The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am with E-O on this one.

Now that's a huge surprise!

I don't see Scratch's comments as a "carefully and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread" but since you do.....ignore his comments and just address your comments in the original 28 pages. Read the 28 pages and maybe your memory won't be so vague.

As I said previously on this thread . . . Well, as I said previously on this thread.

"Contented with life as it is" means arguing Quinn when the OP is Murphy. Go figure? The choice, argue about Quinn and nicknames for 15 pages or read and comment on your comments in 28 pages...... What's the comparison of effort here?

I don't understand the huge interest in a very long and very old thread on another board. I can't even bring myself to reread it. Why have I been responding to the Scroatch? Because they're currently attempting -- and have been attempting, for several years on at least three boards -- to blacken my character with incessant charges of malicious gossip and lying.

I understand that you're at peace with that. Oddly, I'm not.

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

I oppose obvious deception.

More than that, even, I oppose subtle deception, too.

Happy to help.

[_Pokatator]

Dr. Peterson wrote:

I don't understand the huge interest in a very long and very old thread on another board. I can't even bring myself to reread it.

Now that's a huge surprise!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I try to answer serious questions. I try to ignore the others.

By "serious" do you actually mean "ones that don't embarrass me or my friends" or "ones that won't incriminate me or my friends?" I've never understood the word "serious" to indicate these meanings.

Odd.

That's plainly it. On this thread, I've been responding for several pages now to a concerted long-term effort to paint me in a very bad public light. Clearly, that demonstrates that I refuse to address topics that might potentially embarrass or incriminate me.

Fortunately, Pokatator endorses your important discovery.

[_Pokatator]

I try to answer serious questions. I try to ignore the others.

By "serious" do you actually mean "ones that don't embarrass me or my friends" or "ones that won't incriminate me or my friends?" I've never understood the word "serious" to indicate these meanings.

Odd.

That's plainly it. On this thread, I've been responding for several pages now to a concerted long-term effort to paint me in a very bad public light. Clearly, that demonstrates that I refuse to address topics that might potentially embarrass or incriminate me.

Fortunately, Pokatator endorses your important discovery.

The 28 page thread paints you in a very bad public light, too.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... except that it's my moral character that's being publicly maligned by Scratch I and Scratch II on this point.

We have simply commented on your words in your posts.

If, by commented, you mean blatantly misrepresented, you're entirely right.

No, that's not what I meant.

If you don't want your words to be scrutinized, then don't post them.

I don't mind "scrutiny." I mind slander.

There's been none from me.

And we are talking about gossip, a common human frailty, and pointing it out does not "malign moral character." What possibly goes more to your character is your inability to 'stand for something' and be accountable for a mistake.

If, by being accountable for a mistake, you intend to say pleading guilty to something I didn't do and that never happened, I agree. I'm unable.

Still in denial.

I go by my own name.

I wonder if the same could be said of Freethinker.

As I've said, although I've easily posted 95% of what I've ever written on any message board under my own name, I have absolutely nothing against pseudonyms as such. What I object to is malicious character-assassination from behind the cover of anonymity.

There's been no "character-assassination," malicious or otherwise. I and others have simply been commenting on your words.

You've never even tried to present any evidence that Freethinker engaged in a smear-campaign. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that the mere fact that, for a rather brief period, I used a pseudonym is somehow yet another nail in the coffin of my character. I find that unspeakably weird. Especially coming from a pseudonymous poster.

I have never claimed that Freethinker engaged in a smear-campaign. My reference to Freethinker was simply to point out the hypocrisy of your constant whining about the use of pseudonyms, which you yourself have used in the past.

That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Your words are what made you "vulnerable."

No, my existence, coupled with the existence of slanderers like yourself and the other Scratch, is what makes me vulnerable. The fact that I use my own name increases my vulnerability. And, of course, the fact that you slander anonymously reveals your shameful cowardice.

I would have concluded you engaged in gossip about Quinn regardless of whether you used your own name or a moniker. Again, my focus has been on your words, not you.

What "taint"?

I understand that you regard character assassination as mere sport. I don't.

Nor do I.

Are you saying that no one can scrutinize or criticize what you write because you've chosen to use your own name? If so, that's absurd.

Obviously not. I don't object to scrutiny. I object to public calumny. Especially when carried out by anonymous cowards such as yourself and the other Scratch.

Still whining about anonymous posters. My comments have consisted of scrutiny of your words and admissions with respect to Quinn. If you fear that, then don't post the words. But if you do choose to post, then be accountable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The 28 page thread paints you in a very bad public light, too.

So do most things, I'm told -- including, very possibly, the telephone book.

But I probably won't sit down and read it through to find out.

[_Tarski]

... except that it's my moral character that's being publicly maligned by Scratch I and Scratch II on this point.

We have simply commented on your words in your posts.

If, by commented, you mean blatantly misrepresented, you're entirely right.

If you don't want your words to be scrutinized, then don't post them.

I don't mind "scrutiny." I mind slander.

And we are talking about gossip, a common human frailty, and pointing it out does not "malign moral character." What possibly goes more to your character is your inability to 'stand for something' and be accountable for a mistake.

If, by being accountable for a mistake, you intend to say pleading guilty to something I didn't do and that never happened, I agree. I'm unable.

I go by my own name.

I wonder if the same could be said of Freethinker.

As I've said, although I've easily posted 95% of what I've ever written on any message board under my own name, I have absolutely nothing against pseudonyms as such. What I object to is malicious character-assassination from behind the cover of anonymity. You've never even tried to present any evidence that Freethinker engaged in a smear-campaign. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that the mere fact that, for a rather brief period, I used a pseudonym is somehow yet another nail in the coffin of my character. I find that unspeakably weird. Especially coming from a pseudonymous poster.

I have to say that it seems quite clear to me that (A)anonymous posting and (B)anonymous slander are two vastly different things.
The fact that DCP once posted as Freethinker is just not a good comeback to his objection to anonymous slander.
It's annoying to see the discussion going in circles on this simple point.

Secondly, this Quinn thing has focused on issues (gossip) that have only the remotest relation to Mormonism as such, and it's personal to boot.
In my opinion this thread belongs in the off topic forum.

Furthermore, no one has said anything new on this for pages.

On the other hand, Scratch's analyisis of what went down online seems a fair topic but the person that claimed there was a transcript should be the main one answering for that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Still in denial.

Still denying.

Which is a different thing.

My reference to Freethinker was simply to point out the hypocrisy of your constant whining about the use of pseudonyms, which you yourself have used in the past.

I've never criticized the use of pseudonyms as such. I have repeatedly said that pseudonyms don't bother me a bit.

There's obviously no sense in trying to have a conversation with you. You simply repeat the same transparent untruths, regardless of what I actually say.

Still whining about anonymous posters.

See above.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Still in denial.

Still denying.

Which is a different thing.

I'll stick with "denial."

My reference to Freethinker was simply to point out the hypocrisy of your constant whining about the use of pseudonyms, which you yourself have used in the past.

I've never criticized the use of pseudonyms as such. I have repeatedly said that pseudonyms don't bother me a bit.

Nor does gossip, apparently.

There's obviously no sense in trying to have a conversation with you. You simply repeat the same transparent untruths, regardless of what I actually say.

The irony is that my posts have been based on your words. The only hurdle to our conversation is your inability to face up to the obvious.

[_Daniel Peterson]

On the other hand, Scratch's analyisis of what went down online seems a fair topic but the person that claimed there was a transcript should be the main one answering for that.

A voice of reason!

Regarding the twenty-eight-page thread: I haven't re-read it, and have, really, less than no interest in doing so. But, to the limited extent that I remember it, I was simply commenting there on things that were presented on that thread. I didn't attend Tom Murphy's presentation; I was in a different meeting, oddly enough, on the same campus. I had no independent knowledge of anything that happened in or during his presentation. If witnesses claimed that something happened, or that a transcript existed, I assumed them to be telling the truth. If they weren't, that's their responsibility. Apparently unlike most here, I can't, and don't, independently verify everything asserted on the internet.