Stan Barker and Tabloid Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

I disagreed with a generalization about a wide range of posts,

Yes, a "generalization" which can very reasonably be applied to the above-mentioned SHIELDS piece. Once again: what do you think of the SHIELDS piece?

particularly posts involving me and/or Louis Midgley.

Yes. If those postings bothered Cranston, I can only wonder what he would have thought about this Martin hit-piece.

That somebody else, not Louis Midgley and not I, did something of which I'm not overly fond is entirely consistent with my continued rejection of the broader generalization.

"Not overly fond"? Is that the best you can do? Wow. So stubborn. Don't you think it would be far nobler to simply condemn the piece? Do you worry that you will alienate valuable pawns in your maliciously obsessive Mopologetic crusade?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you worry that you will alienate valuable pawns in your maliciously obsessive Mopologetic crusade?

Golly. Why don't I rush to answer your every question?

[_Mister Scratch]

Prof. P.,

By any chance do you know who authored that SHIELDS piece? Or who did the research?

I have to admit, I find it pretty disturbing that the SHIELDS folks would take the time to go and track down the police officer's report like that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

By any chance do you know who authored that SHIELDS piece? Or who did the research?

No more than you do.

[_Mister Scratch]

By any chance do you know who authored that SHIELDS piece? Or who did the research?

No more than you do.

Then why not condemn it, and call the author to repentance?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then why not condemn it, and call the author to repentance?

Why bother?

It's from years ago. It doesn't involve me. I have nothing to do with it. I don't know who the author was. Nobody's been talking about it. Until you or one of your creepy network of anonymous "informants" dug it up, it had been forgotten. And, even here, no more than a handful of people are paying any attention. It's a non-issue.

Why don't you condemn it, and call the author to repentance? Leave a note in the SHIELDS guest book, or take out an ad in the Los Angeles Times, or something.

There must be literally tens of thousands of things on the Web and elsewhere that I could condemn. I choose my causes.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's from years ago. It doesn't involve me. I have nothing to do with it. I don't know who the author was. Nobody's been talking about it.

It's reasonable to assume that the author is a member of l-skinny. You could have very easily ordered the piece taken down. You could have condemned it. (And you still can!) That you choose not to is quite telling.

Until you or one of your creepy network of anonymous "informants" dug it up, it had been forgotten.

Had it? Anyways, what's creepier---that someone would pass along a message to me about this SHIELDS posting, or that some SHIELDS "associate" went looking for the police report on Walter Martin's death? Oh, wait: that's right. You approve of digging around and prying into people's personal lives. You do it yourself, in fact. Just ask GoodK.

There must be literally tens of thousands of things on the Web and elsewhere that I could condemn. I choose my causes.

As you yourself have pointed out, you are a figurehead and example-setter in the world of Mopologetics. Think about it: Pres. Obama (whom you appear to loathe---gee, I wonder why?) condemned Rev. Wright. Sometimes decrying bad behavior is the right thing to do.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's reasonable to assume that the author is a member of l-skinny [sic].

I have no idea whether that's true or not.

You could have very easily ordered the piece taken down.

On what basis would I have issued that "order"?

It's not my website.

I don't suffer from a Napoleon complex.

You could have condemned it.

I didn't even know it was on SHIELDS until you announced it on this thread.

I heard about the story very vaguely years ago, and hadn't thought about it since. Not, I think, even once.

(And you still can!) That you choose not to is quite telling.

I hope it tells you that I'm not your trained seal.

You approve of digging around and prying into people's personal lives. You do it yourself, in fact. Just ask GoodK.

I know somebody even better placed than GoodK: me.

I've done no digging or prying into GoodK's personal life.

I just happen to know things, because I've known his stepdad for twenty years or so. And I know things that I haven't told and won't tell. You really ought not to believe your own accusations about what a monster I am. They mislead you badly.

Pres. Obama (whom you appear to loathe---gee, I wonder why?)

I don't "loathe" President Obama. (Am I witnessing the birth of yet another absurd charge against me?)

I did, however, vote against him. I make no secret of the fact that I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's reasonable to assume that the author is a member of l-skinny [sic].

I have no idea whether that's true or not.

It's reasonable to assume, though.

You could have very easily ordered the piece taken down.

On what basis would I have issued that "order"?

It's not my website.

I don't suffer from a Napoleon complex.

By simply condemning it, I have very strong reason to believe that it would have been taken down. Come on now, Dan. You know already that the MAD/FAIR moderators cater to you, and ban critics whom you find problematic, without you ever having to say anything. Surely you must realize that if you *actively* protested Mopologetic wrongdoing, we would all notice the change.

You could have condemned it.

I didn't even know it was on SHIELDS until you announced it on this thread.

I heard about the story very vaguely years ago, and hadn't thought about it since. Not, I think, even once.

Well, now you know. Will you act?

(And you still can!) That you choose not to is quite telling.

I hope it tells you that I'm not your trained seal.

No. It tells me that, when confronted with appalling Mopologetic behavior, you go silent, despite your status as Chief Mopologist.

I've done no digging or prying into GoodK's personal life.

How about this: you approve of flaunting private information. Is that more accurate?

I just happen to know things, because I've known his stepdad for twenty years or so. And I know things that I haven't told and won't tell. You really ought not to believe your own accusations about what a monster I am. They mislead you badly.

You really ought not to put words into my mouth. "Monster" is your hyperbole; not mine.

In any case, I'm still curious what you think about the fact that SHIELDS went and got Martin's death report. Your thoughts?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's reasonable to assume, though.

Assume whatever you want.

You don't know exactly who's on Skinny-L. (I'm not sure even I do.) And neither of us knows who wrote the piece for SHIELDS. So assume away! In the absence of adequate information, it's pretty safe.

You know already that the MAD/FAIR moderators cater to you, and ban critics whom you find problematic, without you ever having to say anything.

And I don't say anything.

I've never given an "order" to the moderators at MADB, where I participate actively, let alone to the people who run SHIELDS, which I very rarely visit.

I have no aspiration to become a petty, meddlesome, self-anointed, wannabe tyrant.

Well, now you know. Will you act?

No.

How about this: you approve of flaunting private information. Is that more accurate?

No.

In any case, I'm still curious what you think about the fact that SHIELDS went and got Martin's death report. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are, Curiosity is a very good thing.

And if any non-Scratch is curious about this matter, he or she is welcome to drop me a PM and I'll happily answer it.

I dunno. I just don't feel like jumping through hoops for my Malevolent Stalker. Even simple ones.

I have no problem, though, with reasonable people who don't bear me ill will. No problem at all.