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

[_LifeOnaPlate]

While I don't even know who most of Scratch's informants are because he would never, ever tell me even if I were to ask, I can say this.

I just asked Scratch in a PM about the identity of the "scholar" to whom he had recently referred, and he refused to tell me. Yet he did provide evidence that such a person exists.

But that means practically nothing since you are Scratch.

[_harmony]

I don't confuse virtual reality or message boards with reality. I don't think message board exchanges replace actual human interactions. Do you?

I think you are over-simplifying things. Is conversing on a messageboard the exact same thing as speaking face-to-face? No, of course not. Does that mean that messageboard exchanges lack an element of "reality"? Also: no, of course not.

Then again, I guess your comment makes sense if you are a totally different person outside the boards. Are you? Do you treat people in-person in a totally different way than you treat them online?

Scratch, stop it. You're attacking one of Daniel's foundational arguments. No one can "know" him from any of his online activities. The only way any of us can "know" anyone on these boards is if we "know" them in person. "Knowing" someone from interaction on the internet is not "knowing" at all, according to Daniel. Thus, I don't "know" Liz, or Shades, or anyone else here. I certainly don't "know" Daniel... and Daniel completely denies that he "knows" me... except when he's explaining why he would not give me a TR, if he was my bishop, based solely on my words on this bulletin board. I guess "knowing" only counts if he's the one doing the "knowing".

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think you really misunderstand me so completely, harmony. I think you enjoy the moral outrage.

[_harmony]

I don't think you really misunderstand me so completely, harmony. I think you enjoy the moral outrage.

How did you reach this conclusion? You don't know me, remember?

[_Daniel Peterson]

How did you reach this conclusion? You don't know me, remember?

I said "I think." That's my hypothesis, based upon what you've said here.

I've offered no opinion on your character, as you repeatedly have on mine.

You're right. I don't know you. That's what I've always said, and that's why, in contradistinction to (say) you, I've expressly and continually declined to attempt to judge your character or the quality of your Christian discipleship.

[_harmony]

How did you reach this conclusion? You don't know me, remember?

I said "I think." That's my hypothesis, based upon what you've said here.

Well, I "think" you're ... a host of attributes that I won't elaborate on now.

I've offered no opinion on your character, as you repeatedly have on mine.

You're a legend, Daniel. Get used to it. We all have opinions on your character; I'm just a bit less reticent about giving my opinion to the reading public. We may not all agree on your character, but we all have opinions. It's how we treat our legends, especially when we don't "know" them.

You're right. I don't know you. That's what I've always said, and that's why, in contradistinction to (say) you, I've expressly and continually declined to attempt to judge your character or the quality of your Christian discipleship.

Ya think? I disagree. I think you continually judge my character, and you're doing it right now. And you repeatedly have judged the quality of my Christian discipleship, most recently when you opinioned as to the state of my temple recommend.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We all have opinions on your character

That doesn't even begin to demonstrate that your opinion is well-founded.

Plenty of folks have opinions about people they haven't met, countries they haven't visited or read about, religions of which they know nothing, topics (e.g., evolution, economics, politics) of which they're grossly ignorant, movies they haven't seen, books they haven't read.

I think you continually judge my character, and you're doing it right now. And you repeatedly have judged the quality of my Christian discipleship, most recently when you opinioned as to the state of my temple recommend.

I've explained my thinking on that subject many times, including very recently. You're free, of course, to continue to misrepresent me. There's nothing I can do to prevent it.

[_harmony]

We all have opinions on your character

That doesn't even begin to demonstrate that your opinion is well-founded.

Plenty of folks have opinions about people they haven't met, countries they haven't visited or read about, religions of which they know nothing, topics (e.g., evolution, economics, politics) of which they're grossly ignorant, movies they haven't seen, books they haven't read.

Heck, some of us even have opinions based on things we've read. For example, I'm not real fond of Freud. I never met the man, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like him.

I think you continually judge my character, and you're doing it right now. And you repeatedly have judged the quality of my Christian discipleship, most recently when you opinioned as to the state of my temple recommend.

I've explained my thinking on that subject many times, including very recently. You're free, of course, to continue to misrepresent me. There's nothing I can do to prevent it.

There is no misrepresentation, Daniel. It's simply you wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to comment on my discipleship and it's just killing you that you can't do so directly without being an out and out hypocrit, so you comment on what you'd do to my TR were I in your ward, which, of course, is a slap at my worthiness, which, of course, is a comment on my discipleship. I'm just being helpful when I find myself unable to let you ingest all those calories without pointing out that you do exactly what you so indignantly and repeatedly accuse me of doing. Any comment on my temple worthiness is a comment on my discipleship. You can deny it, but you can't change it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is no misrepresentation, Daniel. It's simply you wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to comment on my discipleship and it's just killing you that you can't do so directly without being an out and out hypocrit, so you comment on what you'd do to my TR were I in your ward, which, of course, is a slap at my worthiness, which, of course, is a comment on my discipleship.

I've been very specific and explicit, over a lengthy period of time, about what my concern is, and it isn't your moral worthiness, nor is it your goodness (or hypothetical lack thereof) as a person.

Any comment on my temple worthiness is a comment on my discipleship. You can deny it, but you can't change it.

I don't know whether your misrepresentation is sincere, or a pose. I think I've explained myself clearly enough. Fair-minded people will understand it, whether they agree or not.

There seems little point in repeating myself any more.

[_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.

It probably wasn't fair to say you do it constantly. Would it be fair to say you've devoted a significiant number of threads to the topic of DPC in particular? I've mentioned before I find those far less interesting than your more generic explorations into apologetics. The ones I find intriguing and often revelatory are like the one wherein you explored the origins of the FAIR message board, and clearly laid out how it was triggered by the episode on Z where believers where shown to have been less than truthful about their claims. Or the more recent one about the great and spacious building of FARMS. Because I personally am more interested in those than the ones about DCP in particular, I (perhaps selfishly) wish you would devote your energy to those, instead. Focusing more on the personal traits of DCP simply allows him to be dismissive of all your work, which allows him to ignore your pieces, in the past, that contained genuine insight.