The FROB Submission Guidlines

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I think the best course of action is to simply ignore Dan Peterson and move on with your life.

Yet another reason why I won't "do lunch" with you, LoaP. Your motive aren't pure: you are all about trying to defend DCP, and trying to manipulate me into doing what you want---i.e., getting me to shut up.

I don't often presume to be able to know another person's motives. In this case, you simply have me wrong. I'm interested in lunch with you to get to know a real person rather than an Internet persona. Perhaps by doing that we would better be able to find common ground or understand each other better. I'm not trying to manipulate you, I am looking at the cost analysis of your interactions with DCP. They seem overwhelmingly (if not singularly) negative. If you think DCP is a bad guy, you're welcome to do so, as I said above. But you spend an awful lot of time and energy going after him. Wouldn't your life be more serene if you simply let Dan go off and do what Dan will do? For your own sake, don't you have better things to do? Maybe you do, I don't know. I don't really know anything about you other than the mask you wear here, for whatever that is worth (and in my estimation it isn't worth much.) In the past I have also said rude things to you, and for that I apologize. Will you accept this olive branch that I am personally extending? Sounds like we'll have an opportunity soon.

I've said now a number of times that I would permanently end my posting career if DCP would simply cop to and apologize for these "many evils." Apparently, though, that's too much to ask. So: tough beans to the both of you. You can continue to enjoy the succor of your own hatred and anger.

I'm not Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson can do whatever he wants. Yes, he has written or said things in the past that make me say "well that wasn't a Christlike approach," absolutely. He'll admit that as well. On the other hand, I seem to understand that DCP is sarcastic and enjoys a good laugh. This reflects in his writing.

Either way, I'm not his keeper, I'm not his boss, I'm not in charge of him, and I certainly don't believe it is my place to judge him. I rather like him, actually. I've met him several times, I've read a lot of his stuff. You lump us in together, presumably because I don't think he is evil. Well, perhaps we can leave Dan Peterson out of it altogether (as I initially offered) and go from there.

[_rcrocket]

My challenge to Scratch remains.

Pick any large private university with a theological department and then we'll compare to FARMS Review the submission guidelines for all of the journals, not just theological, published by the university.

Once again, I know you won't and you can't. You are afraid to do so. I have issued this challenge several times here, and several times in the past.

Instead, you just want to pick apart my posts, challenge what I have said in the past.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't really know anything about you other than the mask you wear here, for whatever that is worth (and in my estimation it isn't worth much.) In the past I have also said rude things to you, and for that I apologize. Will you accept this olive branch that I am personally extending? Sounds like we'll have an opportunity soon.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, LoaP, but due to a variety of factors, I've had to cancel my trip. Maybe next time, eh?

I've said now a number of times that I would permanently end my posting career if DCP would simply cop to and apologize for these "many evils." Apparently, though, that's too much to ask. So: tough beans to the both of you. You can continue to enjoy the succor of your own hatred and anger.

I'm not Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson can do whatever he wants. Yes, he has written or said things in the past that make me say "well that wasn't a Christlike approach," absolutely. He'll admit that as well.

He will? When and/or where? *I* will pay for our lunch, LoaP, if you can provide evidence for this! But let's be specific here and divide the 'evidence' into three arenas:

1) "joking" admissions of guilt, where DCP apologizes for absurd things like the holocaust
2) actual admissions to actual offenses
3) admissions to the criticism I have leveled against him.

Heck, if you can cough up something for #3, I may consider "outing" myself and posting a picture to the board.

[_Mister Scratch]

My challenge to Scratch remains.

Pick any large private university with a theological department and then we'll compare to FARMS Review the submission guidelines for all of the journals, not just theological, published by the university.

Oh, is FARMS Review actually published by BYU's theology department? If so, that's news to me. Because it would need to be for your proposed comparison to make sense. Right?

Once again, I know you won't and you can't. You are afraid to do so. I have issued this challenge several times here, and several times in the past.

Instead, you just want to pick apart my posts, challenge what I have said in the past.

Bob, I just supplied the name of a journal. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to compare.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't really know anything about you other than the mask you wear here, for whatever that is worth (and in my estimation it isn't worth much.) In the past I have also said rude things to you, and for that I apologize. Will you accept this olive branch that I am personally extending? Sounds like we'll have an opportunity soon.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, LoaP, but due to a variety of factors, I've had to cancel my trip. Maybe next time, eh?

Benchmark books canceled.

He will? When and/or where? *I* will pay for our lunch, LoaP, if you can provide evidence for this! But let's be specific here and divide the 'evidence' into three arenas:

1) "joking" admissions of guilt, where DCP apologizes for absurd things like the holocaust
2) actual admissions to actual offenses
3) admissions to the criticism I have leveled against him.

Heck, if you can cough up something for #3, I may consider "outing" myself and posting a picture to the board.

Well, Scratch, your version of things is generally twisted in with implications of motives, etc. (something you apparently believe that DCP does in regards to Mike Quinn etc., yet you feel comfortable doing the same thing). So as for #3 I don't find that very likely.

As for an admission of some inappropriate behavior, during Dan's FAIR conference address he spoke about a night on his mission when he had a bash with a Jehovah's Witness. He feels that logically he destroyed the man's arguments, but the more they did so the worse he felt about it. What good did that do? "Nothing." Now, you can say that Dan didn't learn well enough from this experience, and you can point to other things he has said or done, but the fact is, here is a clear example of Dan talking about something he did that was wrong.

Dan wasn't joking at this point, he was dead serious here. This clearly qualifies under your number 2.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... etics.html

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, Scratch, your version of things is generally twisted in with implications of motives, etc. (something you apparently believe that DCP does in regards to Mike Quinn etc., yet you feel comfortable doing the same thing). So as for #3 I don't find that very likely.

Huh? DCP has said, in effect, that Quinn's work is "untrustworthy," and he has supported the notion that Quinn is a "bad historian." On top of this, he peddled the insinuation up and down the FAIR & MAD boards that Quinn was ex'ed for homosexual sin.

Why do *you* think he did that?

As for an admission of some inappropriate behavior, during Dan's FAIR conference address he spoke about a night on his mission when he had a bash with a Jehovah's Witness. He feels that logically he destroyed the man's arguments, but the more they did so the worse he felt about it. What good did that do? "Nothing." Now, you can say that Dan didn't learn well enough from this experience, and you can point to other things he has said or done, but the fact is, here is a clear example of Dan talking about something he did that was wrong.

Did he apologize?

And yes, you're right: I'm not very impressed with an anecdote that stretches clear back to his mission, especially when he has devoted the past 25+ years of his life to "bashing" with Church critics.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It clearly qualifies for your number 2 in that list, Scratch. You can shift the goal posts, but it's obvious that you are doing so. After all, you numbered the things you were looking for and I provided one.

Where have you ever conceded a point to Dan Peterson?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The following is a standard response: Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. I flatly deny virtually every allegation Master Scartch has ever made against me, and this one is no exception. I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time, especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_ludwigm]

...
The following is a standard response:
...

Dear Mr. Daniel C. Peterson!

I hate personal attacks, as far as I know I did use it on very rare occasions.
If I see such things on these threads, I ignore them (see button "page down").
You know, I am european, if You know what does it mean.

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome. I didn't, don't and will not use the f/f list. Unfortunately, there is no such function as filter by content.

Please use some code instead, for example TFIASR. It could be more easy to jump over.

Regards
Ludwig, Hungary, Europe, Old World

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your "standard response" is boring and tiresome.

That, of course, is partly the point.*

The object is to reduce the gratification that the Scartchmeister derives from his endless assaults on me and on people and things connected with me. When I respond to him, it gives him an unmistakable thrill of satisfaction and simply exacerbates his problem. The theory is that, if I don't engage him in the perpetual and utterly futile back-and-forth that he plainly craves, his level of Scartcholeptic arousal will decline.

It's an experimental treatment, obviously, and this is merely a clinical trial. But I'm cautiously optimistic that, even if the disease itself cannot actually be cured yet, the effects of acute congenital Scartcholepsy can be moderated, without drugs.


* The "standard response" also conveys valid information (e.g., the on-line address of the FARMS Review, to enable populations exposed to Scartcholepsy and therefore at risk for contracting the disease to examine the FARMS Review and to determine for themselves that the Scartchmeister's characterizations of it are wildly distorted and unfair). And it saves me considerable time.


$$$$$$$$$