DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

[_Mister Scratch]

Right. I see that you have essentially been checkmated again. Nowhere do I see evidence backing up your Tarski claims. Nowhere do I see you condemning DCP for engaging in far worse behavior than I did. Nowhere do I see you explaining why I ought to dole out details regarding my personal life, or why you need more material beyond my postings. None of it. I think that, in actuality, it is YOU who are the "coward," Ray. You never follow through with your arguments and attacks. You wimp out and collapse beneath the weight of your own anger and hatred.

Edited to add: by the way, Ray---you went ballistic over that thread. You lost your head and went on and on about how you were going to "expose" me as some kind of huge hypocrite. Of course, your attempt failed miserably, but that didn't stop you.

Sounds to me like you're the angry one, Scratch.

<Ahem> Where's that evidence now, Ray? Or are you chickening out yet again?

[_Ray A]

What does this even mean? You "know" who he is? From what? His internet postings, right? That's how *I* know him. Likewise, that's how you know me.

That's for me to know, and for you to find out. Infymus has made no secret of his real name. You want evidence? Do some "research".

Ray---I know. This is obvious. My question is not about whether or not we can locate his name now. Rather, how did it come to light in the first place? You know what I mean? How did people learn his in real life name to begin with? Did he announce it, or was it leaked?

He announced it - unashamedly. Will you announce yours? He put his name to his criticisms - you don't!

Okay: did he tell you privately, or did he announce it publicly? *THAT* is what I'm getting at, mate. Did Infymus announce his in real life name publicly, or did DCP "leak" it?

I find this totally amusing! This information is all on the Internet, Scratch. I have no private information on Merc, or Infymus, only what has been posted on the Net.

My goodness, Ray. What a degenerate, bottom-of-the-barrel hypocrite you are. You stink of rotten hypocrisy--the evil that Christ condemned above all others. You make endless excuses so that you can continue to try and vilify me. Have some real integrity, mate.

Sounds like you're getting angrier. You believe in Christ? Well, that's a start to understanding what you believe.

[_beastie]

I haven't had time to read all the latest posts, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else already said.

1 - I don't know Infymus' or anyone else's real name, unless they have chosen to tell it to me. The idea of other posters snooping around trying to figure out peoples' real names creeps me out. (by the way, we recently had an internet safety inservice at my school and they emphasized to us to never post on forums with one's real name)

2- DCP posted anonymously as Free Thinker (and later Logic Chopper, although he never admitted that one. The mods knew he wanted to remain anonymous, so even though it was easy to figure out his identity through his posting style, if anyone posted that he was DCP, it was deleted by the mods and the poster was chastised. In fact, I even recall one thread where he, as Free Thinker, said he communicated with DCP and would check something out with "him". So no, he was not open about that identity for a long time. I can't remember if, at the end, he admitted it or just went away and posted as Logic Chopper. It is a problem for someone as prolific and well known with a definitive style to change screen names.

3 - DCP also posted his email exchange years ago with a poster named Susie (there are several susies, I can't remember which one it was) If I recall correctly, he posted it on Shields, although I'm just going by memory.

[_beastie]

In fact, on Z no one was allowed to refer to Juliann by her real name, either (meaning her last name) despite the fact that her own friends had posted a link to one of her FAIR articles and associated it with her. (I never knew her real name before that)

This obsession about anonymity really only started when FAIR started, and my opinion is that it started because several of the high-profile FAIR posters were posting by their real names and were associated with articles on FAIR using their real names. A few of them apparently then decided that their posting by their real names (which they could hardly avoid doing, since they had articles on FAIR using their real names) was a badge of honor, and began attacking critics for not using their real names, too.

I don't recall ever seeing a believer criticized for posting anonymously. It's all a bunch of bunk. You don't need to know anything about the person to address their thoughts, and if you want to know something about the person, it's because you want to address something other than their thoughts.

[_Pokatator]

I have been gone a bit and returned to following this thread through 14 pages. It would almost seem that it would be a total derailment of this thread to reference the OP at this point. But derail I must.

Below I have referenced a portion of Mr. Scratch's OP and a sample of Charity's response. I have only chose a couple, one each and then I have comment.


From Mr. Scratch's OP

A bit later, Yme forces DCP to lay it on the line:

Would you, or any other LDS scholar, be willing to put your academic credibility on the line for the acceptance of the Book of Mormon historicity with our secualr academic community merely on this argument? If not, what is your point???

I would not and do not hesitate to publicly describe the witnesses testimonies as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I would not hesitate to do eso in an academic gathering. Not even slightly. And, in fact, I've probably done so on a few occasions. (I'll have to think about it. I've done many academic presentations to non-LDS scholars, mostly on Islamic topics but some on Mormon topics.)

(emphasis added)

Wait a sec... He's "probably done so"??? Or he actually has? Is it---or should it be--striking that he cannot recall the last time he testified of his faith in front of "an academic gathering"? There is something extremely fishy and dodgy about his remarks here. What, after all, would be more damning for Mopologetics, academically speaking, then for the chief Mopologist to admit that he's embarrassed to discuss his views in a mainstream, secular academic setting? Ultimately, what we are seeing here is tantamount to an admission on DCP's part that he fears that his beliefs may compromise his academic standing.

Charity's response on page 1

1. Dr. Peterson has made so many presentations before so many groups, I am sure he couldn't remember every single one without going back to a schedule, if he had kept one. Pretty easy to criticize here. How often do you make presentations before academic groups, Mr. Scratch? Or any kind of group? And do you recall every topic of every presentation and which group you gave it to?

2. How many committees or groups have you sat on where possible topics of research were discussed? I have sat in on quite a few, during graduate school. I can tell you that in the case of psycholgoy that there are topoics whch would be career killers. A non-LDS scholar could not possibly take on the Book of Mormon. When he/she reported any confirming evidence of the Book of Mn message board.

You have got to be joking here! So every time a faithful LDS goes into a meeting with non-LDS scholars and academics, he is supposed to bear his testimony? Where is your vaunted separation of faith and science? This has got to be one of the most astounding demands by critics I have seen on any anti-Mormon, then suddenly the angels, visions, etc. are in play.

I have to agree with Charity to the point that her arguments seems very logical. But if it is so logical and simple, why couldn't a smart educated man like Dr. Peterson come with something as logical and simple? What I found most disturbing was that this smart educated man couldn't even remember if he did something that would have been so "out of the ordinary" or as Charity put it, something that would be considered a joke or laughable in that setting. It would seem that if he ever did something similar to "bearing his testimony" or something that different in an academic setting that he would at least remember it.

Bottom line, the thing that I find most disturbing about this whole thread (when it was about Dr. Peterson) is all of his himing, heming and hawing rather than a straight answer. To me the hesitation by Dr. Peterson and the simplistic though logical answers by Charity show that this is an embarrassment to them and thus threatens their creditability.

Just my $.22 = my pair of dimes and my $.02 opinion


Edited to try to "unsuccessfully" mess with the quote function, I succeed in being unsuccessful.

[_Mister Scratch]

That's for me to know, and for you to find out. Infymus has made no secret of his real name. You want evidence? Do some "research".

Backing down yet again? Okay.

Ray---I know. This is obvious. My question is not about whether or not we can locate his name now. Rather, how did it come to light in the first place? You know what I mean? How did people learn his in real life name to begin with? Did he announce it, or was it leaked?

He announced it - unashamedly.

Where? When? CFR.

Okay: did he tell you privately, or did he announce it publicly? *THAT* is what I'm getting at, mate. Did Infymus announce his in real life name publicly, or did DCP "leak" it?

I find this totally amusing! This information is all on the Internet, Scratch.

Where? CFR. You keep dodging this point. You have already had to concede once. Will you be forced to do so again?

My goodness, Ray. What a degenerate, bottom-of-the-barrel hypocrite you are. You stink of rotten hypocrisy--the evil that Christ condemned above all others. You make endless excuses so that you can continue to try and vilify me. Have some real integrity, mate.

Sounds like you're getting angrier. You believe in Christ? Well, that's a start to understanding what you believe.

Still no integrity, eh? You know, I do enjoy badgering you, Ray. You flip-flop and move from positions with childish ease. There seems to be no embarrassment, reflection, or pause involved in these flip-flops of yours.

[_Mister Scratch]

Bottom line, the thing that I find most disturbing about this whole thread (when it was about Dr. Peterson) is all of his himing, heming and hawing rather than a straight answer. To me the hesitation by Dr. Peterson and the simplistic though logical answers by Charity show that this is an embarrassment to them and thus threatens their creditability.

Just my $.22 = my pair of dimes and my $.02 opinion

Yes; this is absolutely right. TBMs and Mopologists want credibility, but they are too unwilling/embarrassed to take the normative steps that would ensure that legitimacy. Or, perhaps they have done this. I am still waiting to hear of even one instance of an LDS scholar giving a frankly LDS presentation on a controversial topic at a legit academic conference.

[_Dr. Shades]

Ray---I know. This is obvious. My question is not about whether or not we can locate his name now. Rather, how did it come to light in the first place? You know what I mean? How did people learn his in real life name to begin with? Did he announce it, or was it leaked?

He announced it - unashamedly.

Where? When? CFR.

Mister Scratch: You asked a straightforward question, so you deserve a straightforward answer:

For a time, Infymus would "sign off" his posts with his real name, similar to the way Wade Englund does.

(What can I say, I'm not a big fan of "guessing games.")

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray---I know. This is obvious. My question is not about whether or not we can locate his name now. Rather, how did it come to light in the first place? You know what I mean? How did people learn his in real life name to begin with? Did he announce it, or was it leaked?

He announced it - unashamedly.

Where? When? CFR.

Mister Scratch: You asked a straightforward question, so you deserve a straightforward answer:

For a time, Infymus would "sign off" his posts with his real name, similar to the way Wade Englund does.

(What can I say, I'm not a big fan of "guessing games.")

Ah, I see. Thank you, Shades. The other part of my question is this: Was Infymus doing this "sign-off" thing back during the time when DCP and the SHIELDS crew would have excerpted that email of his?

[_Dr. Shades]

Ah, I see. Thank you, Shades. The other part of my question is this: Was Infymus doing this "sign-off" thing back during the time when DCP and the SHIELDS crew would have excerpted that email of his?

No. I'm quite certain that Infymus's e-mail exchanges were posted to SHIELDS quite a while before he began participating here.

Hmm. Is the reason you asked that question because his real name was posted at SHIELDS? I don't know if they posted it or not, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down--did they?