Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_harmony]

A couple of comments:

1. About the expectation of privacy in a client/psychologist relationship. Unless Tal was a paying client of the SP, APA ethics do not apply. No one is required to keep confidences, if there is no client relationship. So that argument is toast.

2. About the expectation of confidentiality between a SP and a member: Tal broke confidentiality when he posted his comments on the conversation, and the SP has no obligation to keep confidentiality in the face of Tal breaking it. I doubt the SP's superiors are happy with him, because he's not helping the church's position at all, but there was no confidentiality to maintain, once Tal broke it.

And the wife seriously needs to take off those rose-colored glasses. Good grief, she's an embarrassment to thinking LDS women.

[_Bond...James Bond]

thinking LDS women.

Isn't that an oxymoron? :P

*Ducks*

[_Mister Scratch]

Daniel Peterson Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It’s being suggested elsewhere that I’m the one who “ratted out” Mr. Tal Bachman.
I have absolutely no objection to cluing a person in to what someone else is saying about that person in public venues of which the person may be unaware — recently, the son of an old friend was mocking him on a message board, and I thought my friend ought to know about it (I would have wanted to know it if MY son had been doing such a thing), so, after hesitating for a while, I told him — but I’ve never met Randy Keyes, don’t know Randy Keyes, and have, as far as I’m aware, never had any contact with Randy Keyes.
(As if my saying so will have any effect on inveterate conspiracy fantasists!)

as posted by someone with the handle "Len L."

Could it be that Daniel did not leave the discussion because he had to travel to the Near East? I find it a little humorous that my playful speculation has earned me the title "inveterate conspiracy fantasist." That Daniel, what a joker!

Yes, he also posted this:

Continually, over the past two or three years, along with grievously misrepresenting my beliefs and distorting my opinions, Mr. Bachman has called me a sociopath, unhinged, mad, a horror, a fanatic, an embarrassment to the Church, estranged from reality, a buffoon, a mediocrity, a fraud, a joke, a relativist, a loon, an idiot, insane, a Nazi-sympathizer, and etc. — and that’s just a sampling, off the top of my head.

I don’t believe in responding in kind, and I haven't responded in kind, but, frankly, I can’t get all that choked up about the fact that some here (emphatically including myself) don’t think his portrayal of President Keyes entirely accurate.

The trouble with this is that DCP routinely doles out precisely the same kinds of insults he's outlined above. (Just take a look at the list of invectives he aimed in my direction on the "More Racism" thread.) Furthermore, it seems transparently obvious that "grievously misrepresenting" and "distorting" is one of the chief functions of FARMS Review, which DCP edits. Add to all of this the many times that DCP has made glib and insulting remarks concerning Bachman's music career, and his coining of "Tall Tales Bachman," and I think you have a pretty clear case that DCP is an extremely vindictive individual. Gadianton is right: Internet Mormonism breeds hatred and vengeance.

[_harmony]

thinking LDS women.

Isn't that an oxymoron? :P

*Ducks*

*lands on Bond with a full body slam and is instantly regretful, since poor Bond is now a groaning pancake on the floor*

Don't mess with me, kiddo. ;-D

[_Mister Scratch]

You know, it has gotten buried somewhat, but I think that Dr. Shades's earlier remarks are worthy of further consideration. Shades made note of the very specific details present in Tal's account, especially as compared to the relative vagueness of Keyes's rebuttal. Does the level of detail and specificity in Tal's version not lend more credence to his truthfulness? I mean, he's just a farm boy! How could he have made that stuff up!

[_Trevor]

The trouble with this is that DCP routinely doles out precisely the same kinds of insults he's outlined above. (Just take a look at the list of invectives he aimed in my direction on the "More Racism" thread.) Furthermore, it seems transparently obvious that "grievously misrepresenting" and "distorting" is one of the chief functions of FARMS Review, which DCP edits. Add to all of this the many times that DCP has made glib and insulting remarks concerning Bachman's music career, and his coining of "Tall Tales Bachman," and I think you have a pretty clear case that DCP is an extremely vindictive individual. Gadianton is right: Internet Mormonism breeds hatred and vengeance.

Well, he does seem to love to play the martyr. Either he has a supremely well-developed sense of irony, or he has the emotional maturity of a freshman in college. Personally, I think there is an ironic distance here, not with regard to his belief, but in terms of how he presents himself to critics.

[_rcrocket]

Scratch, [I'm really curious as to where and how you developed any sense of ethics. Constant anonymous libel of known individuals, Dr. Peterson, Dr. Keyes, me, church authorities; you name it.

[_rcrocket]

The trouble with this is that DCP routinely doles out precisely the same kinds of insults he's outlined above. (Just take a look at the list of invectives he aimed in my direction on the "More Racism" thread.) Furthermore, it seems transparently obvious that "grievously misrepresenting" and "distorting" is one of the chief functions of FARMS Review, which DCP edits. Add to all of this the many times that DCP has made glib and insulting remarks concerning Bachman's music career, and his coining of "Tall Tales Bachman," and I think you have a pretty clear case that DCP is an extremely vindictive individual. Gadianton is right: Internet Mormonism breeds hatred and vengeance.

Well, he does seem to love to play the martyr. Either he has a supremely well-developed sense of irony, or he has the emotional maturity of a freshman in college. Personally, I think there is an ironic distance here, not with regard to his belief, but in terms of how he presents himself to critics.

Pretty strong words from somebody willing to libel anonymously.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Was this the first time Christenson had ever sent anything to FARMS? Further, did DCP and Christenson know each other? (Or did Christenson know anyone at FARMS?)

In Christenson's case, I don't know. In the case of the other author I cited I'm not sure, either. But to be sure, both submitted particular reviews blindly. I realize you will dismiss any examples provided, but here we have specific examples who blindly submitted articles. Ta da!

As to your PS: Why?

Because I e-mailed him and he e-mailed me back.

[_Mister Scratch]

Was this the first time Christenson had ever sent anything to FARMS? Further, did DCP and Christenson know each other? (Or did Christenson know anyone at FARMS?)

In Christenson's case, I don't know. In the case of the other author I cited I'm not sure, either. But to be sure, both submitted particular reviews blindly.

If you don't know whether DCP and Christenson knew each other, then how do you know the submissions were blind? See there is something suspect about your story, LoaP, and it's this: the FARMS website expressly states, Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.. The "guidelines", such as they are, practically exclude *ANY* blind submissions. Now, I don't think you are lying, or anything like that, but I really have to wonder if the KC articles were, in fact, submitted blindly---i.e., sent with zero prior contact with the Powers That Be at the Maxwell Institute. (Your example begs the question of how KC and the other person knew about the "style guidelines.")

I realize you will dismiss any examples provided, but here we have specific examples who blindly submitted articles. Ta da!

Well, hey---if these two examples pan out for you, terrific. You've got two instances out of hundreds which weren't commissioned. These two examples would do nothing to remedy the atypical nature of the journal. In any case, I hope that validation of these two examples will make you feel much, much better about the integrity and seriousness of FARMS Review.