Peterson: "Get a life" -- priceless!

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Let's take the "racist" example. I defy you to supply a single example of me ever directly stating, "DCP is a racist." The fact is that you just aren't going to be able to find such an utterance.

This is excellent progress.

Let's make the situation very clear by your responding to a pair of related propositions:

"I, Mister Scratch, have no reason to regard Daniel Peterson as a racist." Yes [ ] No [ ]

"I, Mister Scratch, have no reason to regard Daniel Peterson as an anti-Semite." Yes [ ] No [ ]

When you've clearly responded to these two propositions, we can move on to other areas.

Good grief Dan.

What next?

Dear Mr. Scratch,

Do you like me:

.......................Yes [ ]
........................No [ ]

[_christopher]

Good grief Dan.

What next?

I don't think Dan really cares what Scratch thinks. What he is doing here is sort of like what like Gee did on his MAD Egyptology test. Many teachers that I know struggle with turning off the teacher and authority mode. (Within Mormonism, this authority demand is even deeper.)

You see, Dan wants Scratch to know that he (DCP) is in charge, and will direct the flow of the conversation and control it by setting himself up as the one gives the questions and decides when they are answered sufficiently.


Chris <><

[_solomarineris]

Anyway, here some advice for him, try getting into excercise, activities or something away from a computer screen.

Maybe you are delusionally envious of him.
For all we know (which is not much), maybe he is typing those letters sitting comfortably on a blow-up chair in his 1000 sq feet Pool and taking a dip whenever his top-knot gets unbearably heiss.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Let's make the situation very clear by your responding to a pair of related propositions:

"I, Mister Scratch, have no reason to regard Daniel Peterson as a racist." Yes [ ] No [ ]

"I, Mister Scratch, have no reason to regard Daniel Peterson as an anti-Semite." Yes [ ] No [ ]

When you've clearly responded to these two propositions, we can move on to other areas.

I would honestly and whole-heartedly respond "no" to both options.

In other words, you have no reason to say that I'm either a racist or an anti-Semite. Correct?

In order to make your position unmistakably clear -- your answer above is ambiguous -- you can simply write something along the lines of "I have no reason to say that Daniel Peterson is a racist, and no reason to say that he is an anti-Semite."

If you do that, we can proceed -- potentially, if my interest doesn't flag and if I get around to it -- to some of your other major themes.

Thinking things over a bit, I probably should state that *some* things I have observed among certain Mopologists certainly *are* "racist" and/or "anti-semitic", notably Professor Hamblin's RfM tirade. I certainly hope he apologizes for that.

BS.

If Bill Hamblin's a racist or an anti-Semite, Berlin's the capital of France.

[_Dr. Shades]

For a guy who claims to be so involved in academics and editing and publishing works, he's got thousands and thousands of posts on message boards in the past twelve months. He has declared retirement from these boards more times than Michael Jordan did from sports.

Remember, it is not becoming of those of us who post on message boards to castigate others for posting on message boards.

Anyway, here some advice for him, try getting into excercise, activities or something away from a computer screen.

NO NO NO NO NO!

Here at MormonDiscussions.com, our goal is to have everyone--Daniel C. Peterson included--spend more time at MormonDiscussions.com, not less. The more the better, in fact.

[_cksalmon]

In other words, you have no reason to say that I'm either a racist or an anti-Semite. Correct?

One assumes (by which I mean, I assumed) that the choice of "Yes" would indicate agreement with the statement. "No," it seems, would not: i.e., not "I have no reason," but rather, "No, I do not agree with the statement 'I, Mister Scratch, have no reason to regard Daniel Peterson as a racist.'"

But, it doesn't appear that that's what he actually means.

That's how I read it, at any rate. I personally would have responded "Yes," if presented with either or both propositions, meaning that I agree that I have no reason to regard DP as a racist, etc.

How about...
"I have at least one reason to regard DP as a racist."
Agree [ ] / Disagree [ ]
...?

My response, by the way, would be:
"I have at least one reason to regard DP as a racist." Agree [ ] / Disagree [X]