More Evidence of DCP's Gossipmongering

[Guest]

Yes, it sure does suck when someone assumes you're being dishonest, despite your protests. If a man keeps stepping on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit asking him politely to remove it.

Plainly, your persistent accusation that I'm fixated on vengeance reflects at least some dim flicker of self-awareness on your part.

You lied, Scratch. You know you did. Brazenly. And you're angry and lashing out because you were caught. That's not surprising, but your capacity to maintain your anger for so long is astonishing.

[_Mister Scratch]

Interesting. So, it seems that Ray is shown in a less-than-favorable light yet again.

It seems that Scratch is obsessed with personalizing all disputes.

It's not so much that *I* am "obsessed" with "personalizing"; rather, this just seems to be a fact of life in Mopologetics, as you no doubt know from having edited FROB for so many years. (The post in which you smeared me, back on FAIR, for example, had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. The topic, in fact, was peer review at FARMS---a topic which you continue to treat in an evasive manner. So, why did you feel the need to "personalize" in that old thread, Prof. P.?)

He is simply fascinated with tearing people down. If a situation can't be used to personally discredit A, he instantly rebrands it in the hope of discrediting B.

That's not accurate. The fact is that Mopologetics is, at its heart, a battle for moral superiority. Sadly, this means that a lot of ad hominem-type stuff comes into play. If parties on both sides of the table would stick to the topic---for example, the matter of LDS academic embarrassment---it would all be for the better, but, as you've stated, you won't engage in "substantive issues," and prefer instead to focus entirely on the character of your opponent(s).

[_Daniel Peterson]

as you've stated, you won't engage in "substantive issues," and prefer instead to focus entirely on the character of your opponent(s).

Typical Scratchian misrepresentation.

What in fact I've said is that I will not waste time or effort in a vain attempt to have a substantive discussion with you.

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

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, it sure does suck when someone assumes you're being dishonest, despite your protests. If a man keeps stepping on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit asking him politely to remove it.

Plainly, your persistent accusation that I'm fixated on vengeance reflects at least some dim flicker of self-awareness on your part.

Does a person who hangs on to every email he's received and who maintains an "RfM Archive" (which he has lied about) really have much reason to be leveling such a charge? No.

You lied, Scratch. You know you did. Brazenly. And you're angry and lashing out because you were caught. That's not surprising, but your capacity to maintain your anger for so long is astonishing.

I did not lie. You have insisted in making this accusation endlessly, despite having been corrected. Further, you have admitted, in full view of the MAD/FAIRboard, that you cannot prove your allegations. And yet you persist in making them. Now you are so deep into your web of accusations that you can hardly go back and atone for them without looking very bad. Just think: you have been calling me a liar for well over a year now, despite the fact that you cannot prove it. To my mind, you should have never made the accusation in the first place. You seem not to care about my protests regarding my innocence, and continue to rather arrogantly insist about how right you are (this in spite of your lack of proof). An apology would be nice, Dan, and it would go a long ways towards redeeming your character in my eyes. C'mon, Prof. P.---tis the season!

[_Ray A]

I did not lie.

Neither did Bill Clinton.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does a person who hangs on to every email he's received and who maintains an "RfM Archive" (which he has lied about) really have much reason to be leveling such a charge? No.

But a person who receives well over a thousand e-mails a week and only manages to delete a small proportion of them and who is just generally a packrat with bulging file cabinets and piles of books and unfiled papers and who is, consequently, an object of mockery to his wife and his university computer services representative (a good friend), a person who has a small collection of fewer than two-score quotations (from various sources, not all of them anti-Mormon let alone from RfM) for use as signatures, has all the standing he needs to level such a charge.

I did not lie. You have insisted in making this accusation endlessly, despite having been corrected.

I have grown more and more confident of the fact that you lied, despite your denials.

Further, you have admitted, in full view of the MAD/FAIRboard, that you cannot prove your allegations.

That's true. It's a matter of probabilities. And, as I weighed the probabilities -- I set forth my thinking in a post on MAD&D quite some time back -- it struck me as extremely unlikely that you were telling the truth.

Just think: you have been calling me a liar for well over a year now, despite the fact that you cannot prove it.

Actually, I've seldom referred to the topic. Your obsession with me has been far and away more intense and continual than my occasional attention to you.

To my mind, you should have never made the accusation in the first place.

I'm sure you wish that I hadn't.

You seem not to care about my protests regarding my innocence, and continue to rather arrogantly insist about how right you are (this in spite of your lack of proof). An apology would be nice, Dan, and it would go a long ways towards redeeming your character in my eyes. C'mon, Prof. P.---tis the season!

Since you're anonymous, the damage, if any, done to you by an incorrect allegation is minimal.

I cannot lie, though, and say that I don't believe you guilty as charged. This latest incident, in which you seem to have brazenly altered the contents of an e-mail to Ray, only strengthens my conviction that I've pegged you correctly.

[_Mister Scratch]

You seem not to care about my protests regarding my innocence, and continue to rather arrogantly insist about how right you are (this in spite of your lack of proof). An apology would be nice, Dan, and it would go a long ways towards redeeming your character in my eyes. C'mon, Prof. P.---tis the season!

Since you're anonymous, the damage, if any, done to you by an incorrect allegation is minimal.

This is a lame excuse, and you know it. This would be like you saying, "Yes, I shot you in the chest, but you were wearing a Kevlar vest and aren't hurt, so I didn't do anything wrong." You *did* do wrong. You continue to do wrong.

I cannot lie, though, and say that I don't believe you guilty as charged. This latest incident, in which you seem to have brazenly altered the contents of an e-mail to Ray, only strengthens my conviction that I've pegged you correctly.

Who cares what you "believe"? You don't have the evidence. If a man steps on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit politely asking him to remove it.

[_Dr. Shades]

So you asked, and DCP didn't offer, as Ray stated above?

Here's the chronological breakdown: There was dispute over the level of cordiality within their exchanges, so DCP offered to e-mail the correspondence to anyone who cared to see for him/herself. I took him up on the offer.

[_Mister Scratch]

So you asked, and DCP didn't offer, as Ray stated above?

Here's the chronological breakdown: There was dispute over the level of cordiality within their exchanges, so DCP offered to e-mail the correspondence to anyone who cared to see for him/herself. I took him up on the offer.

Would it therefore be fair to say that DCP forked over private material in order to save his butt / make Ray look dishonest?

[_Dr. Shades]

Would it therefore be fair to say that DCP forked over private material in order to save his butt / make Ray look dishonest?

Oh, putting myself into his shoes, I'd say he did it in order to affirm the reliability of his own recollection. To prove his honesty, if you will.