Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And the entire, unedited exchange with Susie Q is there, as well. I did nothing with that material for a year, but, when I grew tired of her continual gross mischaracterizations on RfM of what I had said to her (in a two-way correspondence that her audience had had no chance to read) and her claims about how "brutally" I had treated her, I acted on the maxim that the truth is the best defense.

If I recall correctly, Susie objected to you posting her emails that contained her real name. You posted both the emails and her real name without her permission. Her real name was eventually removed by SHIELDS after Susie protested.

Is this correct?

Not quite. I don't know Susie Q's real name, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen it.

As I recall, the e-mails, as posted, contained her e-mail address. She complained about it, I thought her complaint was fair, and I had her address removed. I could be wrong (it's been a while), but I think that's how it went down.

[_Mister Scratch]

And the entire, unedited exchange with Susie Q is there, as well. I did nothing with that material for a year, but, when I grew tired of her continual gross mischaracterizations on RfM of what I had said to her (in a two-way correspondence that her audience had had no chance to read) and her claims about how "brutally" I had treated her, I acted on the maxim that the truth is the best defense.

If I recall correctly, Susie objected to you posting her emails that contained her real name. You posted both the emails and her real name without her permission. Her real name was eventually removed by SHIELDS after Susie protested.

Is this correct?

Not quite. I don't know Susie Q's real name, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen it.

As I recall, the e-mails, as posted, contained her e-mail address. She complained about it, I thought her complaint was fair, and I had her address removed. I could be wrong (it's been a while), but I think that's how it went down.

And this changes the fact that you posted the material in the first place how? And this absolves you of wanting to take revenge in what way?

Still waiting for you to deal with my Sorenson questions, by the way. Am I to take your silence as acknowledgment on your part that LDS scholars are, in fact, too embarrassed to submit their most controversial theories to real academic scrutiny?

[_beastie]

Not quite. I don't know Susie Q's real name, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen it.

As I recall, the e-mails, as posted, contained her e-mail address. She complained about it, I thought her complaint was fair, and I had her address removed. I could be wrong (it's been a while), but I think that's how it went down.

Ok. Just to clarify, she did not give her permission for you to post the emails, correct?

Back to my other question: Were you aware that, during one of his disaffected phases, Ray PMd the Z mods with an harassing, vulgar message that included, among other things, the threat that: "YOUR F***KING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD".

What is your reaction to this, how does it reflect upon Ray's general ethics and emotional stability, and how do you feel now having him as one of your most fervent defenders?

[_Mister Scratch]

Not quite. I don't know Susie Q's real name, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen it.

As I recall, the e-mails, as posted, contained her e-mail address. She complained about it, I thought her complaint was fair, and I had her address removed. I could be wrong (it's been a while), but I think that's how it went down.

Ok. Just to clarify, she did not give her permission for you to post the emails, correct?

Back to my other question: Were you aware that, during one of his disaffected phases, Ray PMd the Z mods with an harassing, vulgar message that included, among other things, the threat that: "YOUR F***KING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD".

What is your reaction to this, how does it reflect upon Ray's general ethics and emotional stability, and how do you feel now having him as one of your most fervent defenders?

You know, Beastie, it really is too bad that we don't have the likes of "Scotty Dog" Lloyd (a.k.a. "Opie Rockwell", perhaps), urroner, juliann, and all of the other Comrades at MAD who say things like, "The silience is deafening!" or "<cue crickets>".

[_Daniel Peterson]

As Scratch knows, I flatly deny having led or participated in any effort to slander Mike Quinn, Robert Ritner, or any of the other victims of my supposed evils that Scratch revels in parading before the horrified gaze of the handful of people here who may perhaps trust him.

Then why did Ritner threaten to sue both you and Gee?

I don't know, precisely. But I take such threats seriously because (1) anybody can sue anybody for anything, (2) defending against even a frivolous law suit can be very expensive, and (3) even law suits without merit sometimes prevail.

You bellowed on and on about how your kids would lose their inheritance, etc.

If I were to lose a major law suit, that's precisely what would happen. I didn't "bellow" about it, of course (that's your malevolence speaking), but, since it's completely true and represents a real threat, I mentioned it. I don't find law suits particularly funny. Since you do your slandering from a position of anonymous cowardice, of course, you aren't threatened by law suits, and you can afford to mock the concern that potential victims of law suits quite legitimately feel.

Basically, whenever you "flatly deny" anything, it essentially means that you've been caught with your pants down.

In Scratch World, if a chosen victim fails to deny one of Scratch's slanders, that's proof that Scratch's slander is true. Yet if the chosen victim does deny the slander, that too is proof that Scratch's slander is true.

Quinn is sleeping on a futon, w/ no health insurance thanks in part to the crap you and your pals have engaged in.

That's baseless slander, as usual.

I've led no campaign to keep Quinn from getting an academic appointment, have never intervened to prevent such an appointment, and would be perfectly content to see him get such an appointment.

This is a really serious accusation to make. If you weren't a coward, you would make it under your own real name. As it is, you maintain your own safe privacy but level serious public allegations against named victims.

Malevolent mendacity. The pattern never varies. The leopard doesn't change its spots.

He simply doesn't care. He's safe in malevolent anonymity to traduce the character of others with no real consequence to himself.

Nothing I have ever done even remotely compares to the real-life consequences which have been suffered by the targets of your scorn. Do you care about the results of what YOU have done?

I care very, very much. If I had done the things of which you accuse me, I would richly deserve condemnation. But I have not.

And nobody who knows me at all well would ever think me capable of such actions as you, operating from safe and cowardly anonymity, persistently seek to lay at my feet.

In other words, you are giving yourself a free pass. You were mad at Infymus, and decided to stick it to him by "leaking" the emails.

Since Infymus attacked me publicly, I thought it fair to make Infymus's extremely poor e-mail behavior public.

I'm sort of blown away by this.

Yawn. You've been stunned by new revelations of my apparently bottomless depravity so often that the act has long since lost its novelty.

Are you now admitting (at last) that you really do maintain a kind of "archive" so that you can later use things written in the spur-of-the-moment in order to take revenge on people?

I seldom trash e-mails. I've got thousands and thousands of them. I ought to prune them out, but I don't. So when I decided that I'd had enough of Susy Q's self-serving misrepresentations of our exchange, it wasn't hard to find the e-mails.

by the way: Are you ever going to get around to explaining how those Sorenson articles actually support your argument?

I already did, over at MAD&D.

I have no interest in attempting any serious discussion on the topic with you because (1) you're malevolent, (2) you're dishonest, (3) you're implacably personally hostile, and (4) you've shown not the slightest real comprehension of the nature of academic life. What would be the point?

Go ahead and let Yme know that you are afraid to deal with this issue over here. I'm sure s/he will appreciate it, given your endless taunts.

I already have. I posted pretty much what you told me to. That should be good for some minor league comic relief.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ok. Just to clarify, she did not give her permission for you to post the emails, correct?

I asked her, and she refused. So I didn't.

However, after a year of enduring her gross distortions of the exchange on RfM -- during which she never actually quoted what I had really said -- I enquired of a lawyer friend who deals with copyright issues and the like. When he told me that both Susy Q and I had complete legal rights to publish both sides of the exchange, I gave SHIELDS the correspondence.

[_beastie]

Thank you for the clarification regarding Susie Q. I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment more, I just wanted information provided to those who have always maintained it is unethical to post private exchanges.

Now I'm hoping you will respond to this:

Back to my other question: Were you aware that, during one of his disaffected phases, Ray PMd the Z mods with an harassing, vulgar message that included, among other things, the threat that: "YOUR F***KING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD".

What is your reaction to this, how does it reflect upon Ray's general ethics and emotional stability, and how do you feel now having him as one of your most fervent defenders?

[_The Nehor]

Scratch has twisted my words badly before, especially regarding his ridiculous claims of Hamblin's anti-Semitism which are now taken as fact in his postings.

Actually, Nehor, you were very deceptive in one of your responses to me on this subject. You claimed to have emailed a friend about Hamblin's tirade, and that the friend said that it "wasn't offensive at all." Later, you admitted that this Jewish friend had thought the rant was "over the top." I have caught you doing this kind of thing more than once. Prof. Hamblin's rant was very reminiscent of the angry outburst committed by Michael Richards some time ago; Prof. "Butthead" really slipped up and demonstrated just how brimming with hatred he actually is. His insane wrath is evident in his Quinn article as well.

That anyone could accuse anyone of having to provoke Infymus to ranting is a joke. It's harder not to provoke him into insulting and profane rants.

Did you bother to read the exchange? It is clear that DCP kept emailing him in order to press his buttons.

Uh-huh......I actually said that he said that the analogy was stretched

I just went and checked the original text. The word in question was "strained," and my point remains the same: You initially failed to mention this "strained analogy" tidbit when you first tried to defuse Hamblin's rant.

....I.e. he thought the analogy was bad. He still thought that there was no evidence that he was an anti-Semite.

Are you sure about that? I mean, given your obvious penchant for leaving out important details, can you really be trusted on this issue? What, after all, is "strained analogy" supposed to mean? That Hamblin was out of control, and that he'd gone completely overboard? That he was resorting to gross anti-Semitism in order to score points? What?

You have a weird world-view scratch. This is my friend we are talking about. I spoke to him about it. He said the analogy was strained meaning he thought the analogy was bad. If you want to accuse Hamblin of using a bad analogy that could be discussed. He also said in no uncertain terms that he did not think that this makes the person an anti-Semite.

I left out important details? Let's see. That detail would have been important if you had suggested that the analogy was flawed. However your main point of contention was that Hamblin was a rabid anti-Semite. A very different accusation. I would contend that you leave out important details when you accuse him of anti-semitism and routinely do not add context to what he said and why he said it. Still, wouldn't want details like that to cripple such a juicy tidbit.

[_Ray A]

You used to claim to respect me MORE because I wouldn't deny I had experienced a spiritual "epiphany" in regards to the Book of Mormon. You claimed to respect me because I wouldn't bow to the RFM crowd and stood my ground against them.

Oh, yes, I did. I really did. But these days, and slightly heretofore, just about every post you do is some whine about Mormonism. You just sound like some constant, nagging anti-Mormon B****.

I guess it's because I expect more of you. It's my previous opinion, shattered by the reality.

[_Ray A]

What is your reaction to this, how does it reflect upon Ray's general ethics and emotional stability, and how do you feel now having him as one of your most fervent defenders?

Guess what. If this was revealed to you and I was anti-Mormon, like you and Gad, you, miss, would not say boo!.

That's what makes you a total sham.