The Many Faces of Ray A

[_Ray A]

Ray, my little special person, we were talking about you. Please don't try to match my humor, you can't. :-)

Perhaps let others judge whether you have any humour.

[_Mister Scratch]

The charge, continually leveled by "Rollo Tomasi" and "Mister Scratch," that I orchestrated or even participated in a deliberate campaign to smear Mike Quinn is not true.

Hello, Prof. Peterson, and welcome! I have been waiting for you, and am delighted to see you here! Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

1. Your claim that you did not "participate in a deliberate campaign to smear Mike Quinn" is dubious at best. (Or perhaps this is an issue of semantics---i.e., you "participated," but it wasn't "deliberate."0 Let me ask you this: Why did you think it was a goodhearted, charitable, and/or noble thing to raise the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation during the course of that now-infamous FAIR thread?
2. I'm willing to entertain the notion that your passing along of this gossip wasn't necessarily "mean spirited" per se, but, given your own commentary on all of this, in addition to supplementary materials passed along by Quinn himself and others, it seems quite obvious that there was a concerted effort to smear Quinn and destroy his life led by (evidently) Elder Boyd K. Packer. Would you care to deny this? Or would you care to enlighten us as to what else you know?

So far as I'm aware, no such campaign occurred.

See, I just don't buy this, my dear Prof. P. You *had* to have known something was afoot---that much is evident in your original postings on the matter!---i.e., your little "slip-up" in mentioning that you knew that Quinn's SP was aware of his homosexuality, and your later admission that said homosexuality played a role in Quinn's excommunication. You were most definitely aware that something was up, since you were gossiping about it with your friend---probably Lou Midgley.

If such a campaign did occur, I wasn't involved in it and I know nothing of it.

I don't think you're being very honest at all here. You most certainly did know something---you admitted as much on the April, 2006 FAIR thread, and again in a later thread in which the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation was raised.

There undoubtedly was gossiping. It would have been odd if there had not been.

I'm glad that you're now willing to admit that you participated in the gossip mill. Now we are getting somewhere.

However, I can't recall ever initiating any conversation about Quinn's sexual orientation,
and, to the best of my memory, don't believe that the subject came up, in my presence, more than half a dozen times over the course of probably more than half a dozen years.

Except oddly---outrageously, even---you happened to hear about this right during the lead up to his excommunication. Would you care to claim yet again that you "know nothing" about the BKP-headed smear campaign?

Somehow -- I couldn't begin to explain how, because I don't know; in any case, it was none of my doing -- Quinn's homosexuality seems to have been a fairly open secret among many people engaged in Mormon studies (both believers and unbelievers) for several years before his actual "coming out of the closet."

What, pray tell, is "a fairly open secret"? Am I right to suspect that this was just information which was maliciously leaked by TMBs in the Mormon Studies community?

Todd Compton and I were surprised when we were told about it, but I don't ever recall anybody else expressing any surprise. My sense, frankly, was that the two of us had evidently been a bit oblivious to what many people already knew. (The person who mentioned it to us -- a well known Mormon liberal -- was plainly surprised at our surprise.)

I notice that you have been very careful to keep the identity of this person a closely-guarded secret. Tell me, Prof. P.---was this "well known Mormon liberal" actually Robert D. Crockett? You have told us that you learned this information while on a trip to L.A..... Also, since you have made it a point to insist that you never "raised the subject," how was the subject "raised" in this particular instance?

I'm tired of being misrepresented and maligned on this matter.

I'm not sure what it is you think is being "misrepresented", or just why you feel "maligned." You have said elsewhere that you think this whole affair "makes you look unethical," but why? Is it because you gossiped and you feel guilty about it? Or because you found yourself on the fringes of Elder Packer's campaign to destroy Quinn's life---and, moreover, that you used your insider knowledge to further those ends amongst TBMs?

Look: my intention here has never been to "malign" you. If you did bad, then a simple reporting of your doings will damn you---i.e., the "maligning" will have been your own fault. The actuality is that I am really just interested in learning the truth about what happened. I personally would be quite interested in learning some further details about this, such as who your "friend" was that you were gossiping with prior to the 1993 ex'ing, and also who your mysterious informant was who told you and T. Compton this juicy bit of gossip. I'd also be interested in learning why you think this was "widely known" among many LDS scholars and intellectuals.... You have tried to paint the whole context as being one in which everybody save you knew about this, but frankly, it seems like you are just guessing.

I suppose in the end you resent the fact that you were caught gossiping. The extent of your wrong-doing is debatable (i.e., it seems extremely doubtful that you actually engineered---or helped to engineer---Quinn's downfall), but there is no question that you engaged in malicious gossip on the FAIRboard, in an effort to smear Quinn in the eyes of TBMs, and that you abused your insider knowledge thereof.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your claim that you did not "participate in a deliberate campaign to smear Mike Quinn" is dubious at best.

No, it's the simple, plain truth.

Why did you think it was a goodhearted, charitable, and/or noble thing to raise the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation during the course of that now-infamous FAIR thread?

I don't know which thread you have in mind. I assume that, if I raised the issue (obviously, long after Mike had himself come out of the closet), I thought it relevant.

I'm willing to entertain the notion that your passing along of this gossip wasn't necessarily "mean spirited" per se, but, given your own commentary on all of this, in addition to supplementary materials passed along by Quinn himself and others, it seems quite obvious that there was a concerted effort to smear Quinn and destroy his life led by (evidently) Elder Boyd K. Packer. Would you care to deny this?

Yes, I would.

I deny that I "passed along" any gossip. I have no reason to believe that "there was a concerted effort to smear Quinn and destroy his life." I have less than no reason to believe that Elder Packer "led" such a campaign.

So far as I'm aware, no such campaign occurred.

See, I just don't buy this, my dear Prof. P.

What you "buy" or don't "buy" is of no interest to me. My interest is in seeing that your campaign of character assassination against me doesn't go without challenge or correction. But that's for the potential benefit of others, not for yours; your hostility is both irrational and implacable. (And you're welcome to drop the faux terms of endearment.)

I don't think you're being very honest at all here.

Since you insist on regarding me as a liar, there really isn't much point in my attempting to answer your questions, is there?

There undoubtedly was gossiping. It would have been odd if there had not been.

I'm glad that you're now willing to admit that you participated in the gossip mill.

Anyone endowed with even minimal reading skills will easily see that I "admitted" nothing of the kind.

Would you care to claim yet again that you "know nothing" about the BKP-headed smear campaign?

I'd be happy to.

I know nothing about "the" supposed "smear campaign" allegedly directed by Elder Packer. I don't believe that any such campaign existed, whether led by him or not.

Am I right to suspect that this was just information which was maliciously leaked by TMBs in the Mormon Studies community?

Not so far as I'm aware, no.

Todd Compton and I were surprised when we were told about it, but I don't ever recall anybody else expressing any surprise. My sense, frankly, was that the two of us had evidently been a bit oblivious to what many people already knew. (The person who mentioned it to us -- a well known Mormon liberal -- was plainly surprised at our surprise.)

Tell me, Prof. P.---was this "well known Mormon liberal" actually Robert D. Crockett?

No, it was not. And, for what it's worth, to the best of my knowledge I've never actually met Robert Crockett. And, at that time, I'd never even heard his name. I wouldn't hear of him until more than a decade later. Robert Crockett and I are not close friends. Not even of the internet kind.

You have told us that you learned this information while on a trip to L.A..... Also, since you have made it a point to insist that you never "raised the subject," how was the subject "raised" in this particular instance?

Truthfully, I don't remember. It's been something on the order of twenty years. If I'm not mistaken, we were standing in this person's kitchen when he brought it up. As far as Todd and I were concerned, since neither of us knew of it at all, it was somewhat out of the blue.

I'm not sure what it is you think is being "misrepresented", or just why you feel "maligned."

Really? Well, human nature perpetually astonishes.

You have said elsewhere that you think this whole affair "makes you look unethical," but why?

I haven't said that the "whole affair" makes me "look unethical." I've said that your false portrayal of me makes me look unethical.

Why? Because participation in a deliberate campaign to smear somebody would be unethical.

I would feel essentially the same way were you to falsely accuse me of adultery, grand theft auto, arson, embezzlement, or cheating my way through graduate school. Being unhappy at such accusations would hardly represent an admission of guilt.

Is it because you gossiped and you feel guilty about it?

No. Because I didn't and, consequently, I don't.

Or because you found yourself on the fringes of Elder Packer's campaign to destroy Quinn's life---and, moreover, that you used your insider knowledge to further those ends amongst TBMs?

No. Because I didn't find myself on the fringes of this fictional campaign of which I knew and know absolutely nothing, and because I didn't "use" any "insider knowledge" (of which I had precious little in any case at that relatively early stage of my life) to do anything of the sort.

I'm sure that you'll continue to imagine and to spread all sorts of malicious things about me, but I trust that at least one or two people here are fair-minded enough that my consistent denial of your charges will carry some weight with them.

Look: my intention here has never been to "malign" you.

That's rich. I regard you as both cowardly and malevolent.

If you did bad, then a simple reporting of your doings will damn you---I.e., the "maligning" will have been your own fault.

And if I didn't do bad, simple misreporting of my doings will damn me just the same, even though the maligning is your fault. That's the low genius of your cowardly anonymous accusations.

The actuality is that I am really just interested in learning the truth about what happened.

Right.

I personally would be quite interested in learning some further details about this, such as who your "friend" was that you were gossiping with [sic] prior to the 1993 ex'ing, and also who your mysterious informant was who told you and T. Compton this juicy bit of gossip.

Not a chance. I won't knowingly help you in any way to broaden your net of character assassination.

I suppose in the end you resent the fact that you were caught gossiping.

No. I resent the fact that, for at least a year or two, you've been falsely accusing me of such gossiping, despite my clear denials (for which you further accuse me of being a liar).

The extent of your wrong-doing is debatable

No it's not.

there is no question that you engaged in malicious gossip on the FAIRboard, in an effort to smear Quinn in the eyes of TBMs, and that you abused your insider knowledge thereof.

That simply isn't true at any level.

I've made my statement. I don't intend to go back and forth with you on this while, filled as you are with malicious zeal, you meticulously scrutinize my accounts of twenty-year-old memories for real or imagined self-contradictions and self-revelations that you can exploit in your crusade against me. Involvement with you is rather like an engagement with the tar baby.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why did you think it was a goodhearted, charitable, and/or noble thing to raise the issue of Quinn's sexual orientation during the course of that now-infamous FAIR thread?

I don't know which thread you have in mind. I assume that, if I raised the issue (obviously, long after Mike had himself come out of the closet), I thought it relevant.

My dear Professor: I have seen you mention Quinn on multiple occasions. You have mentioned him when it would make it appear as if his sexual orientation was a factor in his ecclesiastical punishment. You have mentioned him in order to label his work "embarrassing" and "tendentious." You have mentioned him to say that you felt "betrayed" by him. Do you regard this stuff as "irrelevant", too?

I deny that I "passed along" any gossip.

But the evidence for it is right there in your FAIR posting! C'mon, surely you're capably of copping to at least that. You gossiped, Dan. End of story.

I have less than no reason to believe that Elder Packer "led" such a campaign.

It is you vs. Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Steve Benson.....

So far as I'm aware, no such campaign occurred.

See, I just don't buy this, my dear Prof. P.

What you "buy" or don't "buy" is of no interest to me. My interest is in seeing that your campaign of character assassination against me doesn't go without challenge or correction. But that's for the potential benefit of others, not for yours; your hostility is both irrational and implacable. (And you're welcome to drop the faux terms of endearment.)[/quote]

Thanks, I certainly appreciate the name-calling, Prof. P. There is no "character assassination." It is simply reportage of the facts! Further, your comment that "what I buy" is "of no interest to you" is pretty dubious, otherwise why would you be commenting on this....still? You *did* know, at least en passant about this campaign, as evidence by your telling everyone about what your "friend" was leaking vis-a-vis Paul Hanks's activities. You *did* know something. Trying to deny this is pointless, Prof. P.

I don't think you're being very honest at all here.

Since you insist on regarding me as a liar, there really isn't much point in my attempting to answer your questions, is there?

Not if you're going to continue to be evasive, no, I'm afraid there isn't.

There undoubtedly was gossiping. It would have been odd if there had not been.

I'm glad that you're now willing to admit that you participated in the gossip mill.

Anyone endowed with even minimal reading skills will easily see that I "admitted" nothing of the kind.

(emphasis added)

You participated. You have admitted this. I have bolded it for your convenience.

Am I right to suspect that this was just information which was maliciously leaked by TMBs in the Mormon Studies community?

Not so far as I'm aware, no.

Well, this is pretty simple: Was the gossip passed along to you primarily by TBMs, or by critics? A very simple question.

I'm not sure what it is you think is being "misrepresented", or just why you feel "maligned."

Really? Well, human nature perpetually astonishes.

Boy, it sure does.

You have said elsewhere that you think this whole affair "makes you look unethical," but why?

I haven't said that the "whole affair" makes me "look unethical." I've said that your false portrayal of me makes me look unethical.

There is nothing "false" in my portrayal. It is an honest assessment of the facts and evidence I have at hand---facts and evidence which consist primarily, I guess I have to add, of your own words, Prof. P.

Why? Because participation in a deliberate campaign to smear somebody would be unethical.

I would feel essentially the same way were you to falsely accuse me of adultery, grand theft auto, arson, embezzlement, or cheating my way through graduate school. Being unhappy at such accusations would hardly represent an admission of guilt.

Is it because you gossiped and you feel guilty about it?

No. Because I didn't and, consequently, I don't.

It has been proven incontrovertibly that you gossiped. May as well let that one go, my dear friend.

Or because you found yourself on the fringes of Elder Packer's campaign to destroy Quinn's life---and, moreover, that you used your insider knowledge to further those ends amongst TBMs?

No. Because I didn't find myself on the fringes of this fictional campaign of which I knew and know absolutely nothing, and because I didn't "use" any "insider knowledge" (of which I had precious little in any case at that relatively early stage of my life) to do anything of the sort.

When I said, "to further those ends amongst TBMs," I am referring to your postings on FAIR and MAD, where you referred to Quinn's work as "embarrassing" and "tendentious," and where you intimated that he was excommunicated for his sexual orientation.

I'm sure that you'll continue to imagine and to spread all sorts of malicious things about me, but I trust that at least one or two people here are fair-minded enough that my consistent denial of your charges will carry some weight with them.

I'm sure that's the case too.

Look: my intention here has never been to "malign" you.

That's rich. I regard you as both cowardly and malevolent.

You once told me that you wanted to "embarrass" me. Now, I am not saying that my intention has been to "embarrass" you, but, supposing that were the case, could you really and honestly object to it? The truth of the matter is that I think you are probably the most significant figure in the entire history of Mormon Apologetics. Because of this, I think your behavior and commentary are worthy of scrutiny and attention. Is there really anything wrong with that?

If you did bad, then a simple reporting of your doings will damn you---I.e., the "maligning" will have been your own fault.

And if I didn't do bad, simple misreporting of my doings will damn me just the same, even though the maligning is your fault. That's the low genius of your cowardly anonymous accusations.

You know.... This all reminds me of the false accusation you made against me on FAIR! How about that? Justice really sucks sometimes, doesn't it? The trouble for you, of course, is that you have never been able to prove your accusations against me, whereas I have legit proof. Ah, so sad! If only you'd apologized!

The actuality is that I am really just interested in learning the truth about what happened.

Right.

If you expect me to accept your claims, you're going to have to accept mine as well, Prof. P.

I personally would be quite interested in learning some further details about this, such as who your "friend" was that you were gossiping with [sic] prior to the 1993 ex'ing, and also who your mysterious informant was who told you and T. Compton this juicy bit of gossip.

Not a chance. I won't knowingly help you in any way to broaden your net of character assassination.

How would the truth hurt anything? Why are you so afraid, Prof. P? Why be so cagey with this information? I really, honestly and truly just want to know the truth....

I suppose in the end you resent the fact that you were caught gossiping.

No. I resent the fact that, for at least a year or two, you've been falsely accusing me of such gossiping, despite my clear denials (for which you further accuse me of being a liar).

But you *were* gossiping! Why not just admit it!? You have trafficked in gossip before, as my recent account of the ZLMB Tom Murphy thread amply demonstrates. (As does your gossipy use of the "FreeThinker" moniker, etc., etc., remarks you have made about your "insane" neighbor, etc., etc.) Really, how much evidence need I place before your eyes before you simply come clean and admit that you have gossiped?

I wonder if this is really (as so often seems to be the case) an issue of semantics: Do you want me to publicly disavow the notion that you were somehow the "mastermind" behind the Quinn Smear Campaign? Because I have no problem with that: Daniel Peterson did not 'engineer' the smear campaign against D. Michael Quinn. Were you "involved" in the campaign? Yes, I believe you were, though perhaps innocently/inadvertently. I think, further, that you have made some rather nasty remarks about Quinn on MAD/FAIR.

I've made my statement. I don't intend to go back and forth with you on this while, filled as you are with malicious zeal, you meticulously scrutinize my accounts of twenty-year-old memories for real or imagined self-contradictions and self-revelations that you can exploit in your crusade against me. Involvement with you is rather like an engagement with the tar baby.

I just want the real story! Again, the fact that I might have reason to doubt certain things ought to be completely reasonable, especially in lieu of all this ZLMB stuff that has resurfaced. In any case, a simple admission that you gossiped would be awfully nice. And for the record: No---nobody is accusing you of being the "impressario" of the smear campaign.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've made my statement.

I'm not going to spend the next couple of years in a back-and-forth with you about this subject.

I've seen how you twist statements, mind-read, and impute fictional motives, and I've noted the perpetually hostile vantage point from which you operate.

I know what happened and I know what didn't happen in this case.

Others are aware of my position on this.

I remember the story of the tar baby.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've made my statement.

I'm not going to spend the next couple of years in a back-and-forth with you about this subject.

I've seen how you twist statements, mind-read, and impute fictional motives, and I've noted the perpetually hostile vantage point from which you operate.

I know what happened and I know what didn't happen in this case.

Others are aware of my position on this.

I remember the story of the tar baby.

Very well, though please know that I was quite grateful for the new information you supplied via Dr. Shades, and that it did cause me to re-evaluate my views on the matter.

Also, congratulations on your appearance on The Mormons! I, for one, was delighted to see you on there, and I thought that you did a superb job. (Though I gather there was a bit of a backlash, as evidenced by William Schryver's sig line.) In any case, a round of applause for you, my dear Professor!

[_Mister Scratch]

Topping, in order to help remind everyone why Ray A's credibility is in utter shambles. This is also the reason why (I think) Ray has been following me up and down the messageboard, and engaging in very dubious behavior.

[_Ray A]

Topping, in order to help remind everyone why Ray A's credibility is in utter shambles. This is also the reason why (I think) Ray has been following me up and down the messageboard, and engaging in very dubious behavior.

Hey, you deranged P****. Okay, just "playing" on words here.

You, Scratch, are the one with the "dubious" behaviour, because you're a liar. You are lying swine.

Do you finally get it? Whatever I have done in the past cannot even compare to your Mark Hofmann like distortion and dishonesty. And your admirers better wake up, fast, to what a calculating deceiver you are.

[_beastie]

What did Scratch lie about on this thread?

[_Ray A]

What did Scratch lie about on this thread?

Typical of you, just so typical! Change the focus. What did Scratch lie about in "this thread"? What did he lie about in his posting an altered PM? Do you care? Why would an anti-Mormon like you care? In time, like Scratch, you'll be confined to the rubbish bin you belong in.

I'm convinced now you would have supported Mark Hofmann.