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

[_harmony]

The 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.

Perhaps his appearance on threads that are about LDS apologetics but aren't about him is a manifestation of his conflating the two subjects in his own mind, his continued protestations that he is simply one of many notwithstanding. If he really is the King of LDS Apologetics, then of course any discussion about LDS apologetics would really about him, and in that case: Long Live the King!. If he's not, then there's no need for him to comment on those threads, unless his comments are about the subject of the thread (although usually he usually manages to personalize those threads too).

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact that I'm the only person here who's actually connected with FARMS and FAIR and who actually knows the relevant facts doesn't justify my commenting on threads about FARMS and FAIR and apologetics? I know my comments have been generally dismissed, of course, or declared to be lies, but . . .

And harmony's surely right: Scratch and Mercury and Some Schmo and Joey and the like just want to talk issues in the abstract, and then I come in and hijack their threads and make them about me. LOL.

[_harmony]

The fact that I'm the only person here who's actually connected with FARMS and FAIR and who actually knows the relevant facts doesn't justify my commenting on threads about FARMS and FAIR and apologetics? I know my comments have been generally dismissed, of course, or declared to be lies, but . . .

Do you have something substantially relevant to say?

And harmony's surely right: Scratch and Mercury and Some Schmo and Joey and the like just want to talk issues in the abstract, and then I come in and hijack their threads and make them about me. LOL.

See? I was right... it is all about you!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you have something substantially relevant to say?

I've been saying substantially relevant things here for a long time, to no avail.

[_Doctor Scratch]

....I'm the only person here who's actually connected with FARMS and FAIR and who actually knows the relevant facts ...

You're "connected with ...FAIR"? That's news to me. I know you've contributed some articles and things to them from time to time, but I had no idea you were any more deeply involved than that. I guess this means that there is a "semi-official" relationship between the two organizations, then? Or, in any case, it seems clear that you feel far more "connected" to FAIR than you do to SHIELDS. Right?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're "connected with ...FAIR"? That's news to me. I know you've contributed some articles and things to them from time to time, but I had no idea you were any more deeply involved than that.

I've also spoken at every one of their annual symposia, from the beginning.

It's news to you that I'm connected with FAIR????

I guess this means that there is a "semi-official" relationship between the two organizations, then?

Oh, absolutely.

Just as, since Harry Reid is a leader of the Democratic Party and participates in the LDS Church, that demonstrates that there's a "semi-official" relationship between the Democratic Party and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Just as, when Mitt Romney was simultaneously governor of Massachusetts and an active Mormon, that proved that there was a "semi-official" relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Or, in any case, it seems clear that you feel far more "connected" to FAIR than you do to SHIELDS. Right?

SHIELDS isn't holding any symposia these days, and hasn't for years.

You're getting a bit desperate on the SHIELDS matter, it seems.

[_DonBradley]

Hey All,

I'm puzzled. I received what I believe was a misdirected PM reporting that Professor Peterson had posted here that I had PM-ed him and told him I was going to roast another poster in a PM...

I've just skimmed the three pages of this thread, and don't see myself mentioned at all. I don't believe I've had any private contact with Dr. P in over a year, and I know I haven't had any recently. I'm assuming perhaps the PM sent to me was intended for some other poster?

In any case, for the record, I'm not interested in the personal side of the squabbles between apologists and critics--which is one reason I left the board a year and a half ago. I like the great majority of the posters on both "sides," would rather see a much lighter and friendlier tone, and don't want to get "sucked into" the whole Montague vs. Capulet dynamic here.

Cheers,

Don

[_solomarineris]

Hey All,
In any case, for the record, I'm not interested in the personal side of the squabbles between apologists and critics--which is one reason I left the board a year and a half ago. I like the great majority of the posters on both "sides," would rather see a much lighter and friendlier tone, and don't want to get "sucked into" the whole Montague vs. Capulet dynamic here.
Cheers,
Don

For the record, here & now you are back to delve into the same polemics you say you abhorred.
Dude, I don't know you, don't come here to tell us you abstained from this board so long for
this reason. Who cares, except it looks disingenuous as soon as you participate & pick up where you left.
Most of the boards do not cater to "what you'd rather see", they have their own pace, you like it, contribute
you don't like it the best way is to leave silently.
It is much better than some intellectual midget moderator banning you. (that'd be BADb).
Cheers indeed.

[_harmony]

It is much better than some intellectual midget moderator banning you. (that'd be BADb).
Cheers indeed.

That would definitely not be me.