“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[Marcus]

I’ve uploaded the part that Boylan cut out around the 1:11:00 minute mark here:

https://streamable.com/xqhfl0

I think Mike goofed by admitting that Interpreter now has its own “Metcalfe is butthead” moment with a thanks to both Mike Parker and Peter Pan in an article as a dumb inside joke.

Which is what you would expect from such a highly esteemed and meticulously scholarly journal like Interpreter.

He also linked Spencer Krauss as in on the joke.

Is the part they cut (that drumdude streamed above) back in?

[MormonDiscussionInc]

And they just made the video private.

Not before I got a copy, though. Again, great opsec Mike. Bravo.

#1 hoping I can have a copy of the original and also if you watch both side by side if there are any differences.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that being publicly racist is okay because your racism was done to taunt a group of people who you think are also racist.

Yes, that was bizarre to me. After watching parts of the new video, I’m bothered by a couple of other things. Boyle passes it off as a joke, but what, exactly, is the joke? Why is it funny?

On top of that, did any of the examples of racism by Heartlanders involve racism against black folks? I heard about racism directed toward Hispanics, but not blacks. If Richard Nygren was supposed to be a jab at the Heartlanders, why not make him Hispanic?

Finally, the reason Boylan gave for his concern over the Heartland movement was unbelievably tenuous. Someone not named Neville or Meldrum and not connected with FIRM, but with the Joseph Smith Foundation left a comment on a Facebook page? I’m going to have to listen to the whole thing, I guess, because what I heard makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, Peter Pan’s Identity was not exactly a state secret. Did the dedications in the two Interpreter articles raise no eyebrows at all?

[Res Ipsa]

I’ve uploaded the part that Boylan cut out around the 1:11:00 minute mark here:

https://streamable.com/xqhfl0

I think Mike goofed by admitting that Interpreter now has its own “Metcalfe is butthead” moment with a thanks to both Mike Parker and Peter Pan in an article as a dumb inside joke.

Which is what you would expect from such a highly esteemed and meticulously scholarly journal like Interpreter.

He also linked Spencer Krauss as in on the joke.

Is the part they cut (that drumdude streamed above) back in?

Yep.

[Marcus]

Is the part they cut (that drumdude streamed above) back in?

Yep.

I'm guessing they realized cutting it looked worse than leaving it in.

[Res Ipsa]

Yep.

I'm guessing they realized cutting it looked worse than leaving it in.

Sorry, Marcus. I misread your question. It wasn’t back when I watched a couple hours ago.

[drumdude]

I harbor no illusions that this interview will satisfy the few but vociferous fanatics who recently have taken to attacking me and my character from a dark and execrable corner of the internet.

I loved that Mike couldn’t even bring himself to mention this forum. Or even Bill Reel. A former bishop.

God forbid they lead people to critics.

What a fantasy world they’re living in, where this forum is likened unto the depths of Mordor and Hell.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mike Parker has been encouraged by me to simply come clean.

…

Thoughts?

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 9#p2830689

[MormonDiscussionInc]

Okay.
#1. Can you email me that short cut of the Kraus part being removed. I can't download it the way you sent it. I was already aware of Kraus connection on both reviews and such is part of our slide show. I am wondering why they cut that as I am still going to be covering it. It seems it would've been best to have left that in.

#2. I didn't hear anything about MetcalfIsButthead so I assume you were not meaning such was actually said but rather you noticing a similar sort of thing.

#3. The three main points with their new video:

A. They seem to be finally acknowledging everyone was in on it (Though they also seem hesitant to leave such out there by removing Kraus and still obfuscating Captain Hook and Smoot).
B. I actually have Parker mainly but also the other 4 being deceptive. In Parkers case I have him misrepresenting the truth at every step as he tries to control the situation once he is being exposed. Every time he speaks he says a thing or two that is contradicted by what he had said earlier. That will become clear. Hence this version of events doesn't exactly fit and make sense either. It too isn't the full truth.
C. And the inability to acknowledge their blind spot of how unhealthy creating a fictional black man to distance white men saying what they want from being held accountable is extremely serious. It is the main piece that deserves an apology from the beginning and the misrepresentations of the truth to try to only come forward to the extent that one thought was required is also deeply problematic. And at each step along the way Parkers seems to be feeling pressure to reveal more and more about the situation but which such is contradicted by how he tried to only come clean to a lesser extent previously.

And the weird point about if I mispronounce his name it is a micro aggression is stupid in light of Boylan's refusal to talk to me. How can I know how to pronounce it if he refuses to help me. Such seems an attempt create a distraction and frankly its silly.

Also odd that this was 1 hour and 30 minutes long but seems to want the Nygren part to be such a small part while its clear it the entire reason this was done and yet they still want to minimize the issue.... strange.

[MormonDiscussionInc]

Also Randomly creating Birmingham, Alabama in light of Martin Luther King and Letter from Birmingham jail (He randomly chose one of the worst locations to have his fictional black man be from in order to portray it as random) Isn’t it exponentially more likely that he chose a prime spot in the racist south history intentionally) especially since he admits the racism connect to the heartlanders influencing his creation being a black man?

They are fixated on the images that have made their rounds of Nygren.... It seems very important for them to distance themselves from both of those images. When no one is making those images the center of the discussion. They aren't the focus because clearly no one can prove either of those images were created by Parker or the other 4. But if it could be proven one of those images were created by one of those 5...... then you would have something that would tip this thing right over the edge.....