DCP Laughs in the Face of Tragedy

[_guy sajer]

How many people here have met DCP in person? How many have talked with the guy aside from the internet message boards?

And why's that relevant? We, or at least I, am making statements based on judgements regarding his internet behavior and persona.

I have been on record repeatedly saying that I make no assumption that one's internet persona reflects his/her 'true' persona. I have heard, and I have no doubt, that Dan is quite the nice guy. And I am guessing that he is more reasonable in person than he is on internet discussion boards. I believe that he and I could have a quite civil discussion discussion and relationship in person, much as I have with dozens of TBMs I know.

I'm guessing also that Steve Benson is a great guy in person, and not the condescending, arrogant prick he is on the internet.

I'm a much nicer guy in real life than I am on the internet. In another thread I called bc space a nincompoop. I'd never do that in person (though I might believe it).

The fact appears to be that despite his real life persona, Dan appears very much the attention whore at the MADD board who revels in his status as Big Fish in the Pond and who enthusiastically laps up the lavish arse kissing he gets there.

What he's like in real life has nothing at all to do with this judgment.

[_wenglund]

Scratch - with all respect, I think your expectations are way too high here. People suck - once we accept that, then everything you're describing will actually seem fantastic. :P

Ironically, I tend to view people, for the most part, almost the opposite of what you state here, though with the same result. I consider people in general to be good and descent and loving and kind, and so the things being described (not to be confused with the way in which they are being described here) actually also strike me as fantastic--both meeting and exceeding my high expectations.

Perhaps this is a case of us respectively seeing the glass half empty/full. To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find what you say confusing, Wade. I also believe people are generally good, but that is precisely why I find the report of the Deseret behive buzzing into action with warm blankets and supplies strikingly unremarkable. As Blixa pointed out, this is kind of what you'd expect of just about anyone. I wonder what your high expectations were for these do-gooders, and how they were exceeded?

I know the company I currently work for, ruthlessly competitive and self-preserving, actually went so far as to at least partially pay for the rebuilding of the homes of employees who lost theirs in the So-Cal fires last year. I was entirely unshocked. Even the type and shadow of modern day Babylon finds its reasons to help their own durintg emergencies, even if the spotlight isn't shining, but if it is, all the more reason. You must have the bar set really low to claim the church has exceeded expectations in this case.

The church would have to go so far as to offer generous sums of money to restore lost posessions for its members before it's even on par with some of the great and spacious buildings in So Cal. I wonder what the bishop of that ward has allocated in the ward buget for restorations? Or will any additional help require a deposit of gold fillings from other ward members first?

I don't know what there is to be confused about. It is simply a matter of you and I viewing the actions of the "Deseret beehive" somewhat differently. While we may both consider the actions to be expected, you consider the expected actions to be unremarkable and I consider them fantastic. To me, both are reasonable viewpoints...just different.

Granted, I tend not to consider most expected actions to be unremarkable. For example, for the most part I don't consider as "fantastic" when most people go about their mundane chores of the day and busily eek out a somewhat happy existence. However, there are times when high level, extra-ordinary, though still expected, action occur under extra-ordinary circumstances, and in such cases, I find them cause for celebration. You, on the other hand, may not--and that's okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bond...James Bond]

Dang. Last night I meant to send him a PM inviting him here (because I knew he'd get banned) and didn't. Oh well. Maybe he'll find his way here sometime.

Edit:

Just saw that in the quote box DCP said (post #51 on the thread in question):

Clarification needed: Do you want to examine all of my proposed posts? You say that you want to determine whether the post's content is properly fitted to its title, and vice versa. But only thread-opening posts have titles.

Please advise.

QUOTE(Redsox/Scratch @ Apr 1 2008, 10:48 PM) *
Thank you for going out of your way to point out that you have been a constant media presence for a quarter century. That totally DOESN'T prove my point for me....and you provided the link to the Trib...Again...which totally destroys my assumptions about you!!!

Sigh.

Wait a tick...is he saying that Red Sox is Scratch or just similar to Scratch?

[_Dr. Shades]

(IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

We are?

How many people here have met DCP in person? How many have talked with the guy aside from the internet message boards?

I have on both counts.

[_guy sajer]

(IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

We are?

Present company excepted.

Honestly, I have not noticed this trait in you. My post, for example, are riddled with typos, but you've never said word 1 about it to me.

I refer specifically to those who think that correcting spelling and grammar (frequently the result of typos as opposed to inadequate skill in spelling or grammar) somehow makes their arguments superior or who think that it is an effective debating technique or who do it just to be a prick.

[_GoodK]

How many people here have met DCP in person? How many have talked with the guy aside from the internet message boards?

I have met him and we have conversed via message boards and email.

[_wenglund]

I think that Mr. Scratch is making a mountain out of a molehill on this topic. That said, having read through the thread at MADD, as well as previous threads there, I do not think there can be any doubt that Daniel loves the attention and ego stroking he gets there. In this sense, he is akin to the Steve Benson of MADD--an attention fiend who thrives on being King of the Pond and who laps up attention like a thirsty dog laps up water from a puddle on a hot day in the desert. Only Dan is not the abrasive, in your face a-hole that Benson is (was). (I just love, however, how Dan couldn't resist taking a dig at RedSox's spelling mistake. IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

I was also tickled by Dan's insistence that he is not judgmental. What a hoot!!! And then he dares RedSox to go back and find his past posts to show instances of where he issued judgment. (A hollow challenge, assuming people have better things to do with their time--kind of like bc space's constant accusation of 'lazy research,' as if we all have hours to spend on research to prove our obvious points to a nincompoop.)

I'd say that Dan has a fundamental inability to perceive himself objectively, but then I think that's true for a lot, if not most everyone.

I also find endlessly amusing the presumption over at MADD that they are involved in some kind of cosmic battle to defend truth; as if their tiny, insignificant, wholly irrelevant quasi-cult was in anyway important in the grand scheme of things. Their clumsy and arrogant inability to grasp their fundamental irrelevance is entertainment of the highest degree.

Let's see:

First, you chide Scratch for making too much of things, and then went on to make much more, yourself, of the same things.

Second, you were judgemental in accusing Dr. Peterson of being akin to an "attention fiend", and then ironically proceeded to devote much attention to him in your post, while also ironically (or hypocritically) "hooting" about Dr. Peterson's alleged judgementalism. (The Chismus was unintentional)

Third, you extended your judgementalism to the MADD board as a whole by ironically and dramatic characterizing them as thinking themselves in some "cosmic battle", and went on to dismiss them as a "fundamentally irrelevant" cult, while clumsily and arrogantly and ironically accusing them of being clumsy and arrogant, and this while ironically presuming your cult-of-one judgements of them to be of some fundamental relevance.

Fourth, you state these things in the context of ironically pointing out people's (Dr. Peterson's in particular) fundamental inability to objectively perceive themselves, aw well as the endless amusement that may be derived from it all. Can you say "projection"?

Now, whether this was intended as a belated April Fools joke or not, it was, to use your own words, "entertainment of the highest degree". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_skippy the dead]

Just saw that in the quote box DCP said (post #51 on the thread in question):

Clarification needed: Do you want to examine all of my proposed posts? You say that you want to determine whether the post's content is properly fitted to its title, and vice versa. But only thread-opening posts have titles.

Please advise.

QUOTE(Redsox/Scratch @ Apr 1 2008, 10:48 PM) *
Thank you for going out of your way to point out that you have been a constant media presence for a quarter century. That totally DOESN'T prove my point for me....and you provided the link to the Trib...Again...which totally destroys my assumptions about you!!!

Sigh.

Wait a tick...is he saying that Red Sox is Scratch or just similar to Scratch?

I think he's just comparing RedSox to his Malevolent Stalker(TM).

[_guy sajer]

I think that Mr. Scratch is making a mountain out of a molehill on this topic. That said, having read through the thread at MADD, as well as previous threads there, I do not think there can be any doubt that Daniel loves the attention and ego stroking he gets there. In this sense, he is akin to the Steve Benson of MADD--an attention fiend who thrives on being King of the Pond and who laps up attention like a thirsty dog laps up water from a puddle on a hot day in the desert. Only Dan is not the abrasive, in your face a-hole that Benson is (was). (I just love, however, how Dan couldn't resist taking a dig at RedSox's spelling mistake. IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

I was also tickled by Dan's insistence that he is not judgmental. What a hoot!!! And then he dares RedSox to go back and find his past posts to show instances of where he issued judgment. (A hollow challenge, assuming people have better things to do with their time--kind of like bc space's constant accusation of 'lazy research,' as if we all have hours to spend on research to prove our obvious points to a nincompoop.)

I'd say that Dan has a fundamental inability to perceive himself objectively, but then I think that's true for a lot, if not most everyone.

I also find endlessly amusing the presumption over at MADD that they are involved in some kind of cosmic battle to defend truth; as if their tiny, insignificant, wholly irrelevant quasi-cult was in anyway important in the grand scheme of things. Their clumsy and arrogant inability to grasp their fundamental irrelevance is entertainment of the highest degree.

Let's see:

First, you chide Scratch for making too much of things, and then went on to make much more, yourself, of the same things.

Wrong, I made issue of other topics, not criticizing Dan for his post, which I find innocuous, which was the mountain out of molehill I was referring to.

Nice try--actually bad try.

Second, you were judgemental in accusing Dr. Peterson of being akin to an "attention fiend", and then ironically proceeded to devote much attention to him in your post, while also ironically (or hypocritically) "hooting" about Dr. Peterson's alleged judgementalism. (The Chismus was unintentional)

I've never claimed NOT to be judgmental. I think I've been clear that being judgmental is a common human trait, me included. I'm very judgmental, but on different things than religious types. Not only is being judgmental a common human trait, it is an all-together vital one. The question is the issues on which one chooses to be judgmental and the content of and basis for one's judgments.

My point of reference was Dan's ridiculous suggestion that he is not judgmental.

Bad try again.

I think that Mr. Scratch is making a mountain out of a molehill on this topic. That said, having read through the thread at MADD, as well as previous threads there, I do not think there can be any doubt that Daniel loves the attention and ego stroking he gets there. In this sense, he is akin to the Steve Benson of MADD--an attention fiend who thrives on being King of the Pond and who laps up attention like a thirsty dog laps up water from a puddle on a hot day in the desert. Only Dan is not the abrasive, in your face a-hole that Benson is (was). (I just love, however, how Dan couldn't resist taking a dig at RedSox's spelling mistake. IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

I was also tickled by Dan's insistence that he is not judgmental. What a hoot!!! And then he dares RedSox to go back and find his past posts to show instances of where he issued judgment. (A hollow challenge, assuming people have better things to do with their time--kind of like bc space's constant accusation of 'lazy research,' as if we all have hours to spend on research to prove our obvious points to a nincompoop.)

I'd say that Dan has a fundamental inability to perceive himself objectively, but then I think that's true for a lot, if not most everyone.

I also find endlessly amusing the presumption over at MADD that they are involved in some kind of cosmic battle to defend truth; as if their tiny, insignificant, wholly irrelevant quasi-cult was in anyway important in the grand scheme of things. Their clumsy and arrogant inability to grasp their fundamental irrelevance is entertainment of the highest degree.

Let's see:

First, you chide Scratch for making too much of things, and then went on to make much more, yourself, of the same things.

Wrong, I made issue of other topics, not criticizing Dan for his post, which I find innocuous, which was the mountain out of molehill I was referring to.

Nice try--actually bad try.

Third, you extended your judgementalism to the MADD board as a whole by ironically and dramatic characterizing them as thinking themselves in some "cosmic battle", and went on to dismiss them as a "fundamentally irrelevant" cult, while clumsily and arrogantly and ironically accusing them of being clumsy and arrogant, and this while ironically presuming your cult-of-one judgements of them to be of some fundamental relevance.

I think this is a reasonably accurate judgment, and I stand by it.

I think that Mr. Scratch is making a mountain out of a molehill on this topic. That said, having read through the thread at MADD, as well as previous threads there, I do not think there can be any doubt that Daniel loves the attention and ego stroking he gets there. In this sense, he is akin to the Steve Benson of MADD--an attention fiend who thrives on being King of the Pond and who laps up attention like a thirsty dog laps up water from a puddle on a hot day in the desert. Only Dan is not the abrasive, in your face a-hole that Benson is (was). (I just love, however, how Dan couldn't resist taking a dig at RedSox's spelling mistake. IHMO, the spelling and grammar police are the most annoying pricks on the internet.)

I was also tickled by Dan's insistence that he is not judgmental. What a hoot!!! And then he dares RedSox to go back and find his past posts to show instances of where he issued judgment. (A hollow challenge, assuming people have better things to do with their time--kind of like bc space's constant accusation of 'lazy research,' as if we all have hours to spend on research to prove our obvious points to a nincompoop.)

I'd say that Dan has a fundamental inability to perceive himself objectively, but then I think that's true for a lot, if not most everyone.

I also find endlessly amusing the presumption over at MADD that they are involved in some kind of cosmic battle to defend truth; as if their tiny, insignificant, wholly irrelevant quasi-cult was in anyway important in the grand scheme of things. Their clumsy and arrogant inability to grasp their fundamental irrelevance is entertainment of the highest degree.

Let's see:

First, you chide Scratch for making too much of things, and then went on to make much more, yourself, of the same things.

Wrong, I made issue of other topics, not criticizing Dan for his post, which I find innocuous, which was the mountain out of molehill I was referring to.

Nice try--actually bad try.

Fourth, you state these things in the context of ironically pointing out people's (Dr. Peterson's in particular) fundamental inability to objectively perceive themselves, aw well as the endless amusement that may be derived from it all. Can you say "projection"? ]/quote]

Well, yes it is projection. One thing I realized from teaching and student evaluations was that students perceived me as very different from how I perceived myself. I am quite aware of this human trait. Dan does have a fundamental inability to view himself objectively, at least judging from his voluminous posts. I posses the same difficulty, though I do not believe to the same degree, as judged by the many, many issues on which I've changed my views over the years, including religion. I was not commenting on my traits, but Dan's.

Now, whether this was intended as a belated April Fools joke or not, it was, to use your own words, "entertainment of the highest degree". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No April fools joke. (I like your passive-aggressive gesture to put a smiley next to your insult.) I'd make a similar comment about you, but you're a joke all year round, not just in April. ;-(

[_Brackite]

Another update:

Needless to say, my Malevolent Stalker is making as much out of this as he can over on his ex-Mormon and largely atheist home board. Every day, to the satisfaction of his weirdly obsessive and deeply hostile mind, brings stunning new evidence of my arrogance and my unbelievable depravity. I wish him joy of it.

I consider this my home board, and I am not an atheist. I am still a Theist.