DCP makes this board

[_Yoda]

Which isn't really comparable, because the FARMS Review is a print journal that publishes lengthy articles while RFM is a message board that features short back-and-forth conversations. A "hit" that is registered by reading a one-liner is not equivalent to a hit that involves reading a lengthy footnoted article.

Actually, the RfM site, or exmormon.org, does contain a variety of articles and exit stories. The message board is a part of the overall site.

RfM's statement on the front page of its' site states the following:

In 2007, we averaged 185,000+ hits per day including our Bulletin Boards!!

The main message board, or "Recovery Board", receives 170,000 of these hits. That would leave roughly 15,000 hits left for the various articles.

Therefore, if you are comparing hits for reading articles, it looks like FARMS has a distinctly larger amount of hits.

That doesn't seem to me even remotely correct. There are critics on the MADB who have been there, doing reasonably well, for months and even years. The life of a defender of Mormonism on RFM, from my observation, has seldom if ever exceeded a day, and typically lasts only a few minutes. Pro-Mormon posts are routinely deleted altogether within a few moments of appearing. And it isn't a question of their tone. It's a question of their being pro-LDS.

I have to agree with LifeOnAPlate's assessment, that you can't really compare the two boards. The RfM message board is specifically catering to ex Church members, and those who participate on the board are mainly people who have left the Church, and are trying to adapt to a life without the Church in it. I have not visited RfM in quite some time, but it never really struck me as a debate board like MAD or Shades' board is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The administrators of RfM have stated a number of times that you and Bill Hamblin had to be "booted" off the site after you were repeatedly asked to leave.

Where have they stated this?

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that they have stated it, their statement is false.

I was never asked to leave, and I don't believe that I've ever been "booted" -- though it's possible that a post or two of mine were deleted.

And in all honesty, why should we trust you on this issue?

Because I'm not a liar, notwithstanding your fevered and hostile fantasies about me.

You don't exactly have a good track record in terms of admitting to your many sockpuppets, right "FreeThinker"? Or "Logic Chopper"? Or "Fritz"? Or however many aliases you have used over the years?

Probably four. (You forgot "Lady Catherine.")

Overwhelmingly, though, by light years, I've used my own name. As I do here. As I do on MADB. As I did on those few occasions on RFM.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the RfM administrators.

That would scarcely be a surprise.

]

I don't appreciate your obvious distortion. If you'd like, I can repost his disgusting comments and you can go about trying to spin them. It would be interesting to watch you try and defend such inflammatory, deeply offensive language.

Whatever floats your boat.

I don't defend the language, and neither does Bill. That was his point.

It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

Jokes don't always reveal deep psychic "needs."[/quote]

As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics.

That's not at all what I said.

And I can't imagine that anyone would find it devastating to my credibility that I've sometimes gotten a royalty check for a lecture CD or that I've occasionally collected $50 for an article or that, once in a while, somebody's paid my gas when I gave a fireside.

And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

What, exactly, did I "admit"? And, if I admitted it "behind the scenes" to this board's moderators, why are they telling you this?

I find your disclosure troubling.

Scottie, if there's really been some sort of intelligence-sharing with Scratch on the basis of our exchange the other day, do you want me to post your note to me and my response to you? (I suspect you don't, so I would appreciate some clarification of Scratch's allegation here.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

It is a tacit admission, is it not? If you say, "We will allow discussion of you, since you are a paid Mopologist," and he agrees, is that not an admission?

Oh come on.

I let that one slip by in a private exchange because I was being friendly and accommodating. I'm a nice guy, easy-going.

Strictly speaking, it's not false: I have received the occasional royalty or gasoline check.

But there's no way it legitimates your entire demonological fantasy about my ill-gotten "Mopologetic wealth."

[_Daniel Peterson]

These do, unfortunately. As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics. And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

[Just to be clear here, Dr Peterson never admitted any such thing.

He agreed with our decision. Period. That was the extent of it.]

Thank you.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't defend the language, and neither does Bill. That was his point.

Ah, okay. Interesting that you think that way. I'm sure you'll find that Michael Richards was similarly trying to make a "point."

As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics.

That's not at all what I said.

And I can't imagine that anyone would find it devastating to my credibility that I've sometimes gotten a royalty check for a lecture CD or that I've occasionally collected $50 for an article or that, once in a while, somebody's paid my gas when I gave a fireside.

It's more complicated than all of that, of course. Would you like people to know about the multi-million dollar "engine" that funds all of this stuff? Would you like them to know that you are essentially financing a "hobby" that engages in all manner of rank attack?

And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

What, exactly, did I "admit"? And, if I admitted it "behind the scenes" to this board's moderators, why are they telling you this?

I find your disclosure troubling.

Scottie, if there's really been some sort of intelligence-sharing with Scratch on the basis of our exchange the other day, do you want me to post your note to me and my response to you? (I suspect you don't, so I would appreciate some clarification of Scratch's allegation here.)

Wow! Such paranoia! Ooohhh... are the MDB boogeymen coming to get you, Dan? Are they monitoring your computer activities? Are the black helicopters circling?

Scottie posted this on pg. 4 of the "DCP 'Jokes' About His Wealth" thread:

[Since you pointed this out, I think an explanation might be in order.

We discussed this as moderators and decided that since DCP is a paid apologist, that he is a subject of Mormonism, just as the Prophet or the apostles might be. He is fair game for criticisms. NOT for personal attacks. There is most certainly a fine line between the two, and for the most part it has not crossed it, with the exception of what Chris has already moderated.

I spoke privately with Dr Peterson about this and he agreed with our decision.

Again, you may criticise Dr Peterson as an apologist. Anything beyond that is off limits and will be censored just like everyone else.]

Gee, to think that you were willing to just toss and innocent such as Scottie into the flames all due to your abject hatred of me. Try being less paranoid in the future, Dan. That way, your own accusations of paranoia directed towards others might hold some legitimate weight.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, to think that you were willing to just toss and innocent such as Scottie into the flames all due to your abject hatred of me.

????

Am I on Candid Camera?

[_Yoda]

It is a tacit admission, is it not? If you say, "We will allow discussion of you, since you are a paid Mopologist," and he agrees, is that not an admission?

No, it is not a tacit admission of anything.

DCP is a "celebrity" of sorts when it comes to apologetics. Based on his exposure due to his involvement with FARMS and his editorial work with the Maxwell Institute, it makes sense that discussions surrounding him in this capacity would be allowed.

DCP has stated quite plainly on this site in MULTIPLE threads EXACTLY what he was paid for in regards to apologetics. If you want to start a discussion on this issue (yet again), please do so on another thread.

[_Yoda]

Or "Fritz"?

Actually, Fritz was DCP's moniker on the site that Kevin and I hosted. However, if I recall correctly, he admitted who he was in either his first or second post. The Moniker was basically a joke. Everyone knew who he was.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is a tacit admission, is it not? If you say, "We will allow discussion of you, since you are a paid Mopologist," and he agrees, is that not an admission?

No, it is not a tacit admission of anything.

Then how would you characterize it in lieu of Scottie's post?

DCP is a "celebrity" of sorts when it comes to apologetics. Based on his exposure due to his involvement with FARMS and his editorial work with the Maxwell Institute, it makes sense that discussions surrounding him in this capacity would be allowed.

Except....when? When they irritate you, Liz?

DCP has stated quite plainly on this site in MULTIPLE threads EXACTLY what he was paid for in regards to apologetics.

Where, Liz? I bet you cannot locate a single post they lays out "EXACTLY" what the payment has been. In fact, The Good Professor has said, to the contrary, that he will not tell us since it is "none of anybody's business."

If you want to start a discussion this issue (yet again), please do so on another thread.

I personally don't care whether there is another discussion on this topic.

I'd just like to see DCP shrug all of this off and simply admit that he gets paid to do apologetics. In fact, I suggest that he change the thing over his avatar from "cauldron of hate" to "Paid LDS Apologist." Do you think he'll do it?

[_Yoda]

Then how would you characterize it in lieu of Scottie's post?

I would characterize it by exactly what I wrote here:

DCP is a "celebrity" of sorts when it comes to apologetics. Based on his exposure due to his involvement with FARMS and his editorial work with the Maxwell Institute, it makes sense that discussions surrounding him in this capacity would be allowed.

Except....when? When they irritate you, Liz?

As Scottie stated...threads regarding criticisms of DCP's apologetic work are fair game. Threads which personally attack DCP are not...unless they are started in Telestial.

Where, Liz? I bet you cannot locate a single post they lays out "EXACTLY" what the payment has been. In fact, The Good Professor has said, to the contrary, that he will not tell us since it is "none of anybody's business."

I have no desire or energy to look up DCP's quotes from the IRS thread. Although DCP has not made an accounting of everything he has made in apologetics over the years(which, of course, he has no obligation to do), he has, on multiple occasions, indicated that although he has received royalties for books and articles written, this is a small portion of his overall income. His main income stems from his career as a Professor for Brigham Young University. You choose not to believe him, so the whole argument is a rather tiring he said/he said game.