DCP Laughs in the Face of Tragedy

[_skippy the dead]

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.

Yeah - I thought that was an unnecessary and inaccurate characterization.

Skippy the Agnostic but not Atheist Dead

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... That MADthread has really devolved into a complete and utter mess. It seems that The Good Professor is feeling the sting of embarrassment rather intensely. Anyways, I believe a play-by-play is in order.

Here is the opening salvo, whereby RedSox attempts to smooth over this fracas, along w/ The Good Professor's snotty reply:

ERMD,

You really don't know me very well. My name is Austin Frost, I live in the Iowa City 2nd Ward, and I can guarantee I'd say it to Dan's face if I had the opportunity. I'm just that kind of guy....

It was wierd. That's all. Wierd.

I apologize, again, for having a non-cloned personality, and for not reacting precisely and in every detail as the universally-agreed-upon rules stipulate that I should have reacted.

Incidentally, as weird as it may seem, weird is spelled weirdly.

Let me emphasize again: I don't think anyone is criticizing Dan for "reacting" the way he did. By all accounts, his "reaction" to the fire was wholly apropos, positive, and helpful. By contrast, it is his penchant for self-promotion, and his opportunistic use of this tragedy, which some find unsavory.

Here's RedSox's follow-up:

Nice catch on the spell check. I really don't think you're a sociopath. I think you like attention, but who doesn't right? Really, I wasn't trying to be cheap...just expressing the fact that I thought the title and the contents were inconsistent.

Honestly, I'm glad everyone is safe.

And DCP's reply:

I think you like attention

I think you wouldn't know me from Adam.

I think you like to pronounce judgment on strangers.

I think this is nonsense.

This is really quite hilarious. Has anyone read his essay on RfM, riddled as it is with dozens of "judgments" pronounced upon "strangers"? He really is spiraling out of control. Our criticism here must have really zeroed in on one of his soft spots, as he is reeling with embarrassment.

Here is the next exchange:

That's okay, I can only draw inferences from what I see on the board, since I'm no longer in Happy Valley.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that compels you to personally judge people you don't know, and to publicly post your irrelevant judgments about them?

I'm not angry. I don't really much care what you think about me. But I'm genuinely curious.

And do you really think that simply living in Utah Valley would confer more authority on your personal judgments of strangers? Is it the air, perhaps?

Gee, what is it that compels DCP to level judgments against the likes of Mike Quinn and Tom Murphy? Why does he not only publicly post about them, but edit and publish negative and career-harming articles in FARMS Review?

RedSox's next post is rather brilliant:

Dan, it is obvious that you don't care what others think of you. In that regard, you and I are a lot alike. Have you ever met Tal Bachman face to face? Maybe you have. My inkling is that you have not. Yet, you have made judgments on public forums about his words, and I don't begrudge you for it (though, I DO think he may be a sociopath...we also might have that in common). If a person is going to post on the internet, they should assume the risk of being critiqued. I mean, i know you are MAAD's Tal Bachman, Steve Benson, and Bob McCue all wrapped in one (meaning, that you are MAAD's superstar, not that you are anything like the unholy trinity I just mentioned), so the mods are a little more protective of you. It's okay.

In my opinion, my response to the title of your post is not perverse. It is honest. As you noted, 1/4 of your ward was homeless and thousands of dollars in property went up in flames. And you come here to announce that we can all see it on KSL at 10, with an exclamation point in the title. What should I infer from that??? There are really only two conclusion: that you're callous (nope), or you like attention from media. Now, after reading your posts, I can honestly say that my knee-jerk (as I called it) reaction to your callousness wasfalse, but IMHO the jury is still out on your apparent love of attention.

FYI, a more appropriate title may have been Tragic Fire in my Singles Ward: KSL coverage at 10. That way, you get word to your friends who are along the Wasatch front that they can watch without placing undue emphasis on the television coverage and giving appropriate emphasis to the tragic events to which we are all (including Red Sox) are sympathetic to.

Can we move on??

I have to say, he really seems to have DCP pinned to the wall on this one. I really can see no way out for The Good Professor: his status as an "attention lover" seems to have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here is DCP's histrionic follow-up post; I shall intersperse my comments within:

Have you ever met Tal Bachman face to face? Maybe you have. My inkling is that you have not. Yet, you have made judgments on public forums about his words, and I don't begrudge you for it (though, I DO think he may be a sociopath...we also might have that in common).

I haven't met him.

I have no reason to believe him to be a sociopath, and certainly haven't called him one.

I have this funny notion that one should be very reluctant to form serious judgments about someone's personality without knowing him or even having met him -- certainly not on the basis of message board posts! -- and that one should be even more reluctant to publish such judgments.

I have judged Tal Bachman's posts. I've critiqued his arguments and his claims. I have had nothing much to say about his off-line personality, because I don't know him and have never met him.

(emphasis added)

Um, holy smokes. This has got to be one of the most twisted, back-pedaling posts I have ever seen. Really, I am just blown away by this. Probably, DCP just has "this funny notion" as it pertains to himself. That hasn't stopped him from labeling *me* a "sociopath", a "stalker", a "brazen liar," etc., etc., etc. What a hypocrite.

If a person is going to post on the internet, they should assume the risk of being critiqued.

Obviously. But the critique should focus on ideas, arguments, and evidence.

I'm quite used to being critiqued, of course. And I'm not surprised that, even though they've never met me, some critics like to pronounce judgments about me as a person, about my private life, and etc. (My Malevolent Stalker, performing to his small audience on another board, is positively obsessed with doing so.)

I don't expect them to follow the Lord's counsel about judging. I'm rather surprised, though, that an active member of the Church would take it upon himself to declare public judgment about the personality of a person he's never met.[/quote]

Unlike DCP, I have never "pronounced judgment" on his "private life." I defy him to supply evidence that I've ever done so.

In my opinion, my response to the title of your post is not perverse. It is honest.

I never said that your response was perverse, nor that it was dishonest.

As you noted, 1/4 of your ward was homeless and thousands of dollars in property went up in flames. And you come here to announce that we can all see it on KSL at 10, with an exclamation point in the title. What should I infer from that??? There are really only two conclusion: that you're callous (nope), or you like attention from media. Now, after reading your posts, I can honestly say that my knee-jerk (as I called them) reactions were false.

What attention from the media did I get? I wasn't on KSL. I wasn't on KUTV, either. I wasn't interviewed by any broadcast news organization. I stayed away from the reporters. Some girls from my ward were interviewed, though, and they got a huge kick out of it. They phoned their parents to tell them to watch. That's rather cute, in my opinion.

I was, it's true, interviewed by a reporter from the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday. (He called me.) Whether anything came of that, I don't know. I'm so consumed with the thought of "attention from the media" that I haven't looked. (In fact, I'd forgotten about it until just now.)

LOL. Semantic games. He was obviously interested enough in "media attention" to fire up a thread about it on MAD. The dodge about him craving "media attention" for himself is also rather disingenuous, in my opinion, since it has seemed clear all along that he was opportunistically using the media as a means to trumpet how great the Church is. The tragedy was used as a PR opportunity.

FYI, a more appropriate title may have been Tragic Fire in my Singles Ward: KSL coverage at 10. That way, you get word to your friends online that those who are along the Wasatch front can watch. My opinion.

If you don't mind, with your approval and after this one, I'll send all of my future posts to you before I put them up, so that you can advise me as to their tone and appropriateness.

Thanks!

The bit is classic:

I'm rather surprised, though, that an active member of the Church would take it upon himself to declare public judgment about the personality of a person he's never met.

j

Pot....meet kettle.

Ouch! I bet that really stung!

Pot....meet kettle.

Can you give examples where I've taken it upon myself to pronounce public judgment here on the off-line personalities of posters I've never met?

I sure can! Myself; Mercury; Harmon; Steve Benson, Tal Bachman; Infymus; Rollo Tomasi, etc., etc. (Or has he met all of these folks?)

None. Which is why you posted it here....and then mentioned that you were interviewed by the Trib.

Good grief. What a piece of work you are.

But there's good news! Hallelujah! I'm in ecstasy! I'm in bliss! My name was in the Tribune today!

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8765461

I hate to break it to you bucko, but I've been showing up several times each year on television, radio, and in newspapers for nearly a quarter of a century now. It's not that big a thrill.

Still, you're right: I got a considerable rush out of my non-appearance on KSL, my non-appearance on KUTV, and my non-interviews with any and all broadcast media. I could scarcely contain myself, and just had to hurry over here and announce that there would be news coverage on television that didn't include me.

(Are you even trying to make any sense?)

(emphasis added)

Yup. He doesn't care about the attention at all. What a slip-up!

Anyways, RedSox really sticks it to him in this next posting:

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!!!

Send them all, but I have to warn you, I'll be honest with you in my assessments. If you can't handle straight-talk, you'd probably better just send them to a moderator.

Dan, are you not in fact, making judgments about me?? That's the problem with calling someone judgmental...it turns you into an instant hypocrite. (I'm guilty as charged, in this instance...but the first step to repentance is cognizance, in my opinion).

After this, of course, RedSox was banned. He had simply scored too many points against DCP. And he was completely right, obviously---DCP's comment that a loyal member of the Church would behave in this way was clearly an example of TBM judgmentalism.

As expected, post-banning, DCP immediately swoops in to try and clean up the mess he's made:

(Red Sox just now sent me a mildly off-color and quite insulting e-mail via my BYU address, laced with several false accusations. For some reason that completely eludes my grasp, he seems to feel a compelling need to pronounce negative personal judgment against me. I just don't get it. It's a bit like a mini-episode of my Malevolent Stalker's weird and obsessive multi-year crusade, over on the Stalker's atheist board.)

I'm continually frustrated that I can't do as much for the kids in the ward as I would like to do, but there has been some real progress in several cases, and I've actually been surprised at how much I've come not only to care for the ward members but to like even the more, umm, challenging cases.

P.S. For the record, I didn't ban Red Sox, and I didn't ask that he be banned. I'll be candid, though, in saying that I think persistent combative personal attacks merit banning. They are uncivil, irrelevant, and ruinous to good conversation.

Jeez louise. In this next post, we can see more evidence of judgmentalism:

Amazingly, even though I told him "goodbye" last night when he wrote to me privately, he's written me yet another insulting e-mail. Very strange.

Mini-stalker.

All I can say is that this whole episode is telling in a number of ways. Was this, as guy sajer and others have suggested, a "mountain out of a molehill"? Perhaps. Regardless, it clearly seems to have had a number of compelling repercussions.

[_guy sajer]

Well, Scratch ol' buddy, we can disagree on the mountain out of molehill stuff, but I loved this comment:

"P.S. For the record, I didn't ban Red Sox, and I didn't ask that he be banned. I'll be candid, though, in saying that I think persistent combative personal attacks merit banning. They are uncivil, irrelevant, and ruinous to good conversation."

I thought that RedSox was quite civil and did not even come close to the line demarking "persistent combative personal attacks."

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, Scratch ol' buddy, we can disagree on the mountain out of molehill stuff, but I loved this comment:

"P.S. For the record, I didn't ban Red Sox, and I didn't ask that he be banned. I'll be candid, though, in saying that I think persistent combative personal attacks merit banning. They are uncivil, irrelevant, and ruinous to good conversation."

I thought that RedSox was quite civil and did not even come close to the line demarking "persistent combative personal attacks."

I agree wholeheartedly, guy sajer.

[_wenglund]

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. ;-(

So much for humor impairment. Evidently, not everyone can take what they dish out.

And, while I do not view you personally as anything close to a joke (passive-aggressive or otherwise), some of the presumed non-objectively self-percieved things you say do at times make me smile. For that I say...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

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. ;-(

So much for humor impairment. Evidently, not everyone can take what they dish out.

And, while I do not view you personally as anything close to a joke (passive-aggressive or otherwise), some of the presumed non-objectively self-percieved things you say do at times make me smile. For that I say...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can take it fine, Wade. I fail to see the logical connection here. Responding in kind to an insult directed at me means I can dish it out and not take it?????

It helps to not give a rat's ass what you think about me. I

Ok, you've got me here. What's a 'presumed non-objectively self-perceived" thing? So if I presume they're non-objective, does that mean they're objective?

I don't claim to have anything approach objective truth on my side (with exceptions, which is why I find polygamy so abhorrent--I take it as objective truth that women deserve their human dignity as much as men); I only claim to recognize BS, slipshod reasoning, subjective perceptions, and silly superstition masquerading as objective truth.

[Guest]

Well, at least your relentless Internet stalking of Mr. Peterson does indeed expose the double-standard and backhanded ways in which they limit, 'diminuize', and ultimately trash anyone who attempts to play in their sandbox and who doesn't fall into line. This then is followed up by a grievance theater/victimization ploy. It's pretty crappy, but frankly I never expected any better from Mormons. It's their way. It's their history. It's part of their culture, character, and fabric.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

(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.

Excellent. You fully qualify as a witness of DCP's evil treachery.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

You also can relate the truth about DCP's demagoguery.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Well, at least your relentless Internet stalking of Mr. Peterson does indeed expose the double-standard, and backhanded ways in which they limit, 'diminuize', and ultimately trash anyone who attempts to play in their sandbox and who doesn't fall into line. This then is followed up by a grievance theater/victimization ploy. It's pretty s****y, but frankly I never expected any better from Mormons. It's their way. It's their history. It's part of their culture, character, and fabric.

Amen to that!

Also, one thing Mormons are best at is ruminating about the idiocy those dumb people whose beliefs differ from theirs. Converts especially spend a lot of time talking about their former beliefs, how dumb they were, and so forth.