If I Did It: Chapter 7 - LoaP

[Guest]

If I Did It: Confessions of an SMPT Imposter

by

Gadianton P. Robbers, Phd

Chapter 7
LoaP or in hardcopy -- Of Sincerity

Between January 11th and early May, I recall very little discussion of my hypothetical "ruse", at least by me. My memory is a little fuzzy here and I invite corrections, but I can only clearly remember one post. I admit, I have not taken the time to search my posts to confirm this.

But this one short post of mine provoked DCP to once again unveil me at MAD. This was on May 9th, and behold, on May 9th I received a PM from LoaP. This is the first to my knowledge LoaP had become involved. Now, LoaP feigns credulity about contacting me, recently writing,

I had no other intention than to meet Gad, talk about our respective papers, have fun at the conference, and that's about it.

But is this really believable? Now, I admit, LoaP I think is torn. On the one hand, he's a quiet guy that I believe really is by nature congenial, values friendships, and doesn't want confrontation. On one level, I don't doubt that he'd like to meet me and have good clean philosophy conference fun.

But let's analyze the situation a little. DCP reveals again to MAD on May 9th what he believed to be deception on my part. While this post didn't outright use the word "lie", he called my claims "dubious at best," and made me out to be a fool. Now, LoaP read that post because he responded to it. LoaP is one of DCP's biggest fans, so what(?) -- he didn't take DCP's denouncement of me seriously at all? How did he intend to meet me, talk about our papers, and have fun at a conference when his great mentor has made it a pet project of his to deny that I'd be there and to say I was lying about the whole thing? It makes no sense. It makes far more sense that LoaP at base, would be excited, especially knowing he's now "one of the boys", to give his mentor a hand with his project. So concerning his PM that he has allowed to appear on the board:

I heard tell that your proposal to SMPT was accepted. Is that true? If so, which paper are you presenting? Since I'm planning on attending the conference I would be interested in attending your session.

Can one really say that having read DCP's post skewering me at MAD constitutes "heard tell my proposal was accepted"? Doesn't this reek with sarcasm? And most importantly, is it at all believable that the ONLY intention he had was to meet up and have fun? Isn't it far, far more likely that his main interest was at minimum, related to either figuring out whether my paper really was accepted, or backing me into a corner to make me confess that I was lying? And his later PM just reiterated his interest in what the topic was of my presentation, most likely in an effort to "out" me, to "call my bluff".

I won't go on to call him names or say he was lying. I think, that as Doctor Scratch recently showed in his biography of Will, that apologetics taints those who involve themselves too deeply in it, and that LoaP was operating on two different levels. I hope his sincere side, which I really do believe does exist, understands why I considered the PMs a deception.

---

In the entire time I had been supposidly, maliciously rusing my friends, I never recall anyone showing any indication they believed what I was saying, not one post on the forum betrayed any trust in me, -- and recall my rating is a "2" anyway, from rcrocket, the lowest on the forum in trustworthiness -- until Liz inquired about it.

As Trevor pointed out so well, if it were a ruse, why would I just all of a sudden admit it publically right at the best part? That would defeat the whole purpose of a ruse, wouldn't it? I almost sent a PM but I knew this could be a problem. Liz is better friends with DCP than me, for sure. If I told her in PM (assuming I did it), she could have felt obligated to tell DCP but also obligated to keep it a secret. And that wouldn't be a fair position to put her in. I felt it best to just ignore her requests as much as possible and if she'd really be an "innocent victim", then I'd have to live with that in the interest of the greater good. Not something I would have looked forward to.

[_Daniel Peterson]

LOL. "The greater good." Right.

[Guest]

But is this really believable? Now, I admit, LoaP I think is torn. On the one hand, he's a quiet guy that I believe really is by nature congenial, values friendships, and doesn't want confrontation. On one level, I don't doubt that he'd like to meet me and have good clean philosophy conference fun.

You don't know me well enough, still. I don't think "quiet guy" is how anyone who knows me would characterize me. I think people would get a good laugh out of that.

But let's analyze the situation a little. DCP reveals again to MAD on May 9th what he believed to be deception on my part. While this post didn't outright use the word "lie", he called my claims "dubious at best," and made me out to be a fool. Now, LoaP read that post because he responded to it. LoaP is one of DCP's biggest fans, so what(?) -- he didn't take DCP's denouncement of me seriously at all? How did he intend to meet me, talk about our papers, and have fun at a conference when his great mentor has made it a pet project of his to deny that I'd be there and to say I was lying about the whole thing? It makes no sense. It makes far more sense that LoaP at base, would be excited, especially knowing he's now "one of the boys", to give his mentor a hand with his project.

It's pretty simple, Gad. A poor way to extend a hand of fellowship is by telling someone you think they are lying (which, as it turns out, you were, whether it was a "joke" or not). My invitation was deliberately phrased to give you full benefit of the doubt. Maybe it would have been wiser to say "I have doubts that you are actually presenting." I don't think the result would have been different, though.

As far as being one of DCP's "biggest fans," perhaps I could shed a little light there, as well. I met Dan on the MAD board. I first met him in person at a FAIR conference, and certainly it was exciting to meet him. As something of a larf I had him sign an issue of the FARMS Review. I doubt if he even remembers that exchange. But I did notice that he was neither over-eager to have some presumed "fan," nor was he in any way dismissive or giving an air of being more important. I saw him at a SMPT conference later on. Once I phoned him to use him as a source for a story I wrote for the paper. He knew, from my description of the article, that he didn't really have anything to add and he still called me back and offered to help however he could. That was nice. I saw him at another FAIR conference, and other places, etc. I know he's massively busy, but I also know he's been willing to talk and help in pretty much whatever I've asked the poor guy to do. I've tried not to overstep my bounds. I like to think he can consider me an acquaintance or something. He could say "yeah, I know that guy." But what you guys on the board need to know most is that this silly characature of me being DCP's little yesman or something is simply ridiculous. It may come as a shock to know that I actually disagree with Dan on certain things. I actually think Dan is a human with limits, and even more shocking, that he knows he does. He's a damn decent guy despite shortcomings, and it's pathetic to look at all the time spent by Scratch and Gad and others on this board basically trying to defame and malign him in any possible way. Get a life, for pete's sake. This one-dimensional little world you folks have running here is simply unhealthy, it really is! Think of what you all could be doing rather than wasting time with this nonsense, and it really is nonsense. So you hate the church, or you hate people in the church. Good. Now waste your life complaining about it.

What's more, Dan's not the only great LDS thinker I have contacted, or met, or had interesting exchanges with. In almost every case I have been treated with kindness and deference. When it comes down to it I am almost ashamed of myself for spending time here with all of this crap, because that's all a lot of it really is, especially compared to the exchanges I have with others. And it's not about whether people I talk to say the church is right or wrong, it's how they do it, or why. Here it's often simply vacuous insults. (And I refer specifically to the louder and the obnoxious.)

So there you are!

So concerning his PM that he has allowed to appear on the board:

I heard tell that your proposal to SMPT was accepted. Is that true? If so, which paper are you presenting? Since I'm planning on attending the conference I would be interested in attending your session.

Can one really say that having read DCP's post skewering me at MAD constitutes "heard tell my proposal was accepted"? Doesn't this reek with sarcasm? And most importantly, is it at all believable that the ONLY intention he had was to meet up and have fun? Isn't it far, far more likely that his main interest was at minimum, related to either figuring out whether my paper really was accepted, or backing me into a corner to make me confess that I was lying? And his later PM just reiterated his interest in what the topic was of my presentation, most likely in an effort to "out" me, to "call my bluff".

Certainly I would have liked to know from you if you were serious or not. I wasn't being sarcastic, though. My main interest WAS in finding out if your "paper" had been accepted, though. And then if it had, to talk about our respective papers, see if we could share cabs/shuttles, check accommodations, and whatever else. I made and met some good friends at the conference. It was a great time.

I won't go on to call him names or say he was lying. I think, that as Doctor Scratch recently showed in his biography of Will, that apologetics taints those who involve themselves too deeply in it, and that LoaP was operating on two different levels. I hope his sincere side, which I really do believe does exist, understands why I considered the PMs a deception.

I think one of the better explanations why you feared deception is because you, yourself, were being deceptive.

---

In the entire time I had been supposidly, maliciously rusing my friends, I never recall anyone showing any indication they believed what I was saying, not one post on the forum betrayed any trust in me, -- and recall my rating is a "2" anyway, from rcrocket, the lowest on the forum in trustworthiness -- until Liz inquired about it.

Before I took a break from the board you and I had a pretty good conversation I thought you took pretty seriously. Thus, I thought you would likewise take me seriously in my messages.

As Trevor pointed out so well, if it were a ruse, why would I just all of a sudden admit it publically right at the best part? That would defeat the whole purpose of a ruse, wouldn't it? It would be illogical to keep asking me "pretty please". Yet that's what she did. I almost sent a PM but I knew this could be a problem. Liz may be "compromised" to a small extent. She's better friends with DCP than me, for sure. If I told her in PM (assuming I did it), she could have relayed it in spite to LoaP who she was now sharing sides with, or worse, she could have felt obligated to tell DCP but also obligated to keep it a secret. And that wouldn't be a fair position to put her in. I felt it best to just ignore her requests as much as possible and if she'd really be an "innocent victim", then I'd have to live with that in the interest of the greater good.

liz and I hardly know each other at all. This paragraph is just strange. It seems you put a great deal of thought into something so lame, Gad. The "greater good?" Good grief. This all just reminds why this board can be such a lame waste of time. And not even a guilty pleasure or a satisfying distraction. It's more like a junior high mess of drama and nonsense. This is all so much of nothing. I'm sorry I wasted my time with it at all.

[_Gadianton]

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 wasn't being sarcastic, though. My main interest WAS in finding out if your "paper" had been accepted,

right. Sarcasm isn't the right word for claiming that your ONLY intention was to meet me when it really was, as you admit now, at best secondary to your main interest, which was finding out if my paper had been accepted. And of course, I saw through it immediately, which is why I didn't respond to you.

"At best", you've been shown to be dubius.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But let's analyze the situation a little. DCP reveals again to MAD on May 9th what he believed to be deception on my part. While this post didn't outright use the word "lie", he called my claims "dubious at best," and made me out to be a fool. Now, LoaP read that post because he responded to it. LoaP is one of DCP's biggest fans, so what(?) -- he didn't take DCP's denouncement of me seriously at all? How did he intend to meet me, talk about our papers, and have fun at a conference when his great mentor has made it a pet project of his to deny that I'd be there and to say I was lying about the whole thing? It makes no sense. It makes far more sense that LoaP at base, would be excited, especially knowing he's now "one of the boys", to give his mentor a hand with his project.

It's pretty simple, Gad. A poor way to extend a hand of fellowship is by telling someone you think they are lying (which, as it turns out, you were, whether it was a "joke" or not). My invitation was deliberately phrased to give you full benefit of the doubt. Maybe it would have been wiser to say "I have doubts that you are actually presenting." I don't think the result would have been different, though.

Wow, what a piece of work you are, LoaP. You are saying in effect that you were merely pretending to "extend a hand of fellowship." In reality, all you were doing was probing for a reason to brand him a "liar." Actually, it seem that *you* really are the dishonest one here. It turns out that you had no real intention of treating Gad with fellowship and decency.

Certainly I would have liked to know from you if you were serious or not. I wasn't being sarcastic, though. My main interest WAS in finding out if your "paper" had been accepted, though.

Of course it was. You had no interest in being friendly, or in having a chummy get-together in Claremont.

It's like you put a great deal of thought into something so lame

This could easily be said about 99.99% of Mopologetics.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This could easily be said about 99.99% of Mopologetics.

Which makes the critics of something so lame all the more pathetic.

Parenthetically, what is the good .01%? Can you identify it? I don't remember you doing so, and am surprised to see you didn't just say 100%.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This could easily be said about 99.99% of Mopologetics.

Which makes the critics of something so lame all the more pathetic.

Meaning what? That you also think Mopologetics is "lame"? Your logic is pretty shoddy here, LoaP. Your diss on the critics can only work if you, too, think Mopologetics is "lame."

Parenthetically, what is the good .01%? Can you identify it? I don't remember you doing so, and am surprised to see you didn't just say 100%.

I've said before that I think Richard Bushman is an example that more apologists should follow. I also like Ben McGuire, and I get along with quite a few other amateur Mopologists. David Bokovoy is a good guy, too. If he become the de facto leader of the new generation of Mopologists, then that is a good sign.

[_Yoda]

As Trevor pointed out so well, if it were a ruse, why would I just all of a sudden admit it publically right at the best part? That would defeat the whole purpose of a ruse, wouldn't it? It would be illogical to keep asking me "pretty please". Yet that's what she did. I almost sent a PM but I knew this could be a problem. Liz may be "compromised" to a small extent. She's better friends with DCP than me, for sure. If I told her in PM (assuming I did it), she could have relayed it in spite to LoaP who she was now sharing sides with, or worse, she could have felt obligated to tell DCP but also obligated to keep it a secret. And that wouldn't be a fair position to put her in. I felt it best to just ignore her requests as much as possible and if she'd really be an "innocent victim", then I'd have to live with that in the interest of the greater good.

I need to clarify something here. In my PM to you, I was not asking "pretty please", as in "please tell me whether or not you are presenting..." I believed that you were presenting.

DCP had published a listing of the complete program, and there was, actually, a presentation which seemed to fit some of the subject matter you had been talking about. All I did was ask you if I was right about that being your talk. You ignored my PM. I assumed that you ignored it at the time because you were leery of exposing your in real life identity.

Considering that I have been consistently supportive of your posts on the board, and the fact that you seem to be good friends with Scratch, who is aware of my trustworthiness when it comes to keeping secrets, I was a little hurt that you didn't at least have the courtesy of answering my PM, even if it was simply to say, "Hey, I really can't tell you if you're right or wrong because I'm worried about taking a career hit." That, I would have completely understood.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that LOAP and I are such good friends, or that I would "favor" him over you (no offense to LOAP). As LOAP pointed out....we just don't know each other that well. I think we have exchanged words on maybe 3 or 4 posts.

I do have a friendship with DCP, but I don't really understand why you think I would "turn you over to him" or whatever. The last thing I would EVER do is endanger someone's in real life job, if that is something that was a concern to you.

And, Gad, I have sided with you on issues on the board more often than not. So, again, I really don't understand why you would think that I would be on some sort of vendetta against you. The only reason I inquired about your presentation at all is because I genuinely liked you and was excited for you.

As I see it, YOU are the one who has attacked ME in our last few exchanges, which I'm frankly baffled by.

Don't worry, though. I won't make the mistake again of attempting to carry on a conversation with you, which I'm sure will be a relief to you as well.....a win/win for all involved.

[_Kishkumen]

I've said before that I think Richard Bushman is an example that more apologists should follow. I also like Ben McGuire, and I get along with quite a few other amateur Mopologists. David Bokovoy is a good guy, too. If he become the de facto leader of the new generation of Mopologists, then that is a good sign.

I feel I must chime in here. I concur 100%. I have watched these gentlemen for some time, and I think they are top notch in every respect.

[_Gadianton]

Don't forget Doctor Scratch, that LoaP left the board for a long time. How could he have possibly known what you were saying here? On many occasions you've complimented Richard Bushman and have even stood by your own moral guns to disagree with me on what to make of him. You've complimented Bokovoy several times. In reality, you've been very nice.

LoaP didn't even have the thought of coming back here until he was struck with the prospect of siding with DCP in order to -- over and over again -- use the word "lying" in sentences about me. The terrible irony here, is that in his own urgency to out me, he had to employ deceptive means, and in the last couple of posts he's branded himself a liar.