Peterson Misleading Again

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

antishock8 wrote:Oooooo... NOW the letter wasn't memorable, and the con man can't really recall the information contained in it other than it was definitely the 2nd Watson Letter.

It was definitely not the second Watson letter.

Poor fellow. You don't even know what anybody here is talking about.

Here's a pat on the head and some bubble gum. Now go back outside and play some more.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Nope, sorry. You never gave the information. Care to try again?

No, not really. It's been over fifteen years, and it wasn't very memorable.

You're just looking for materials to spin and to put in your creepy "dossiers" (which is to say, for rope to try to hang me with). Why should I help you? You've earned nothing from me.


I have no need to spin, Professor P. I'm sure that it is transparently obvious to anyone reading the thread why you won't make an effort to recall the contents of the letter. The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this letter is not damning in some way.

Of course, you could easily prove me wrong by telling us what was in the letter.
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
antishock8 wrote:Oooooo... NOW the letter wasn't memorable, and the con man can't really recall the information contained in it other than it was definitely the 2nd Watson Letter.

It was definitely not the second Watson letter.

Poor fellow. You don't even know what anybody here is talking about.

Here's a pat on the head and some bubble gum. Now go back outside and play some more.


My apologies, you were talking about "Mr. Friend's" letter. See how easy that is to own up to a mistake? People can do it. You can do it. C'mon... Baby steps...
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

by the way, I wonder how Mr. Crockett feels about an esteemed fellow Mormon using sock puppets... What with his big emphasis on integrity and anonymity n' all...
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

antishock8 wrote:See how easy that is to own up to a mistake? People can do it. You can do it. C'mon... Baby steps...

When I make a mistake, I'll own up to it.

When I make mistakes, I do own up to it.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

antishock8 wrote:by the way, I wonder how Mr. Crockett feels about an esteemed fellow Mormon using sock puppets... What with his big emphasis on integrity and anonymity n' all...

If you're talking about "Arnold Friend," how do we know that he's a Mormon?

Since he seems to have invented the supposed Hamblin letter out of thin air, why should we believe that he's a faithful Latter-day Saint? Even if he were to say so?
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:I have no need to spin, Professor P.

No, no more than you have a need to breathe.

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm sure that it is transparently obvious to anyone reading the thread why you won't make an effort to recall the contents of the letter.

I am, too.

Mister Scratch wrote:The truth of the matter is that there is literally no way that this letter is not damning in some way.

Since the verdict's predetermined -- and, whaddya know?, we've already been found guilty! -- there's really little need for me to reminisce to my ol' pal Scratch about the contents of that ever-memorable letter from more than fifteen years ago.

Only if I were curious to know which "way" you might choose by which to justify your verdict -- because, of course, "there is literally no way that this letter is not damning in some way" -- would I consider giving you some materials to help you generate your sophistic brief for the prosecution.

But I'm not curious.

Mister Scratch wrote:Of course, you could easily prove me wrong by telling us what was in the letter.

LOL. You announce that "there is literally no way that this letter is not damning in some way," but then claim that I "could easily prove [you] wrong"?

Maybe I've misjudged you. Maybe you're an aspiring comic.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
harmony wrote:If you say so.

Produce your childhood tricycle.


I didn't have a tricycle. My first bike, however, is still in my mom's shop (very rusty).

Produce your grandparents.


They're all dead. I can, however, show you their gravestones and their birth certificates, thus verifying that they existed.

Produce your first Valentine.


Don't have it. I do, however, have my first love letter.

Produce the puppy you had when you were a little girl.


Can't. He's dead. However, he wasn't written on letterhead from the 1st Presidency. Had he been, no doubt I would have kept his ashes.

If something is gone, it's gone. And once you know it's gone, it's unreasonable to continue to demand that it be produced for your curiosity and to act as if somebody else is being obstinate or covering something up for failing to do so.


I don't demand anything. I asked. And I didn't ask to satisfy my curiosity. I asked so you could verify your claim. It was an opportunity for you, not an attack against you. That you took it as an attack on your honesty and your integrity is very strange. I don't know you, have never met you, have never conversed with you, yet you expect me to take your word for something that you alledge. Why should I? Because you're a BYU professor? That doesn't give you immunity from proving your claims. Because you're a bishop? Bishops, even stake presidents, have to show their cards when they're playing poker. This is the same thing. You claim the 2nd letter exists. I just asked you to produce it, so people would shut the heck up about it, so they'd quit bugging you about it. In return, you came at me like you'd been personally insulted and I'd insulted your friends, your family, and your employer. I didn't. I asked you to verify a claim you made. Turns out you can't. That's disappointing. Had you been able to, then all these people would shut up.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

harmony wrote:I asked so you could verify your claim. It was an opportunity for you, not an attack against you. That you took it as an attack on your honesty and your integrity is very strange.

Oh come on. Several people here have suggested over the years and in recent days that the letter may never have actually existed.

Since I would be right at the heart of the conspiracy to foist a bogus letter on the public as having come from the Office of the First Presidency, it's scarcely "strange" that I would view such suggestions as questioning my honesty and integrity.

harmony wrote:I don't know you, have never met you, have never conversed with you,

Yet you routinely announce that I don't live my religion, etc. You and harsh personal judgments of strangers are well acquainted with each other.

harmony wrote:yet you expect me to take your word for something that you alledge. Why should I?

Because, absent strong reason to do otherwise, it's the reasonable basis and default setting for normal civil conversation.

harmony wrote:Because you're a BYU professor?

No.

Because, absent strong reason to do otherwise, it's the reasonable basis and default setting for normal civil conversation.

harmony wrote:Because you're a bishop?

No.

Because, absent strong reason to do otherwise, it's the reasonable basis and default setting for normal civil conversation.
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

Well, Mr. Friend just needs to come out of the sock puppet closet, come clean, and then this can just wrap itself up. Too easy.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
Post Reply