If I did It: Chapter 2 - The Plan

[Guest]

If I Did It: Confessions of an SMPT Imposter

by

Gadianton P. Robbers, Phd

Chapter 2
The Plan

Most people seem to think that if I did it, I must have had planned the ruse carefully. Or rather, I must have had some point I meant to prove and had thought everything through very carefully. In fact, one commentator on the situation, a resident by the name of Liz commented,

It was pretty elaborate satire, though.....it lasted for months....actually close to a year. For those of us who really aren't up on all of these seminars and how they work, we really didn't "get the joke".

This is false. It's one of many, many false statements Liz has made and one has to wonder if it is a ruse of her own for the sake of twisting my arm into the clarifications I never gave when she demanded them. However, the spark to tell my "what if" story didn't come from Liz, LoaP, DCP, or even the magnimonious Doctor Scratch, but from Dr. Shades. Doctor Shades's explanation was pure genius, and there are a few other good interpretations I can think of that would tie the whole thing together into a great commentary on apologetics or even on the nature of belief in general, but alas, if I did it, it would be a lie for me to claim any of these cool interpretations. If I did it, it might be said that any guilt I might have felt would be over others thinking I had pulled off something really amazing that I carefully planned ahead of time. I would feel guilty taking that kind of credit, if I did it.

The "elaborate satire" which lasted for "close to a year" all started January 11th of 2009 on this thread. Soon, we will explore the intricities of the various posts on this thread and what they might mean in a hypothetical universe where I did it. But I encourage the reader to patiently read this thread beginning to end and think about it to herself, if I did it, would this have been "elaborate satire" that could have fooled anyone but the most seasoned academics who live their lives at conferences? Or would it have been completely boneheaded satire directed toward some other end? While I honestly feel I could simply post a link to this thread and skip the book, I will continue with the book anyway. No one can pretend, given the amount of energy put into chastising me over the last few days, that they aren't interested. I will assume disinterest will be claimed by some of my book, and they should assume that this will not stop me from finishing as actions speak louder than words.

If I did it, I would have been surprised how long this has lasted too. In fact, I would be surprised that it is still going on, and will continue to go on indefinitely. Because when (and if) the "ruse" started, there was no plan whatsoever. There wasn't a point to be made about apologetics, Mormonism, or anything at all. In fact, the exact opposite is true, the objective was banal pointlessness on any intellectual level. This for the sake of course, of an objective, but it was originally, a very short term objective.

But while I had no plan, I soon came to realize that the apologists did. And that, my friends, changed everything.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Like I said, this explanation was an after-the-fact thing. I had no other intention than to meet Gad, talk about our respective papers, have fun at the conference, and that's about it. I've already posted the pm's I sent Gad. Anyone can read them and see my intention there.

This is dumb.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Like I said, this explanation was an after-the-fact thing. I had no other intention than to meet Gad, talk about our respective papers, have fun at the conference, and that's about it. I've already posted the pm's I sent Gad. Anyone can read them and see my intention there.

This is dumb.

Yes, I read them, LoaP, and I understood your intention to be to attack Gad and to think of ways to undermine his presentation prior to the conference. Nothing you have ever done on this board would lead me to believe that you are in any way tolerant or decent to people who are critical of your views. That, taken into account with your thousands of other posts and blog entries, ought to be enough to convince anyone that you are on a rage-fueled, multi-year vendetta to destroy critics. In your "lunch invite" messages to me, you made it clear that you though I needed to "work things out." How 'bout examining yourself, boy-o?

[_Gadianton]

you and DCP get awful worked up over things you think are "dumb".

If I did it, that in itself might be very entertaining.

(ps, your post made no sense. Did you read Chapter 2 or just skim it? Did you read the link I provided? At this stage in the book, nothing you have said or done registers. Your reflections of DCP come into play far later in the book, in a few chapters, I don't know why you are explaining yourself on this thread as nothing in it is about you).

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nothing you have ever done on this board would lead me to believe that you are in any way tolerant or decent to people who are critical of your views. That, taken into account with your thousands of other posts and blog entries, ought to be enough to convince anyone that you are on a rage-fueled, multi-year vendetta to destroy critics.

It was appalling even to a vicious thug like myself to watch LOAP repeatedly pummel this board's Chris Smith in Claremont. Poor Chris may still be in the hospital. It took five of Claremont's finest to pull the enraged, vengeful LOAP from his victim's bleeding and broken body.

[_Dr. Shades]

However, the spark to tell my "what if" story didn't come from Liz, LoaP, DCP, or even the magnimonious Doctor Scratch, but from Dr. Shades. Doctor Shades's explanation was pure genius, . . .

Why, thank you!

. . . and there are a few other good interpretations I can think of that would tie the whole thing together into a great commentary on apologetics or even on the nature of belief in general, but alas, if I did it, it would be a lie for me to claim any of these cool interpretations.

So I was wrong? Dang. I thought I had it figured out.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've just returned from examining myself. All vital signs are good. Rage level is normal. Have yet to successfully destroy any evil intellectuals.

[_harmony]

I've just returned from examining myself. All vital signs are good. Rage level is normal. Have yet to successfully destroy any evil intellectuals.

My emphasis.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gad is a professor at BYU, any of the BYUs. Let's say he presents at the Claremont conference under his real name and on the subject he talked about here... and meets you. Most of the people at the conference wouldn't know him as Gadianton from MDB, just you and Daniel and maybe California Kid. So... what would you do, if you thought the man you met was Gadianton? Would you report him to the BYU faculty gestapo, based on his words here? Would you wait for Daniel to out him? Could he trust you to keep his on-board anonymity intact? What is your track record with that sort of thing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gad is a professor at BYU, any of the BYUs. Let's say he presents at the Claremont conference under his real name and on the subject he talked about here... and meets you. Most of the people at the conference wouldn't know him as Gadianton from MDB, just you and Daniel and maybe California Kid. So... what would you do, if you thought the man you met was Gadianton? Would you report him to the BYU faculty gestapo, based on his words here?

Could you tell us more about this BYU faculty gestapo? I'm unfamiliar with it.

Would you wait for Daniel to out him? Could he trust you to keep his on-board anonymity intact? What is your track record with that sort of thing?

I don't know about LOAP, but it sounds as if I may have a lengthy track record of betraying my colleagues. I wasn't aware of that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've just returned from examining myself. All vital signs are good. Rage level is normal. Have yet to successfully destroy any evil intellectuals.

My emphasis.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Gad is a professor at BYU, any of the BYUs. Let's say he presents at the Claremont conference under his real name and on the subject he talked about here... and meets you. Most of the people at the conference wouldn't know him as Gadianton from MDB, just you and Daniel and maybe California Kid. So... what would you do, if you thought the man you met was Gadianton? Would you report him to the BYU faculty gestapo, based on his words here? Would you wait for Daniel to out him? Could he trust you to keep his on-board anonymity intact? What is your track record with that sort of thing?

They're not going to answer. They basically have two options: to lie, or to admit that they'd throw him under the bus. We already have multiple examples of what the apologists do to critics: Mike Quinn, Simon Southerton, Grant Palmer. Etc.

I don't know about LOAP, but it sounds as if I may have a lengthy track record of betraying my colleagues. I wasn't aware of that.

"Lengthy"? I don't know about that, but you didn't have much of a problem tossing this individual under the bus:

I don't know precisely what the then-chairman of Ancient Scripture had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty over the Hebraists in Asian and Near Eastern Languages. The response (not only from me but from others, including his dean) was so immediately negative that we never got into the details.

Kevin Graham is another former apologist you no longer seem capable of getting along with.