Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_Mister Scratch]

That's my point: you *were* in a position to know, and you evidently lied about it.

I told the truth.

To the best of my ability, I typically do.

Ha! What a great way of putting things. Yeah: "best" is about right.

Well: were you or were you not embarrassed by this episode? Do you feel badly that it happened, and that you guys got "caught"?

I felt that a harmless private joke got out of hand, was misinterpreted, and became an embarrassment.

But, of course, that is not exactly what I asked you, Professor. P. I was asking if you, personally---Daniel C. Peterson---felt ashamed and/or embarrassed about what happened. The incident in and of itself cannot feel any embarrassment, Dan. I know you favor accuracy and "honesty" (to the best of your ability, anyhow). So, is this the "best" you can do? *You* were the editor, after all... To clarify: I am asking how you, personally, felt about the episode, and whether you, personally, felt embarrassed about it.

Capiche?

You have tried to paint the whole affair as a "no biggie," tempest-in-a-teapot sort of thing, effectively spinning details in order to accomplish your goals.

I think it's ridiculous that a few people have sought to keep the thing alive for fifteen years now.

I'm pretty sure it would have gone away if:

A) You told the truth about it
B) You publicly, sincerely apologized for it, and pledged to eliminate that kind of thing from your rhetoric, including your online exchanges.

It wasn't that important. It certainly doesn't rank as one of the most significant world events of 1993-1994, nor even as a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

I believe it *was* a "watershed moment," since it marks a very clear and obvious instance when apologists' general rancor and childishness leaked out to the public.

I've noticed that those who like to hyperventilate about The Horrible Acrostic seldom if ever have anything to say about Professor Hamblin's article.

Probably because this article, like most of what Hamblin has written for FROB, pretty much sucks.

I understand, though, that these people typically have an agenda. You certainly do.

You're right: To keep you honest.

Who knows what else you've lied to me about?

I do.

I've lied to you about nothing.

Yes.... It's almost Nietschzean in its clarity, isn't it?

I've been remarkably patient, if I must say so myself, in submitting to your incessant Scartchoscopies. Though, by your implacable personal hostility, you've deserved nothing from me at all beyond contemptuous silence, I've answered your endless questions and probings rather fully.

No one ever forced you to answer a single question. No one forced you to choose Mopologetics as a hobby, passion, or obsession. No one forced you to gossip about Mike Quinn and Robert Ritner. No one forced you to deceive people as "FreeThinker." No one forced you to lie about the acrostic. No one forced you to engage in gang-like antics on l-skinny.

And I'm not "hostile" at all, Professor P., anymore than anyone who is repeatedly lied to is "hostile."

The Quinn thing?

There was no "Quinn thing."

There sure was, and you consulted an attorney over it. You also sent lengthy correspondence to Dr. Shades over it. You also issued a "boring clarificatin" on the MADboard in order to try and make it go away.

That said, you have still managed carry on a disgusting campaign in which you use innuendo to discredit Quinn's scholarship. Need I remind you of your eyebrow-wagging "sad incident" bombshell?

Ritnergate?

Even stripping it of your extravagantly grandiose title, there's no there there. This purported "scandal" is and has always been a figment of your fecund imagination.

Professor Ritner didn't seem to think so, since he considered filing libel/slander charges.

I base that judgment off other instances of your dishonesty: such as your "FreeThinker" postings.

That's an enormous stretch.

How do you figure? As I see it, the equation is pretty simple:

---You claimed to be "FreeThinker," someone completely distinct and separate from "Daniel Peterson."
---You were, in fact, "FreeThinker."
---Many people were led to believe that "FreeThinker" was not "Daniel Peterson."
---This wasn't the truth; you were dishonest.

Until you produce a scan of the 2nd Letter, I can't see that I really have any other choice.

Don't be silly. Of course you do.

You could presume, as civil people commonly do in such cases, that I'm acting in good faith. For example.

You aren't civil, though, Dr. Peterson. And you don't trust others and you don't act in "good faith." You attack, mock, gossip, spread innuendo, manipulate facts, and lie.

And "axe to grind"? Am I the one who has been spinning tall tales about the print run of the acrostic?

Nobody's been spinning tall tales about that.

Sure you were. You were telling falsehoods about the extent of the journals distribution.

Am I the one who engaged in gossipmongering against Mike Quinn for years?

Well, it certainly wasn't me.

More lying. More dissembling.

Am I the one who carried on a vindictive whisper campaign against Robert Ritner for 6+ years?

I'm entirely unaware of such a vindictive whisper campaign, so I really couldn't say whether you've been involved in such a thing or not.

I can pull up the relevant threads if you'd like, Dan.

[Guest]

I told the truth.

To the best of my ability, I typically do.

Ha! What a great way of putting things. Yeah: "best" is about right.

I apologize for the fact that I'm unable to be more accurate than I'm able to be.

I felt that a harmless private joke got out of hand, was misinterpreted, and became an embarrassment.

But, of course, that is not exactly what I asked you, Professor. P. I was asking if you, personally---Daniel C. Peterson---felt ashamed and/or embarrassed about what happened. The incident in and of itself cannot feel any embarrassment, Dan.

Obviously. So why do you falsely suggest that I said such a thing? "Being an embarrassment" doesn't mean "being embarrassed." Surely you know that. (Heck, you're an unembarrassed embarrassment yourself, so I know you understand the distinction.)

I've answered your question. I realize that you're seeking something more so that you can use it against me, but, since I've already answered your question, I see no reason to provide more material for you to spin.

To clarify: I am asking how you, personally, felt about the episode, and whether you, personally, felt embarrassed about it.

Use your brain, Scartch. I said that the incident became an embarrassment. I didn't say that the incident became embarrassed.

I'm pretty sure it would have gone away if:

A) You told the truth about it

I did. I do. And, at least in a few circles (like this board), it hasn't.

B) You publicly, sincerely apologized for it, and pledged to eliminate that kind of thing from your rhetoric, including your online exchanges.

It was a one time thing. Such a thing had never happened in the Review before. Such a thing has never happened in the Review during the fifteen years since. And such a thing has never appeared in my "rhetoric" at all, on line or anywhere else.

I believe it *was* a "watershed moment"

That's hardly surprising, since it reflects the level on which you operate.

Probably because this article, like most of what Hamblin has written for FROB, pretty much sucks.

That sentence is very likely the most sustained bit of intellectual analysis and the most substantive argument that I've ever seen you post.

Congratulations.

I've been remarkably patient, if I must say so myself, in submitting to your incessant Scartchoscopies. Though, by your implacable personal hostility, you've deserved nothing from me at all beyond contemptuous silence, I've answered your endless questions and probings rather fully.

No one ever forced you to answer a single question.

Quite true. Precisely my point. My answers to your incessant hostile questions have been voluntary and uncoerced.

No one forced you to choose Mopologetics as a hobby, passion, or obsession.

Quite true.

Just as nobody has forced you to seek to demonize or criminalize that choice.

No one forced you to gossip about Mike Quinn and Robert Ritner.

Entirely true. Likewise, nobody forced me to strew the Emerald Kingdom with the bones of slain unicorns or to toss Winston Churchill from the bell tower of the cathedral at Chartres.

No one forced you to deceive people as "FreeThinker."

Wow. I used a pseudonym on a message board for a while -- a terrible thing of which, I take it, you disapprove? -- and awkwardly tried to preserve my anonymity when some practitioners of proto-Scratchoscopy began to suspect my identity and to probe. When preserving my anonymity under such circumstances began to demand deception on my part, I abandoned the pseudonym.

A watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, if not the crime of the century.

No one forced you to lie about the acrostic.

I didn't lie and I haven't lied about the acrostic.

No one forced you to engage in gang-like antics on l-skinny.

No one forced me to work as a militant vegetarian concentration camp guard during PETA's reign over Illinois, either.

And I'm not "hostile" at all, Professor P.

Sure you're not.

There was no "Quinn thing."

There sure was, and you consulted an attorney over it.

There sure wasn't. And the only attorney I've ever paid for legal business is the attorney my wife and I are currently paying to help us set up trusts for our children -- which is the only legal business for which I've ever paid.

I did, it's true, once inquire by a single e-mail of a friend, an attorney who participates occasionally on message boards, as to whether your incessant maligning of me might constitute libel. (He didn't consider you worth the trouble.)

You also sent lengthy correspondence to Dr. Shades over it.

I sent him a brief note indicating my displeasure that his board was being used and continues to be used as a platform from which you publicly malign my character, and indicating that I found the situation so objectionable, in principle, that I had asked a lawyer-friend about it. There was no "lengthy correspondence."

You also issued a "boring clarificatin" on the MADboard in order to try and make it go away.

I gave a true account of the situation in order to counter your unceasing misrepresentations.

That said, you have still managed carry on a disgusting campaign in which you use innuendo to discredit Quinn's scholarship.

I have not.

Need I remind you of your eyebrow-wagging "sad incident" bombshell?

It sounds pretty awful, but I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure you'll tell us. No doubt tens of thousands of inquiring minds want to know.

Professor Ritner didn't seem to think so, since he considered filing libel/slander charges.

I have no idea whatever as to what Professor Ritner may have thought was going on, but I'm quite confident that no court would find that I've done anything to harm Professor Ritner. I don't think I've devoted ten full minutes to contemplating Professor Ritner over the course of my entire lifetime.

You aren't civil, though, Dr. Peterson. And you don't trust others and you don't act in "good faith." You attack, mock, gossip, spread innuendo, manipulate facts, and lie.

You're an obsessively malicious loon, Scartch. There simply isn't any other way to see it.

You were telling falsehoods about the extent of the journals distribution.

No I wasn't.

More lying. More dissembling.

Nope.

I can pull up the relevant threads if you'd like, Dan.

Pull up as much innuendo, slander, distortion, and spin as you like, Scartch. You'll persuade a few, I'm sure, like Mini-Scartch and perhaps poor antishock8 and maybe even Gadianton. But you'll drive at least as many even closer to abandoning this board altogether because -- as some have commented openly and others have told me via PMs -- they're so tired of your malignant nonsense. That might upset Dr. Shades, but it wouldn't upset me. I have absolutely nothing invested in the success or survival of this board.

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel Peterson:

But you'll drive at least as many even closer to abandoning this board altogether because -- as some have commented openly and others have told me via PMs -- they're so tired of your malignant nonsense.

Amen.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've answered your question. I realize that you're seeking something more so that you can use it against me, but, since I've already answered your question, I see no reason to provide more material for you to spin.

No... You still haven't answered it. I asked *you* how *you* personally felt about the incident.

Here it is again:

To clarify: I am asking how you, personally, felt about the episode, and whether you, personally, felt embarrassed about it.

And your non-answer:

Use your brain, Scartch. I said that the incident became an embarrassment. I didn't say that the incident became embarrassed.

I'm pretty sure it would have gone away if:

A) You told the truth about it

I did. I do. And, at least in a few circles (like this board), it hasn't.

Not according to Brent, you didn't. And I find him far more believable than you.

B) You publicly, sincerely apologized for it, and pledged to eliminate that kind of thing from your rhetoric, including your online exchanges.

It was a one time thing. Such a thing had never happened in the Review before. Such a thing has never happened in the Review during the fifteen years since. And such a thing has never appeared in my "rhetoric" at all, on line or anywhere else.

According to Bill Hamblin "such a thing" happens all the time:

"'I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment--fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement. . . .' (computer message by William Hamblin, dated March 14, 1994)

Elsewhere you denied that this happens. Which means, of course, that Hamblin is slipping this stuff under your nose, or you are, once again, lying.

Probably because this article, like most of what Hamblin has written for FROB, pretty much sucks.

That sentence is very likely the most sustained bit of intellectual analysis and the most substantive argument that I've ever seen you post.

Congratulations.

Yes, I agree, since the analysis is accurate.

No one forced you to deceive people as "FreeThinker."

Wow. I used a pseudonym on a message board for a while -- a terrible thing of which, I take it, you disapprove?

I don't disapprove of pseudonyms. Using them to deliberately manipulate and deceives people is something else.

No one forced you to lie about the acrostic.

I didn't lie and I haven't lied about the acrostic.

Apparently, as per the Hamblin quote I posted above, you've now lied multiple times about it and related issues.

There sure was, and you consulted an attorney over it.

There sure wasn't. And the only attorney I've ever paid for legal business is the attorney my wife and I are currently paying to help us set up trusts for our children -- which is the only legal business for which I've ever paid.

Yes, that's true. You didn't say you paid.

I did, it's true, once inquire by a single e-mail of a friend, an attorney who participates occasionally on message boards, as to whether your incessant maligning of me might constitute libel. (He didn't consider you worth the trouble.)

There you go. Good for you for admitting it, Prof. P. You had earlier lied about this, too. O, What a Tangled Web We Weave!

You also sent lengthy correspondence to Dr. Shades over it.

I sent him a brief note indicating my displeasure that his board was being used and continues to be used as a platform from which you publicly malign my character, and indicating that I found the situation so objectionable, in principle, that I had asked a lawyer-friend about it. There was no "lengthy correspondence."

Well, hey---I guess we're even, since I disapprove of your "publicly malign[ing]" the character of many different people, and of issue death threats, etc.

That said, you have still managed carry on a disgusting campaign in which you use innuendo to discredit Quinn's scholarship.

I have not.

I beg to differ.

Need I remind you of your eyebrow-wagging "sad incident" bombshell?

It sounds pretty awful, but I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure you'll tell us. No doubt tens of thousands of inquiring minds want to know.

Very well. Perhaps I'll go and dig up your old post.

Professor Ritner didn't seem to think so, since he considered filing libel/slander charges.

I have no idea whatever as to what Professor Ritner may have thought was going on, but I'm quite confident that no court would find that I've done anything to harm Professor Ritner. I don't think I've devoted ten full minutes to contemplating Professor Ritner over the course of my entire lifetime.

That didn't stop you from suffering a major-league meltdown in which you fretted about how your kids would lose their inheritance, etc.

You aren't civil, though, Dr. Peterson. And you don't trust others and you don't act in "good faith." You attack, mock, gossip, spread innuendo, manipulate facts, and lie.

You're an obsessively malicious loon, Scartch. There simply isn't any other way to see it.

I really don't care what names you call me, Professor Peterson. Feel free to use profanity, if it suits you. I intend to see to it that you tell the truth on these issues, and that you cease spinning lies and discrediting the work and character of honest people.

You were telling falsehoods about the extent of the journals distribution.

No I wasn't.

Metcalfe's account begs to differ.

I can pull up the relevant threads if you'd like, Dan.

Pull up as much innuendo, slander, distortion, and spin as you like, Scartch. You'll persuade a few, I'm sure, like Mini-Scartch and perhaps poor antishock8 and maybe even Gadianton. But you'll drive at least as many even closer to abandoning this board altogether because -- as some have commented openly and others have told me via PMs -- they're so tired of your malignant nonsense.

That is their choice, of course. They are free to post and read on whatever topics they like. I also have been told, via PM, that a large number of individuals enjoy my posts. I no longer have to search for interesting material since virtually 100% of it is brought to me by people you and your cohorts have pissed off over the years.

That might upset Dr. Shades, but it wouldn't upset me. I have absolutely nothing invested in the success or survival of this board.

Yes, instead you hope it will go away. Well, it won't. Not until you make up your mind to atone for your "sins."

[_Daniel Peterson]

I find him far more believable than you.

Of course you do. You're Scartch. I'm your target.

There's not really much point in continuing to talk with you about the subject, though, if you think I'm always lying to you.

So we can drop that topic.

According to Bill Hamblin "such a thing" happens all the time:

Bill Hamblin's comment doesn't refer to "such a thing." And you know it.

Apparently, as per the Hamblin quote I posted above, you've now lied multiple times about it and related issues.

Okay. Since you believe that I constantly lie about all those issues, there's little point in my continuing to discuss them with you.

So we can check those off the list of things we need to talk about.

You had earlier lied about this, too.

No I hadn't.

I beg to differ.

You don't need to beg.

That didn't stop you from suffering a major-league meltdown in which you fretted about how your kids would lose their inheritance, etc.

LOL. "A major-league meltdown"? More Scartchian extravagance.

But, yes, being threatened with a law suit didn't amuse me.

Maybe being sued doesn't bother you.

But it bothers me.

Consider it an odd personal quirk on my part, but I don't find threats of lawsuits very funny.

As the California lawyer said who represented me when the Rev. Kurt Van Gorden sued me for $4.5 million, the complaint had absolutely no merit, but I shouldn't take it lightly. He had, he said, won cases that he never imagined would prevail, and lost cases that he thought were iron-clad. I learned from that incident that anybody can sue anybody for anything, and that even a case without merit -- Van Gorden's complaint was ultimately tossed out "with prejudice" after two years of litigation -- can eat up a lot of time and money and threaten one's livelihood.

Metcalfe's account begs to differ.

That's his right.

I no longer have to search for interesting material since virtually 100% of it is brought to me by people you and your cohorts have pissed off over the years.

Your creepy alleged network of anonymous "informants."

How nice.

That might upset Dr. Shades, but it wouldn't upset me. I have absolutely nothing invested in the success or survival of this board.

Yes, instead you hope it will go away. Well, it won't. Not until you make up your mind to atone for your "sins."

You imagine that my atoning for my supposed sins would make this board "go away"?

That's very weird.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Scartch, what will happen -- to the cosmos, to this board, to me -- if I don't "atone" for my alleged "sins," as you portray them?

Do you have plans for me? For the board? Something beyond the crusade you've already been conducting over the past two years or so?

Can you share? Or is it a secret?

[_Ray A]

I don't disapprove of pseudonyms. Using them to deliberately manipulate and deceives people is something else.

I'm not aware of anyone who posted on Z. at the time feeling that this was a major problem. He didn't overtly lie, and I don't think anyone "cornered" him on the issue, though most of us suspected it was DCP.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

"Scratch." I honestly believe you are suffering from some sort of mental disorder. I do not say that as an insult, I say it with concern. Some people from the old Z board have been in touch with me explaining that you were once a somewhat pleasant person, though you seemed very interested in seeking the approval of others. I suggest seeing a counselor.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

*sigh!*

Hi Dan,

I've corrected you multiple times on the points that I mentioned (though in fairness to my friends, I have no firsthand information that they actually contacted the news media; that's simply an assumption on my part).

By "subscription-based" I was referring to a FARMS subscription—I don't recall any other method for pre-ordering the RBBM at the time. In any event, readers are free to judge your repetitious assertions against my photographic evidence.

Your self-admitted addiction to online banter is a craze that I find difficult to indulge in. I have little interest in engaging interlocutors who brush off evidence with a hubristic flick of the rhetorical hand.

Best wishes,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_collegeterrace]

"Scratch." I honestly believe you are suffering from some sort of mental disorder. I do not say that as an insult, I say it with concern. Some people from the old Z board have been in touch with me explaining that you were once a somewhat pleasant person, though you seemed very interested in seeking the approval of others. I suggest seeing a counselor.

Holy s h i t, you are kidding, I hope?

How many boards do you and your Mormon idol (DCP) post on?

How often?

Do you post on boards that do not support your world view?

Why?

Has Scratch ever made public death threats toward anyone?

Have you or your Mormon idol DCP even made public death threats towards anyone?


Now then, who needs psychiatric help?

PS, In case you have not heard, in order to get married as commanded by your prophet, you need to DATE.

Spending all of your free time on these boards is not a wise choice for a single Mormon male. Like your hair line, time is disappearing. Act now before all that is left is divorced or old maid Sweet Spirits® with baggage.