Mopologetics and the Sending of Emails

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch,

I know you are fully aware that I don't like the methods you use on this board. Having said that, I have no intention of further derailing your thread because you do have a right to post whatever you wish here. Departing the thread.

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

No, it's not life in the Internet. It's "life" on LDS related boards. You people have a pathological need to stick your noses into eachother's real life.

I was not the one who initially stuck his nose in Eric's personal life.

You for example, portray Eric as an independent thinking adult and yet you feel a need to hand him his spine on this board. I see your defense of Eric as perhaps the greatest insult you could level at him and in response, he is using you as a vehicle on the thread.

Let him stand on his own!

I fully realise you don't like Eric, and I think the feeling is mutual.

[_Ray A]

The more I think about all of this, the more I find that I am experiencing a kind of darkness, like this is wrong on some level..... And yet, a lot of knowledgeable and seemingly ethical/moral posters have advocated and defended precisely this behavior. Personally, I will not be emailing Shermer (not without DCP's explicit permission, anyhow), but I am nonetheless interested in hearing why some people (Mopologists especially) would view the "sending of an email" as problematic (or not). Recall, too, that John Tvedtnes once emailed a Dean/Dept. Chair in an effort to block a critic's bid for tenure. My question is: Is this sort of behavior fair game? On what grounds do the apologists justify their actions in this respect?

Just curious.....

My understanding is that DCP is not ashamed of these exchanges, and gave permission for them to be publicly posted on SHIELDS. Therefore there would be nothing unethical about sending a link to Shermer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Eric's stepdad has been a friend of mine for roughly twenty years, and he and I have discussed many things over the years, including Eric.

Writing to a friend with whom I had been corresponding a fair amount in the previous couple of weeks to draw his attention to something on a public message board that was relevant to something that we had discussed, off and on, for years, seems to me rather different than what Scratch proposes here.

But Scratch will do what Scratch does. And I'll live with it.

[_beastie]

Writing to a friend with whom I had been corresponding a fair amount in the previous couple of weeks to draw his attention to something on a public message board that was relevant to something that we had discussed, off and on, for years, seems to me rather different than what Scratch proposes here.

Would you have thought that the EV in my hypothetical was taking the best course of action?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Eric's stepdad has been a friend of mine for roughly twenty years, and he and I have discussed many things over the years, including Eric.

Writing to a friend with whom I had been corresponding a fair amount in the previous couple of weeks to draw his attention to something on a public message board that was relevant to something that we had discussed, off and on, for years,

Which was what? Eric's problems with the LDS Church and its practices, culture, and habits?

seems to me rather different than what Scratch proposes here.

On the basis of what? Your friendship with Eric's stepfather? For all you know, I'm longtime friends with Shermer. If that's the case, would I be justified--in your view--in contacting him?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And, of course, it caused conflict and more problems.

Your analogy probably breaks down at this point.

I know that Eric claims that my sharing the link with his stepfather caused conflict and problems, but Eric's stepfather has told me that it didn't. That, yes, there are (and, as I knew, have long been) problems, but not on account of my having shared the link.

Was there a "compelling need" for Eric stepfather to have the link? Plainly, no. Precisely because there wasn't really anything in it that was new or shocking to him (which makes even more plausible his statement to me that it didn't cause any significant new conflict or problems). In sending it to him, I didn't imagine for a moment that I was sending him something that was earth-shatteringly new, nor even all that important. But we had talked for many years (even about Eric), and had been going back and forth somewhat more than usual in the previous week or two, and I judged that he would want to know.

If, in my relationships with friends, I communicated to them only what they had a "compelling need" to know, we would seldom communicate at all. Perhaps that's how it is for some of you here. But not for me. My friends and I exchange insights, jokes, political comments, links, travel tips, family news, personal stories, jibes, book recommendations, advice, news items, sports commentary, and many other things for which there is, strictly speaking, no "compelling need."

This wasn't -- and isn't -- as big a deal as some here want to make it out to be. It didn't fundamentally alter things within the family.

Writing to a friend with whom I had been corresponding a fair amount in the previous couple of weeks to draw his attention to something on a public message board that was relevant to something that we had discussed, off and on, for years,

Which was what? Eric's problems with the LDS Church and its practices, culture, and habits?

On the whole, no. That wasn't the issue.

seems to me rather different than what Scratch proposes here.

On the basis of what? Your friendship with Eric's stepfather? For all you know, I'm longtime friends with Shermer. If that's the case, would I be justified--in your view--in contacting him?

It would certainly make your contacting him look less like the notion you've sketched here: a rather malevolent act by someone hoping to make trouble for me.

I share all sorts of things with friends. And I'm perfectly fine if you do. But, with the exception of, say, occasionally writing to a newspaper columnist about a politician or writing a letter of recommendation, I'm not sure that I've ever sent an e-mail or a letter to a complete stranger about somebody else.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It would certainly make your contacting him look less like the notion you've sketched here: a rather malevolent act by someone hoping to make trouble for me.

I'm sorry---I'm confused. Why would it be "malevolent" to send an innocuous email that does nothing more than refer someone to some online writings of yours? You have said before that you're not the least bit embarrassed about the SHIELDS stuff. Have you changed your mind?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratchy, Scratchy.

You have a track record. Three years long. Obsessively malevolent.

Come on, Scratchy.

The feigned naïveté just looks silly.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratchy, Scratchy.

You have a track record.

Is argumentum ad hominem all you've got? I ask again: what would be the problem with sending an innocuous email---worded just as my above sample text was worded? On what grounds could you possible object?

Three years long. Obsessively malevolent.

Come on, Scratchy.

Actually, this is detrimental to your own defense vis-a-vis the Eric Affair. You have a multi decade history of smearing critics, attacking them, sending them hostile and aggressive emails. When all this is taken into account (your FARMS articles, your SHIELDS correspondence) it is pretty much beyond any doubt that you intended to cause pain and harm.

Care to re-adjust your argument, my dear Professor P.?