Mopologetics and the Sending of Emails

[_Doctor Scratch]

You make your own enemies.

And, here, I make enemies for suggesting that people not publicly judge private strangers of whom they know little.

Fascinating.

Ah, but you have a history, Professor Peterson! Did you tell posters on the MADboard that Mike Quinn's historical writings were "untrustworthy"? Why not say, "Read the books; judge for yourself. Quinn is a stranger to you all. Judge him by his works."? Or are you assuming that the majority of the MADposters know Quinn? Likewise, did you not urge the FAIR/MAD TBMs to cast judgment on Tal Bachman in the wake of the Pres. Keyes letter? What about Steve Benson's comments re: his interaction with Elder Oaks & et al.? The fact of the matter is that you have repeatedly, flagrantly urged people to judge critics of the Church.

Again: you are so full of crap that you're practically bursting with stink.

[_The Nehor]

Wha? Oh, hilarious, Nehor! So funny! You know, since you've established yourself as a very intelligent, temperate, even-handed poster who is knowledgeable on a variety of subjects (such as when ellipses should be used).

Your last sentence is grammatically incorrect......just so you know.

I'm a helper, a very intelligent, temperate, even-handed helper with an assault rifle.

[_Ray A]

And, here, I make enemies for suggesting that people not publicly judge private strangers of whom they know little.

Fascinating.

You know that is not the only issue. How many times does that have to be repeated?

But I do have to admit one thing - My judgement of you on ZLMB was probably right. I gave you so much leeway later. You seemed so sincere. Dan, your attitude towards Eric, and how you have treated him - disgusts me. Your pomposity, your arrogance, your belligerence, your unwillingness to admit even the slightest error on your part, is just appalling. You, Dan, remind me of those who treasure worldly acclaim. You call Michael Shermer, "Dr. Shermer", because he will be debating you - the Great Dan Peterson. Yet at other times, you deride and denounce his atheism as if he's an infidel.

Some one needs to email "Dr. Shermer".



.

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP or the SCMC when they interrogated a wavering member for 4 hours in SLC.

There may be some here who are new to the Scratch Method and/or may wonder what this is about.

With a colleague, having been asked to do it by the secretary of the SCMC, who was a friend of the family and whom they had asked for help, I spoke with a wavering member in Salt Lake City for about four hours once. The conversation took place at a stake center. He came voluntarily. He raised various historical and doctrinal issues. We discussed them. He left when he wanted to leave. It was a pleasant meeting. We parted in disagreement, but quite politely.

Transmogrified by elementary application of the Scratch Method, that becomes an "interrogation."

Three years of this. Three years.

Be sure that you add in this very important caveat: " Nobody here needs to choose sides in a private family matter. Nobody here knows enough to do so. Hearing only one side is not enough. It's nobody's business."

ROFL! You were asked to do exactly this by the SCMC!!! How dare you order others to not engage in precisely the same behavior that you willingly did for a very creepy, secretive spy organization---er, uh, let me fix that: a very small clipping service. Tell me: Did you make sure to get both sides when you went in to this "interview"? Did the man know you were with the SCMC? No. Of course he didn't. And you still dispense your (obviously) very one-sided, highly biased, utterly subjective account without allowing any of us to see the other person's perspective. That is the very height of hypocrisy.

[Guest]

Did you tell posters on the MADboard that Mike Quinn's historical writings were "untrustworthy"?

Yup. That I did.

I've also been known, on various occasions, to express opinions about politicians, movies, novelists, novels, composers, actors, and many other topics.

Likewise, did you not urge the FAIR/MAD TBMs to cast judgment on Tal Bachman in the wake of the Pres. Keyes letter? What about Steve Benson's comments re: his interaction with Elder Oaks & et al.?

I've expressed a number of opinions about books and about issues. I'm likely to continue to do so.

The fact of the matter is that you have repeatedly, flagrantly urged people to judge critics of the Church.

And novelists and composers and politicians and directors. For their ideas and their claims. Never as parents, neighbors, or children.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wha? Oh, hilarious, Nehor! So funny! You know, since you've established yourself as a very intelligent, temperate, even-handed poster who is knowledgeable on a variety of subjects (such as when ellipses should be used).

Your last sentence is grammatically incorrect......just so you know.

How's it ungrammatical, The Nehor? I'm actually interested in hearing your argument.

I'm a helper, a very intelligent, temperate, even-handed helper with an assault rifle.

Yup!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Did you tell posters on the MADboard that Mike Quinn's historical writings were "untrustworthy"?

Yup. That I did.

I've also been known, on various actors,

Huh????

to express opinions about politicians, movies, novelists, novels, composers, actors, and many other topics.

Yup. And on people's private lives. And this is where the issue lies, as you know. (Or maybe you don't. Maybe Beastie is right and you see critics purely as villainous tools of the Devil.)

Likewise, did you not urge the FAIR/MAD TBMs to cast judgment on Tal Bachman in the wake of the Pres. Keyes letter? What about Steve Benson's comments re: his interaction with Elder Oaks & et al.?

I've expressed a number of opinions about books and about issues. I'm likely to continue to do so.

LOL!!!! Stop it, you're killing me.... Okay...okay.... BREATHE, Scratch!................

There. That's better. Now, Dan, can you tell me which of Steve Benson's or Tal Bachman's books you were commenting on? Or, could you maybe tell me how Mike Quinn's sexuality had anything whatsoever to do with the majority of his books?

And yes: I did indeed notice that you inserted the word "issues" into your comment (what, is this the "Peterson method"?). Feel free to elaborate on that. I'm interested to hear how it figures into your Eric argument.

The fact of the matter is that you have repeatedly, flagrantly urged people to judge critics of the Church.

And novelists and composers and politicians and directors. For their ideas and their claims. Never as parents, neighbors, or children.

Hoo boy. Shall I summon up the quote where you trash your "new age" neighbor?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You know that is not the only issue. How many times does that have to be repeated?

For me, as I've repeated innumerable times, that's essentially the only issue.

Dan, your attitude towards Eric, and how you have treated him - disgusts me. Your pomposity, your arrogance, your belligerence, your unwillingness to admit even the slightest error on your part, is just appalling. You, Dan, remind me of those who treasure worldly acclaim.

All this for suggesting that you don't know enough to pronounce judgment on Eric's family, and that you have no business doing so.

You call Michael Shermer, "Dr. Shermer", because he will be debating you - the Great Dan Peterson. Yet at other times, you deride and denounce his atheism as if he's an infidel.

I called him "Dr. Shermer" because I was certain that, if I didn't, somebody would attack me for failing to use his academic title. I admit that, knowing this board as I do, it should have occurred to me that somebody would attack me if I did use his academic title, too.

I've searched through my posts both here and on MADB, and through everything I've ever published with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute. I can find nothing that matches what you claim. I've scarcely ever so much as mentioned Michael Shermer. Can you supply a reference, please?

Some one needs to email "Dr. Shermer".

Unbelievable, Ray.

[_The Nehor]

How's it ungrammatical, The Nehor? I'm actually interested in hearing your argument.

I apologize, it's pretty late. I shouldn't have said grammatically incorrect. I should have said it makes no sense. The 'since' in your statement doesn't reference anything.

[_Daniel Peterson]

" Nobody here needs to choose sides in a private family matter. Nobody here knows enough to do so. Hearing only one side is not enough. It's nobody's business."

ROFL! You were asked to do exactly this by the SCMC!!! How dare you order others to not engage in precisely the same behavior that you willingly did for a very creepy, secretive spy organization---er, uh, let me fix that: a very small clipping service. Tell me: Did you make sure to get both sides when you went in to this "interview"? Did the man know you were with the SCMC? No. Of course he didn't. And you still dispense your (obviously) very one-sided, highly biased, utterly subjective account without allowing any of us to see the other person's perspective. That is the very height of hypocrisy.

We discussed the historical and doctrinal issues that he raised. He came to the meeting voluntarily. He raised the issues he wanted to raise. He stayed as long as he cared to stay. He left when he chose to leave.

I wasn't asked to judge his relationship with his wife or his children or his parents. I wasn't asked to judge him at all. I was asked to discuss with him the issues he wanted to raise, and I did so. It was a friendly discussion. There were no ill feelings.