If I Did It: Chapter 4 - "Business and Politics"

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don’t find Scratch’s constant analysis of your character particularly interesting or justified. But I think that Gad’s satire was both interesting and justified – and funny.

Beastie---

I don't really think this is a fair comment. How many of my posts from the last year or two were devoted to "constant analysis" of DCP's character? The last few threads I started were about: SHIELDS (a couple threads, actually), Will Schryver, the FARMS Ziggurat, and things like that. DCP often *claims* that I do nothing but try to "blacken his character," but surely you of all people can see that that's a rather huge exaggeration. Just today I received edited by harmony: rule #3The truth is that I'm far more interested in Mopologetics as a subject, but I suppose it can be hard to see that when Dr. Peterson shows up on practically every single thread and insists that, rather than talking about apologetics, I'm actually talking about him personally.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm agonized by the dilemma.

Look. It's your board, Scratch. Really, it seems to me to be essentially yours. Do with it what you want. Those who enjoy what you do will continue to enjoy it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just today I received edited by harmony: rule #3.

I wonder if that's before or after edited by harmony: rule #3and, as it happened, you've done it with roughly eleven hours to spare.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Just today I received edited by harmony: rule #3.

I wonder if that's before or after edited by harmony: rule #3

Really? That's fascinating, Dr. Peterson! Actually, a lot of important scholars have PMed me with various interesting tidbits. Did each of them contact you in order to clue you in that I was actually being "tricked" or whatever?

edited by harmony: rule #3, and, as it happened, you've done it with roughly eleven hours to spare.

Laughing? Aw, how horrible. Should I respond with moral indignation and grim humorlessness?

Wow, how bitter you are, Dan. Perhaps instead of boasting about your "great sense of humor," you should work on actually developing one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Really? That's fascinating, Dr. Peterson! Actually, a lot of important scholars have PMed me with various interesting tidbits. Did each of them contact you in order to clue you in that I was actually being "tricked" or whatever?

Most of them did. I'd have to check my list to be sure whether all of them have checked in.

And I know that there are at least three important scholars who, having consulted with me, still intend to PM you in the near term. (One shared a really amusing story about your misadventures as a sophomore.) Don't go too far from your computer.

Laughing? Aw, how horrible. Should I respond with moral indignation and grim humorlessness?

Sure. Why change your M.O. now?

Wow, how bitter you are, Dan. Perhaps instead of boasting about your "great sense of humor," you should work on actually developing one.

Too difficult. Simply beyond me. Besides, my ponderous humorlessness is one of my most widely known and recognizable characteristics.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Really? That's fascinating, Dr. Peterson! Actually, a lot of important scholars have PMed me with various interesting tidbits. Did each of them contact you in order to clue you in that I was actually being "tricked" or whatever?

Most of them did. I'd have to check my list to be sure whether all of them have checked in.

And I know that there are at least three important scholars who, having consulted with me, still intend to PM you in the near term. (One shared a really amusing story about your misadventures as a sophomore.) Don't go too far from your computer.

Lol. Ooo! Oh no! DCP might know who I am! What am I going to do?

Really, Dr. Peterson. This is pretty low. You must be feeling awfully desperate to stoop to these sorts of tactics. It must really anger you to think that a lot of key players in the Mopologist-Critic "battle" are PMing me either with "tidbits," or "congrats," or whatever else. I bet it's nearly enough to send you packing, or to post one of your classic, "Well, this board no longer interests me, so blah blah blah."

Wow, how bitter you are, Dan. Perhaps instead of boasting about your "great sense of humor," you should work on actually developing one.

Too difficult. Simply beyond me. Besides, my ponderous humorlessness is one of my most widely known and recognizable characteristics.

Well, I guess that's true.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lol. Ooo! Oh no! DCP might know who I am! What am I going to do?

Really, Dr. Peterson. This is pretty low. You must be feeling awfully desperate to stoop to these sorts of tactics.

Don't forget, Scratch, that your own demonology holds that I'm the one who's supposd to be grimly humorless.

It must really anger you to think that a lot of key players in the Mopologist-Critic "battle" are PMing me either with "tidbits," or "congrats," or whatever else.

LOL. Not only doesn't it "anger" me, I don't even believe it's true.

You're malignant, but a cipher.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol. Ooo! Oh no! DCP might know who I am! What am I going to do?

Really, Dr. Peterson. This is pretty low. You must be feeling awfully desperate to stoop to these sorts of tactics.

Don't forget, Scratch, that your own demonology holds that I'm the one who's supposd to be grimly humorless.

Well, no. Not quite. You've got a couple of things wrong. For one thing, folks like Beastie and Gadianton have been pointing out your grimly serious pomposity, so it's not really accurate to claim that it's "my" demonology. Also, why "demonology"? Your posts over the course of the past week or so have shown that this is pretty much a reality, rather than a "demonology."

It must really anger you to think that a lot of key players in the Mopologist-Critic "battle" are PMing me either with "tidbits," or "congrats," or whatever else.

LOL. Not only doesn't it "anger" me, I don't even believe it's true.

You're malignant, but a cipher.

Yup. I'm such a non-entity that dozens upon dozens of people have fed me all kinds of information. It probably troubles you greatly to think that such a thing could be true. And come on now: Do you really think that all of the material I've posted---stuff ranging from semi-obscure .pdf files, to nearly hidden SHIELDS stuff, to old Will Schryver posts---honestly, even if I was the manically obsessed person you'd like to paint me as being, I still doubt that I'd have enough time to track down all of that stuff. Face it, Dr. P.: the reality is that you've made so many enemies over the years that lots of people are willing to send me all kinds of stuff---people of every rank and stripe and level of accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics.. You can pretend that what I'm saying isn't true, if that makes you feel better. But I think that even you are going to have a hard time ignoring the basic reality of the situation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, no. Not quite. You've got a couple of things wrong. For one thing, folks like Beastie and Gadianton have been pointing out your grimly serious pomposity

Oh oh. Reliable, objective sources who know me intimately.

I'm toast.

Yup. I'm such a non-entity that dozens upon dozens of people have fed me all kinds of information.

Are you sure it's not myriads of legions of people?

Yup. You're a cipher.

It probably troubles you greatly to think that such a thing could be true.

I don't think it's true.

And come on now: Do you really think that all of the material I've posted---stuff ranging from semi-obscure .pdf files, to nearly hidden SHIELDS stuff, to old Will Schryver posts---honestly, even if I was the manically obsessed person you'd like to paint me as being, I still doubt that I'd have enough time to track down all of that stuff.

I know you have a few sources. GoodK was one.

And you probably have a few others. Prominent scholars, though? I doubt it. You don't deal in substance, just gossip and defamation. And yes, you're maniacally obsessed.

Face it, Dr. P.: the reality is that you've made so many enemies over the years that lots of people are willing to send me all kinds of stuff---people of every rank and stripe and level of accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics.

Uh huh.

Name a few of them. Say, a dozen or so.

And I'm particularly interested in "people of . . . rank and . . . accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics."

You're making it up, Scratch. You can claim anything. You offer no evidence, just assertion.

Among people who actually know me -- which would include the overwhelming majority of those "of . . . rank and . . . accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics" -- I'm confident that I have very, very few enemies. I'm just not the type of person who would (your strenuous efforts to depict me otherwise over the past three years notwithstanding).

You can pretend that what I'm saying isn't true, if that makes you feel better. But I think that even you are going to have a hard time ignoring the basic reality of the situation.

I do have a hard time ignoring it: You're full of toxic gas.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yup. I'm such a non-entity that dozens upon dozens of people have fed me all kinds of information.

Are you sure it's not myriads of legions of people?

No. There simply aren't that many people who are interested in Mopologetics---as you know. But there have been quite a few. Definitely "dozens."

It probably troubles you greatly to think that such a thing could be true.

I don't think it's true.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but it *is* true.

And come on now: Do you really think that all of the material I've posted---stuff ranging from semi-obscure .pdf files, to nearly hidden SHIELDS stuff, to old Will Schryver posts---honestly, even if I was the manically obsessed person you'd like to paint me as being, I still doubt that I'd have enough time to track down all of that stuff.

I know you have a few sources. GoodK was one.

And you probably have a few others. Prominent scholars, though? I doubt it. You don't deal in substance, just gossip and defamation. And yes, you're maniacally obsessed.

Lol! That's just it: I don't have to be. These days, I just click on my PM box, and there is a whole series of ripe, beautiful quotations for me to weave into a fresh new thread. In terms of whether I post "substance": are you really going to try and deny that the threads on the history of FARMS and SHIELDS were substance-free?

I think it's only fair to tell you, Professor Peterson: people are starting to see through the strawman you've been trying to make of me. Sure: sometimes my posts aren't exactly "scholarly," but so what? Plenty of them are quite substantive and interesting in terms of what they reveal about Mopologetics. At least imvho.

Face it, Dr. P.: the reality is that you've made so many enemies over the years that lots of people are willing to send me all kinds of stuff---people of every rank and stripe and level of accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics.

Uh huh.

Name a few of them. Say, a dozen or so.

ROFL! Oooh, it just kills you, doesn't it? I'm not going to tell you! How stupid do you think I am? Part of the reason these people are willing to come to me is because they know that I won't "out" them to attack dogs like yourself. If they're willing to give me information, they can know that I'll protect their anonymity.

And I'm particularly interested in "people of . . . rank and . . . accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics."

I bet you are! But, no. I'm not telling you a damn thing about these people. Simply what they publish under there own names is more than enough for you and the FARMS boys to pounce on them. With me they will be receiving full protection.

You're making it up, Scratch. You can claim anything. You offer no evidence, just assertion.

Among people who actually know me -- which would include the overwhelming majority of those "of . . . rank and . . . accomplishment in the world of Internet apologetics" -- I'm confident that I have very, very few enemies. I'm just not the type of person who would (your strenuous efforts to depict me otherwise over the past three years notwithstanding).

Wow, you must really be blind. Page after page of the FARMS Review contains ad hominem attacks on these people, their work, their character. You know perfectly well how many people dislike you on RfM and on other LDS-related messageboards. Or, they like you personally, but they really don't appreciate your tone, or the articles you've overseen for the Review, etc. Or they dislike your grim humorlessnes. And your qualifier "people who actually know me"---what's that supposed to mean, exactly? Some people have been interacting with you on the MBs for over a decade. Will you deny that these people "know you" in some way? I think you know that a lot of the people who have met you personally happen to like you, to think you're charming, and good speaker, and a generally friendly guy. But, you also probably realize that many of these same people also have sincere problems with Mopologetics, and with the way you execute Mopologetics.

So, in short: you and your Mopologetic pals have made a lot of enemies.