Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Rollo Tomasi]

DCP has repeatedly made these sort of insinuations on this board - that due to his personal knowledge of Eric's family, he knows things that he cannot share. The heavy insinuation has always been that these things would be damaging to Eric. That's why his "test" post sounded believable. ... it certainly is possible that people who know Eric have read some of these things, and have damaged his reputation.

This was exactly my reaction when I read the post that apparently disclosed (finally) all the information DCP has frequently said that he possessed about GoodK's in real life issues. I had no clue that the information in DCP's post was not real. So much so, in fact, that I felt sorrow for GoodK for all the anguish and dysfunction.

I felt exactly the same way when I first read the post in question. DCP has dropped so many hints about what he "knew" of GoodK and his family and their past, that I considered his post to be finally divulging what he had threatened to reveal for some time. Until DCP's later 'confession,' I had no idea it was a so-called "test" post.

[_Nightingale]

First of all, I don't want to argue with you about this, Mr. Peterson. The various aspects that this situation brings out certainly make for an interesting discussion. It's just too bad that it pertains to at least two posters' real lives. That fact can get lost in the shuffle as others of us get absorbed into a general discussion about all the elements of this. I feel bad for both of you for the undoubted stress of it all.

I think the crux of this and other similar occurrences here is that the poster (and especially DCP it seems) thinks that their intent is all that matters and that it is completely transparent to all readers, when this is certainly not the case.

When it's expressly posted, in blue, I think it ought to be not transparent, but highly visible.

Oh - at that point I was referring to the original post, where you apparently disclosed some RL information about GoodK's issues. I was trying to say (apparently not very clearly) that (I imagine) you wrote what you did perhaps thinking that it was so obviously untrue that every reader would instantly realize it was a test or a parody or a spoof or whatever term you want to use to indicate that it was not actual fact and that you had no malicious intent; therefore, because you intended none, none would be perceived by GoodK or any reader. (Sorry for long sentence).

I see that in your follow up correction or clarification you used blue ink and that to you that indicates emphasis. But I was referring to your first post, not the retraction. for what it's worth, though, while it may be obvious to you that using a different-coloured font indicates emphasis, that is not necessarily perceived by others. Some people just like to use blue ink or red or orange and it doesn't indicate anything other than an individual's colour preference. I didn't realize there was any particular significance to your ink colour until you stated that there was.

On DCP's side, I would hope that consideration for his friend, GoodK's father, would help him to back away from trying to hurt the son.

I have never, ever, tried to hurt GoodK.

You want slander, Nightingale? You just wrote it.

Don't worry, though. I won't sue.

To be an absolute brat, let me just point out that it is impossible to "write" slander so therefore I am completely innocent.

To be serious, though, as certainly this issue is, I believe I read a post you wrote that said you do want to hurt GoodK, at least financially. That could be a paraphrase - you may have said "I don't want to hurt GoodK" but then added something to the effect that you want to take it as far as you can, etc. which undoubtedly would hurt Grosskreutz financially, just as it would you (unless you have 100% coverage for free, which may be the case from another comment you made).

If you look again at my comment above, I did not say you did hurt Grosskreutz. It was a general comment and a general turn of phrase about something that may occur in the future as an outcome to this potential lawsuit. It's two completely different things.

Therefore, I have not committed libel, or slander even. I am innocent in three different ways.

I would definitely not, as DCP suggested in another post, seek retribution against one-party-for-all-time for all past bad experiences and unresolved grievances as well as potential future clashes, more especially if said party were the son of a friend.

You seriously think that I should simply absorb any and all legal costs whenever anybody chooses to sue me? Do you realize how high they can be? Do you realize that anybody can sue anybody over anything? Do you realize that a person could be financially ruined simply by having to defend himself against lawsuits, even if none of them had any merit and even if he always "prevailed"?

No. I do not think that. But is it just to seek with one suit against a young man, who also happens to be the son of a friend, the definitive response to any and all past and future grievances and legal issues?

Yes. I am well aware of the high cost of obtaining legal help. I have been vastly hurt numerous times from lack of funds to enlist urgently-needed legal advice, not having a year's salary free to plunk down on the table just to launch an opening salvo.

Yes, I have heard that in America people are somewhat litigious. Our Canadian society is fast following suit (no pun intended).

I hope financial ruin would not be the outcome in that if a case is without merit a judge would see fit to give the innocent party a victory, with costs.

I understand this may not be a satisfying approach in the short term but I would consider that peace of mind, positive use of energy, wise use of financial and other resources, happiness in life, etc are much more desirable and productive than years of wrangling over issues that may seem mountainous now but when compared to other things amount to little enough to waste life's time and resources on. Maybe taking a few steps back and getting a different perspective could help both sides.

Preserving my home, my life savings, and my childrens' inheritances and dissuading people from attempting to seize them seems to me a pretty good use of energy and resources, and a reasonably sure way of maintaining my peace of mind.

Well, obviously we are very different people. But too, I definitely understand that the remarks that were posted re a potential lawsuit against you would put you on high alert. I am somewhat surprised that you didn't retrench and regroup, trying to mitigage or at least protect yourself from that point on, instead of continuing to discuss the situation, which could possibly give more ammunition to the other side.

I was thinking, though, that your goals as stated above could still be achieved if you were to protect yourself legally (obtain counsel, make contingency plans, etc) while not inflaming the situation (by making counter-claims).

But I understand you have a different approach, I understand your self-preservation (including family) instincts kicked in, I understand that you are just plain sick and tired of the innumerable pinpricks and worse that are your daily lot due to your chosen environments. I still say, though, why roll it all up into one big ball and lob it against GoodK? I'm saying, if you must sue/counter-sue, can it just be about this discrete issue and not about everything else all rolled in together? (Rhetorical question really, as you have no need to explain yourself to me). It's just that that was the part of your comments that struck me. I understand the desire to react - I'm just saying that I, myself, and me would likely try to keep the bigger picture in mind. Obviously, that is a general comment, as are most of the others, and it's way different when it's you in the frame and it is affecting your actual life, rather than just an abstract discussion about pieces of this whole big puzzle.

I think that if you had quietly retrenched in the background (getting prepared but not counter-attacking) maybe this wouldn't have got so heated or so public. Maybe Grosskreutz would have reconsidered or have received legal advice to do so.

In any case, it's nobody's business, obviously, and the specific people involved are the ones who have to actually deal with all the fallout in their actual lives, as opposed to other participants here who just like to discuss some of the aspects of it. We can get caught up in the interesting details and aspects and forget about the real-life people involved. I do regret it if that occurs as usually I try to think of the person and hope for the best for them.

But then again, you guys like to post about it too so obviously we're going to read it and feel a desire to comment.

I hope it all works out for all sides. I agree with the poster/s who said that the main players are the ones who have to work it all out in real life and none of the rest of us can say what any party should or should not do.

But we'll definitely discuss it. At least from my side, it is not meant to be personal or intrusive. I bear nobody in any of this any ill will. To the contrary, I hope it defuses but at the same time that the issues that gave rise to it can be resolved, on both sides.

[_Jersey Girl]

What about the physical threat to DCP that was in GoodK's announcement (of intent to sue) post?

[_Daniel Peterson]

To be an absolute brat, let me just point out that it is impossible to "write" slander so therefore I am completely innocent.

I'm perfectly well aware of the legal definition of slander. I was using slander in a more generic sense.

I still say, though, why roll it all up into one big ball and lob it against GoodK? I'm saying, if you must sue/counter-sue, can it just be about this discrete issue and not about everything else all rolled in together?

????

What else do you imagine I intend to do?

[_Daniel Peterson]

writing slamming books about Islam

I think I'm trapped in a carnival fun house.

Which of the fourteen volumes I've published thus far in my Middle Eastern Texts Initiative series (by al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Suhraward, Mulla Sadra, and the like) "slams" Islam? Or is it my LDS-oriented book on the Middle East, Abraham Divided? Or is it my biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007)?

It's something of a novelty for me to be accused of "writing slamming books about Islam."

and then selling it all for profit is still O K.

Oh yes. The vast sums of money I've earned from selling the books in the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative -- exactly $0.00, to this point (but then, we're not quite twenty years into the project) -- are only slightly behind the princely piles of gold I've amassed from Abraham Divided and Muhammad.

Perhaps it is time to funnel some coin into GoodK's pockets to help get this case moving forward.

Support the GoodK Legal Offense Fund!

[_Some Schmo]

GoodK cannot blame Daniel for the state of his relationship with his stepfather.

Right, just like you can't blame GoodK for DCP sending the link to his stepdad.

[_harmony]

GoodK cannot blame Daniel for the state of his relationship with his stepfather.

Right, just like you can't blame GoodK for DCP sending the link to his stepdad.

I don't. Do you?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Well, it's been well over twenty-four hours since the ego-stroking post calling for my banning was issued (by a poster completely unknown to me until now) and I'm afraid I still have no "change of plans" to report.

You still have not articulated the rationale behind your apparent belief that, although DCP can be sued for the (relatively benign) things he's posted on this board, you cannot be sued for the (often much worse) things you've posted.

I recall predicting that DCP would be able to file a counterclaim against you, and now see that he has indeed expressed his intent to do so. Vindication is sweet.

Think about the ultimate consequences of what you're doing here, GoodK. It won't end well for you if you continue down this road.

[Guest]

I still say, though, why roll it all up into one big ball and lob it against GoodK? I'm saying, if you must sue/counter-sue, can it just be about this discrete issue and not about everything else all rolled in together?

????

What else do you imagine I intend to do?

I thought you said something to the effect that this was going to be taken to the wall in response to your tough two years of being embroiled in another lawsuit, in addition but not limited to, all those who may get the inclination in the future to sue you. It sounded like you wanted to answer somewhat the previous situation, anything current as well as any potential future actions, all in one go. That's how that post came across to me. I don't have the exact quote to hand. It's time consuming trying to read and remember each and every post on this. I'm only reading two threads about it; I think it's only two but they're loooooooooooooooong.

That is where I got at least the impression, if not the exact words, that you did want to prove a point and this was a convenient time/place/issue to do so (massive paraphrase). I was somewhat surprised as I would have expected that Scratch would be the likely target for such an action.

Re the slander comments above, I hope it's clear that I did not say you did hurt Grosskreutz, wanted to hurt Grosskreutz, said you were trying to hurt Grosskreutz or anything of the kind. It was a general comment about a possible outcome of a protracted legal battle. That could not possibly even come close to being slander, libel, gossip, malicious or anything of that nature.

There is a huge difference between a general comment, a prediction, an opinion, a surmise, etc and a specific comment about a specific person stating something that is inaccurate, untrue or even harmful. I don't see how my comment about possible future hurt to Grosskreutz could possibly be taken as a statement of fact or of malicious intent or written to malign you. I could have equally said that Grosskreutz's potential suit could harm you (as is obvious on all the levels you mentioned). That would not be any kind of slanderous comment against Grosskreutz. It's my opinion about one possible and even likely outcome of such an action.

I think that a lot is lost in the translation in written communication, especially as we bring our own biases to it, not to mention our differing perceptions and preconceptions that can literally cause us to see something that isn't there (such as if we're feeling defensive and so we see criticism or malice where none is intended).

On another note, I do see and often regret that as the body of posters (on this and other boards) get involved in discussing different matters they go off on tangents, micro-dissect things, misunderstand pieces of it, think about how it applies to themselves, etc; in short, not paying a lot of attention to or acknowledging how the situation under discussion is playing out in real lives. It is a common oversight but understandable in this medium. For instance, and this is a less serious example than what we've been discussing, every time you write "Scratchoscopy" it cracks me up and now I note that other posters are also using that term. I find it highly amusing and in some cases that may be the only detail I notice about an entire discussion. If I post to say that's funny but don't refer to the actual discussion or issues it doesn't mean I don't care or I casually dismiss someone's pain or anything like that. It's just, again, the nature of this medium, I think. Easy to hone in on one detail, easy to write a quick quip, easy to take the whole thread on a tangent, easy to leave without addressing the main topic.

My point about the Scratchoscopy references is that if I were to write a little post just to say ha, that's funny, Scratch or other posters/readers could see it as a dismissal of a very real issue that he or they have raised. Also, which does occur frequently, it could be seen as support for you or your opinions. However, to me, my only thought was to post to say I enjoyed a laugh at that, without intent to show support or disdain for either side. It's all way more complex than that, in that I can agree with a certain point of Scratch's but not with other points, all in the same post and the same with your posts.

I have quite a few points and opinions on this particular topic (Grosskreutz etc) that I haven't begun to address nor do I plan to. Partly that is due to time constraints, partly due to not wanting to be collateral damage, if that could even happen, and partly trying to at least respect somewhat that it is a real life situation with serious consequences for real people. But occasionally I will read something about just one aspect of it all, maybe a totally picayune point, and will write a post about it, in isolation even. That does not necessarily indicate my entire opinion or even which "side" I take, if I do (which I don't in this case - I see merits and demerits on both sides).

That is all to say that one comment or post does not indicate my entire opinion in that if you perceive it as negative or "against" you that could be a misperception. I see a lot of that going on around here, not just on this topic or with these parties.

[_Some Schmo]

Right, just like you can't blame GoodK for DCP sending the link to his stepdad.

I don't. Do you?

Of course I don't, but it sure sounded like you did earlier in the thread.