Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Is there a double standard here?

Yes.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.

Good for you, LOaP! You certainly have one thing right. You are no star witness. Your incessant, petty references to Scratch by the female pronoun, as though this were some kind of insult, show exactly what kind of ignorant, minor-league twerp you are. You could say you saw Daniel walk on water, and the only thing it would prove is the profound depth of your sycophancy.

It's not intended as an insult. I really do believe Scratch is a woman.

Based on what? You have been terrified to say. I wonder why?

Your comments strike me as feminine, that's pretty much it. Again, feel free to clarify.

[_Trevor]

Your comments strike me as feminine, that's pretty much it. Again, feel free to clarify.

Your comments strike me as vapid, ignorant, and bigoted. Prove me wrong.

[_antishock8]

LOL. Well, during this past week I finished editing Books 1 and II (out of four) of a new translation of Ibn Sina's Physics for the Islamic Translation Series that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; made the final revisions to a substantial article on "Eschatology" for the forthcoming multi-volume Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World *; took my little staff out to lunch to celebrate the publication of the latest volume in the series of the Medical Works of Moses Maimonides that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; completed a roughly sixty-page article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" for Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Theology and Philosophy; made substantial progress on editing both the Arabic and the English of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's A‘lam al-Nubuwwa for my Islamic Translation Series; and finished editorial changes to a lengthy article on legends about the pre-existence, conception, gestation, and birth of the Prophet Muhammad, for a volume entitled Imagining the Fetus that will appear toward the end of summer from Oxford University Press.

And no, these are not my first ventures into academic publishing.

Why is it that Mr. Hamblin published his curriculum vitae, and not Mr. Peterson? Weird. Anyway, here you go:

https://facultyprofile.BYU.edu/PublicFa ... ta_wh4.pdf

* John L. Esposito, (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) [5 pages] “Eschatology,” (with Daniel C. Peterson) 1:440-442 *oh my god, talk about laying with vipers*

[_Mister Scratch]

Your comments strike me as feminine, that's pretty much it. Again, feel free to clarify.

What about the comments seems "feminine," LoaP?

[_moksha]

A couple of points here:

1) I have offered, on at least a couple of occasions, a kind of "let's shake hands and let bygones be bygones" to DCP. Each time, he has essentially spat in my face. He would rather continue fighting then ever admit to any wrongdoing. But, I'll say it again: If he wants to fess up and admit to the rotten things he's done, I will permanently retire from the MB and completely delete the blog.

I think it would be healthy if the two of you could bury the hatchet (and not in each other). Could you not both continue your funtions but without the vitriol? That precondition that Dr. Peterson admits to rotten things he has done seems totally unreasonable as a starting point in a real peacemaking process.

[_Mister Scratch]

A couple of points here:

1) I have offered, on at least a couple of occasions, a kind of "let's shake hands and let bygones be bygones" to DCP. Each time, he has essentially spat in my face. He would rather continue fighting then ever admit to any wrongdoing. But, I'll say it again: If he wants to fess up and admit to the rotten things he's done, I will permanently retire from the MB and completely delete the blog.

I think it would be healthy if the two of you could bury the hatchet (and not in each other). Could you not both continue your funtions but without the vitriol? That precondition that Dr. Peterson admits to rotten things he has done seems totally unreasonable as a starting point in a real peacemaking process.

Fair enough, Moksha, but as you yourself have observed, it has always been *I* who has made gestures towards reconciliation. DCP has staunchly refused to do anything in that regard.

[_harmony]

It's mildly shocking that you find DCP's actions abhorrent, but Good K's mockery of his father while his sister is critically ill is rather disgusting and disturbing. I hope you have voiced some criticism of Good K's actions as well.

From what I understand, GoodK wasn't mocking his father. He was mocking the church.

To me, it doesn't matter what GoodK was doing; that's not the subject of the thread. To me, what matters is whether or not Dan was meddling in someone else's life, with whom he does not have a close friendship, and within a family of which he is not a member.

[_Jersey Girl]

Reality check time!

For Trevor: You are quite right to have been "creeped out" by me. I'm extremely creepy. Horses neigh, dogs howl, flowers wilt, lights flicker, and thunder crashes when I walk by.

For Jersey Girl: I've never heard of anybody "outing" anyone because that person had "doubts," let alone of any ecclesiastical directive to do so. Nor, as a bishop, would I welcome the kind of snitch-like behavior that you rightly term "cultish." I think you're too trusting of the portrayal of Mormonism that you get from some on this board. At the least, the church depicted by several of the posters here bears little resemblance to the community that I know.

For antishock8: You need to get back on your lithium.

I do nothing different from what routinely appears in the pages of FARMS Review.

Sometimes I almost think that Scratch actually believes that's true.

Nor do I do anything much different than DCP's "RfM sig-line archive."

Which has now swollen to a massive 42 items, averaging roughly two lines each.

There's some pretty funny stuff in it. I use my little collection, mainly, as signature-line material in e-mails to friends.

Never have I, for example, contacted somebody's family, as DCP has done.

I've known GoodK's father for roughly twenty years. There's no secret about GoodK's atheism; GoodK's father has been fully aware of it for a long time, as have I. That wasn't the issue. When I saw GoodK posting mocking words about his father on a public message board, though, and realized who GoodK must be (since his father had sent the same letter about GoodK's critically ill sister to me that GoodK was lampooning here), I was shocked and appalled. I went back and forth. I didn't want to add to my friend's stress, since having a daughter hospitalized at death's door was already horrible, but I reasoned that, if it were my son who was making fun of me as a superstitious fanatic and a blowhard on a public message board while my daughter (his sister) was fighting for her life, I would want to know. So, finally, after several hours of internal debate, I sent a note to GoodK's father calling his attention to GoodK's comments about him. I also apologized to GoodK's father if my action was inappropriate.

Scratch can paint my action as malicious and underhanded if he wants. (And, of course, he does want.) Candidly, I wasn't sure myself whether or not I was doing the right thing. But I do know, as I've said, that I would want to have been told.

I've never ripped into somebody's professional credibility, as have DCP, and Bill Hamblin, and many others who sought to destroy Quinn's career as a historian (and arguably succeeded, at least in certain circles).

None of us has ever "sought to destroy Mike Quinn's career as a historian." We don't have any capacity to do so in any event, and I have no reason to believe that anything I've done has anything to do with his career troubles. Frankly, they surprise me.

As far as "ripp[ing] into somebody's professional credibility," well, that's occasionally what book reviews (and movie reviews and music reviews and drama criticism) do. If a book is bad, a reviewer has to say so. Will that reflect upon the credibility of the book's author? Yes. Is it, to use Scratch's favorite word, a "smear"? No. Is it a "smear" to say that the dialogue in a play is stilted, or that a novel's plot is unimaginative, or that a symphony is unsatisfying, or that a film is dull, or that an actor's performance is poor? Not in any normal English-speaker's lexicon. Yet, in every such case, the reviewer has effectively "ripped into somebody's professional credibility."

I've never engaged in the sort of real-life gossip akin to what Gee and The Good Professor were doing to Prof. Robert Ritner.

I have not gossiped about Professor Ritner. But there is more to the story of Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner than is generally known, and, as one of John Gee's former teachers, I know much of it, as I was in contact with Dr. Gee all through his years in graduate school at Berkeley and at Yale. Scratch and others would be well advised not to draw conclusions from the little portion of the story that they know (some of which, by the way, isn't true).

Am I sometimes kind of a bastard, and do I sometimes question the character of Mopologists [sic]? Yes, that's no doubt true.

Finally, something that Scratch and I can agree on -- except that I would delete both occurrences of sometimes.

But nowhere have I ever meddled in people's in real life worlds in the way that these Church defenders have.

I flatly deny any such meddling. I wouldn't do it, I can't do it, and I haven't done it.

Shalom!

Here's your reality check, Daniel. I invite you to examine the following exchanges beginning with this post:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=152693#152693

There you will find an example of exactly what I was referring to from former ZLMB and FAIR poster, Coggins7.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Your comments strike me as feminine, that's pretty much it. Again, feel free to clarify.

What about the comments seems "feminine," LoaP?

I see what's going on here. You want specifics so as to further hide your deception. ;) I also think your screen name is a sneaky trick.

As you can see my case is not very solid.