specific verbiage" instead of fake
I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn’t have change for cab fare! I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!
The amount of times dowsin’ Dan Peterson has used the “I’m on the road right now” as an excuse for sloppiness, plagiarism, ‘can’t answer that right now until I get back to my messy office to sift through my transcripts’, or that he’s busy eating and rubbing elbows with someone is up to, I dunno, around a hundred times? He’s like a historically unreliable employee thinking he can get over if he just says something, and boss man will be all, “Welp. If this totally not credible person full of excuses says so, it must be!”
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
I heard that prior to posting blog entries, Dr. Peterson writes them up using tracing paper sheets that he tapes together to form a continuous scroll.
There is some debate on the actual length of the scroll, and some have theorized that there may be some missing.
Dr Steuss has added important information in his link,some missing, to the issue of being on the road.
I think this is by far the most interesting contribution to this empty thread. The scroll is on display at university of Iowa art museum. I have fond memories of that location having spent a year art study there. The scroll may not be as memorable as the early Pollock the museum has. I read on the Road and Dharma Bums when I was in high school , I loved the Japhy story but did not really like on the Road. Neal (Dean) struck me as the sort of manipulating ego best to keep ones distance from. I remain a fan of Gary Snyder (Japhy). I lent my first copy of Dharma Bums to a friend who lent it to a friend etc it eventually came back to me dogeared, faded and held together by a rubber band. (holy relic of a special time)
In case some aren’t moved enough to click on the link, and then click on the comments section:
PallasAthena3 > DCP
Really? I need more information here to support your premise as I do not see any parallels with the storyline of Giacondo and Astolfo in Orlando furioso with that of the Arabian Nights. Both Giacondo and Astolfo were cuckholded and so they set about getting revenge by seducing as many men's wives as possible. It didn't matter their age or beauty, the greater the reputation for virtue the more they showered their attention.
I have actually spent the last thirteen years adapting both Orlando furioso and Orlando innamorato into novels for modern day audiences, so I am well familiar with this canto you referenced. I have also read the Arabian Nights as part of my research material as Caliph Harun al-Rashid, a contemporary of Charlemagne, features in those tales.
Currently unconvinced. (And, in case you are interested, I came upon this blog post from my Google alert set for Orlando furioso.)
Uh oh! Busted! Well. I’m sure DCP didn’t run away hoping the Internet would forget this embarrassing moment!
DanielPeterson > PallasAthena3
Well, I'm in the Canadian Rockies on vacation right now, hundreds of miles from home and with no library resources. So I won't be able to do any checking for quite a while.
How many times have we seen that little gem? That was two years ago, by the way. I guess libraries are hard to come by?
-_-
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Some parts may or may not be literally true, but I still feel good about it.
Some parts appear to be non-literal, but that is irrelevant to the nucleus of truth as established by my feelings.
Of course some parts of the story are untrue, and I never said they were true. My good feelings relate only to the true parts of the story.
The idea that I ever claimed this story was true, is a vicious lie told by my critics.
Critics use a straw man argument that somehow the clearly non-literal parts of the story must have been true. The truth of my feelings is further confirmed by these critics.
Steps 1 through 7. Well said. The road to (somewhere?) is paved with good intentions.
Also, defending one’s gullibility seems to drive DCP down this path frequently. It’s interesting that the end result is inevitably ‘when people disagree with me it means I am being attacked, and I am a victim. My victimhood, therefore, means I was right.’
It is absurdly illogical, but we do seem to see it a lot. (Ahem-Kyler.)
