Episode 7: As the "L-Skinny" Turns

[_Daniel Peterson]

Get a life, Scartch.

I freely admit that I poked some fun at an exceedingly unpleasant and apparently quite immature girl who attacked me and a friend out of the blue.

But stalking????

Get a life, Scartch.

P.S. Incidentally, I don't believe that I asked anybody to write to her. But, yes, when somebody sends me an exceptionally insulting or hilarious note, I occasionally share it on a closed list with a few friends who, like me, perpetually marvel at human nature.

P.P.S. Get a life, Scartch.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Get a life, Scartch.

I freely admit that I poked some fun at an exceedingly unpleasant and apparently quite immature girl who attacked me and a friend out of the blue.

But stalking????

Get a life, Scartch.

P.S. Incidentally, I don't believe that I asked anybody to write to her. But, yes, when somebody sends me an exceptionally insulting or hilarious note, I occasionally share it on a closed list with a few friends who, like me, perpetually marvel at human nature.

P.P.S. Get a life, Scartch.

Seeing you all huffy is very entertaining.
Mr. Scratch has a life.
You have a life, which he helps us all see.

Scratch has a life entertaining the residents of Shady Acres with the lives and antics of mo'pologists.

Good job to the both of ya's.

[_Gadianton]

I don't see how a middle-aged professor who admits to breaking down and poking fun at an immature girl thinks he has "a life" whereas Scratch who is poking fun at someone with similar background and credentials does not.

I don't think all the Utah art functions make up for Skinny-l locker room antics.

[_Bond...James Bond]

What happened to episode 1-6? Will they be shown in syndication or will I have to wait for the Silver Anniversary box set?

[_Scottie]

I freely admit that I poked some fun at an exceedingly unpleasant and apparently quite immature girl who attacked me and a friend out of the blue.

Do you deny being any of the things she said? I think we all know it is well within your nature to do/be all of the things she listed.

Was it "unpleasant" because what she said was true?

Frankly, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you would do this. I would think this kind of behavior beneath you. But, then again, you are the one that marvels at human nature. I suppose you are not immune to being human as well.

[_antishock8]

The Internet Mormon's M.O.:

1) Declare anti-Mormons are rude, then act rudely.

2) Declare anti-Mormons have no life, then spend life on anti-Mormon boards.

3) Declare anti-Mormons are stupid, then believe in Mormonism.

4) Ignore fellow Mormons' bad behavior, then point out all perceived slights against self or other Mormons.

5) Stomp foot, and exit in a huff. Come back. Repeat when embarrassed.

6) Ignore logic or doctrinal issues and engage in ad hom and red herrings. Get mad if someone follows suit.

[_Mister Scratch]

I freely admit that I poked some fun at an exceedingly unpleasant and apparently quite immature girl who attacked me and a friend out of the blue.

I have to say that I am at a loss as to why:
A) you felt "attacked" (particularly after seeing how you delivered a series of very snotty emails to James White---and "snotty" is putting it mildly)
B) why you felt any response to this "immature" girl was in order....

But stalking????

That was her word, not mine.

P.S. Incidentally, I don't believe that I asked anybody to write to her. But, yes, when somebody sends me an exceptionally insulting or hilarious note, I occasionally share it on a closed list with a few friends who, like me, perpetually marvel at human nature.

It doesn't matter whether you "asked" anybody or not. The "asking", to my mind, is implicit in your little "hush-hush" gossiping on the listserve.

[_MsJack]

I remember when all of this went down. I never knew Kristi personally but we had a mutual friend, JP Holding, someone I respect immensely (I was the one who got him interested in writing about LDS topics). Kristi had done some graphics for his web site at one point, and when I brought up the subject of these e-mails between her and Peterson, he ardently took her side.

With all due respect though, I can't really say I'm on her side. Not then and not now. Here's why:

1) Her e-mails to Peterson? Not even remotely funny. Not even a little bit. I have no problem being an ass to people on the Internet, but if you're going to be an ass to someone, at least make it remotely entertaining. JP Holding does this very well. Dan Peterson and some other LDS apologists are pretty good at it. Kristi failed at it and failed horribly.
2) Her Anti-Novak/Peterson web site? A terrible eyesore for starters. The graphics, the bold, the italics, the underlining, the screeching capitalizations. It's horrible to read and it's horrible to look at. She comes off as extremely shrill and makes it difficult to take her claims of stalking seriously. Plus, she does not even bother to post or link to the "stalking" correspondence in question--probably because she knew what an ass she was and how tame the responses of Peterson & co. were.
3) Her web site was also not funny. She comes off as trying very, very hard to be funny with all of the troll pictures and captions, yet it just isn't. It's only funny in a pathetic sort of way.
4) As far as her stalking claim goes, remember that she is the one who e-mailed Peterson (a complete stranger to her) out of the blue concerning an e-mail correspondence that had absolutely nothing to do with her. It's not like Peterson discovered her MySpace page (yes, I know those weren't around back then) and started e-mailing her, or mentioned her in an e-mail or web site somewhere before she contacted him.

Now, I don't approve of the fact that Peterson & co. continued to e-mail her after she asked them to stop. That is where I think they crossed the line. However, did they say anything to her that was violent or sexual in nature? Did they ever attempt to contact her through a medium other than e-mail? I highly, highly doubt it. So I find it pretty hard to accept her "stalking" claim. Sounds more like the FARMS folks were just being annoying.

I had a web site at the time and I got some scary-as-hell e-mails from all kinds of actual creepy people on the Internet. I had the owner of a major atheist/agnostic polemical web site sending me sexually explicit e-mails when I was 17 and he was in his 30s (I could drop his name, but I no longer have the e-mails and I sure don't want him bothering me again). I had some bizarre Christian cult in Europe that claimed to practice wife-beating sending me e-mails condemning me for wearing "men's clothes" (ie jeans) and telling me I needed a good beating--which was kind of funny but also scary; they had a web site and everything. I had people trying to photoshop pictures of my head onto a naked woman's body.

The Internet is full of people who are creepy and people who are stalkers. Dan Peterson? Really, really not one of them. And to try and make him out to be one is to draw attention away from the actual weirdos and perverts out there.

[_Trevor]

Yes, someone who is behaving like a jerk is not necessarily a stalker. And behaving like a jerk is usually a bad strategy for dealing with someone else who is behaving like one.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hello there, Jack! Please allow me to extend a very, very hearty (albeit belated) welcome to you!

Please allow me to respond to your excellent (and revealing!) post:

I remember when all of this went down. I never knew Kristi personally but we had a mutual friend, JP Holding, someone I respect immensely (I was the one who got him interested in writing about LDS topics). Kristi had done some graphics for his web site at one point, and when I brought up the subject of these e-mails between her and Peterson, he ardently took her side.

This is fascinating. Can you elaborate a bit? I know that J.P. Holding has been on the receiving end of some FARMS/skinny-l assaults, but do you know the details? I would very much like to hear them, since I know that holding is quite well-respected in certainly respectable quarters.

With all due respect though, I can't really say I'm on her side. Not then and not now. Here's why:

1) Her e-mails to Peterson? Not even remotely funny. Not even a little bit. I have no problem being an ass to people on the Internet, but if you're going to be an ass to someone, at least make it remotely entertaining. JP Holding does this very well. Dan Peterson and some other LDS apologists are pretty good at it. Kristi failed at it and failed horribly.
2) Her Anti-Novak/Peterson web site? A terrible eyesore for starters. The graphics, the bold, the italics, the underlining, the screeching capitalizations. It's horrible to read and it's horrible to look at. She comes off as extremely shrill and makes it difficult to take her claims of stalking seriously. Plus, she does not even bother to post or link to the "stalking" correspondence in question--probably because she knew what an ass she was and how tame the responses of Peterson & co. were.
3) Her web site was also not funny. She comes off as trying very, very hard to be funny with all of the troll pictures and captions, yet it just isn't. It's only funny in a pathetic sort of way.
4) As far as her stalking claim goes, remember that she is the one who e-mailed Peterson (a complete stranger to her) out of the blue concerning an e-mail correspondence that had absolutely nothing to do with her. It's not like Peterson discovered her MySpace page (yes, I know those weren't around back then) and started e-mailing her, or mentioned her in an e-mail or web site somewhere before she contacted him.

I agree 100% with these observations.

Now, I don't approve of the fact that Peterson & co. continued to e-mail her after she asked them to stop. That is where I think they crossed the line. However, did they say anything to her that was violent or sexual in nature? Did they ever attempt to contact her through a medium other than e-mail? I highly, highly doubt it.

Hmm. A good question. Perhaps you could get J.P. Holding to ask her? We already know that Lou Midgley has a habit of making harassing phone calls to people. He has also been known to show up in person, sometimes flanked with "hired help," as it were.

So I find it pretty hard to accept her "stalking" claim. Sounds more like the FARMS folks were just being annoying.

This is a reasonable view, but then again, FARMS people are anything but reasonable. Sure, if this were one, isolated incident, it would be easy to write it off as mere annoyance. But this Kristi/DCP confrontation is symptomatic of a larger, "stalkerish" (for lack of a better word) pattern of behavior. It is worth bearing in mind that DCP & Co. have participated in these "gang-up" emailing campaigns multiple times. Further, they boast about all of this stuff amongst themselves on "l-skinny," and sometimes they festoon the pages of SHIELDS with their undeniably nasty antics.

And, as others have already pointed out, it is really the "gang-up" aspect of the whole thing that is most disquieting. DCP can try and claim that he did not ask Pyle, Novak and others to join in, but the fact of the matter is that he rather giddily passed along Kristi's emails to all of the l-skinny people. Quite uncouth and disgusting, if you ask me.