Scratch's Sudden Departure
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
droopy said:
"I cannot, absolutely cannot believe it has continued on until this point. This entire pathetic drama, which DCP has ad infinitum
clarified, articulated, explained, and made crystal clear to all concerned,"
Possibly it's because it is not a static situation. The fallout of the email sent to Grosskreutz's s-father continued over time. It's not one simple event that occurred a year ago but one event that had a domino effect, if I understand all the subsequent posts correctly. Also, it touches on many other important and interesting issues that have grabbed people's attention. Inevitably then, the conversation will revert back, from time to time, to the originating incident of this particular incarnation of Grosskreutz's family history, which was the infamous email.
Not too hard to believe after all.
"I cannot, absolutely cannot believe it has continued on until this point. This entire pathetic drama, which DCP has ad infinitum
clarified, articulated, explained, and made crystal clear to all concerned,"
Possibly it's because it is not a static situation. The fallout of the email sent to Grosskreutz's s-father continued over time. It's not one simple event that occurred a year ago but one event that had a domino effect, if I understand all the subsequent posts correctly. Also, it touches on many other important and interesting issues that have grabbed people's attention. Inevitably then, the conversation will revert back, from time to time, to the originating incident of this particular incarnation of Grosskreutz's family history, which was the infamous email.
Not too hard to believe after all.
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Droopy wrote:I don't know GoodK personally, but given some three years of his performance, demeanor, and attitudes as expressed here, in this forum, over the period of several years, it surprises me little that he ended up in what, for all intents and purposes, is a reform school.

God, how did I miss this thread?!
I don't know who Droopy has been observing all this time, but I certainly haven't been posting anywhere for several years.
Another priceless gem from the Droopster.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Did Droopy make you get off your hands too, or is it that once you were off your hands you decided to keep on typing?
My real question is this: why bother telling us all "I wasn't going to post today but this topic won't allow me to sit on my hands." Why not simply say what you want to say? Is it somehow noble to sit on your hands unless some topic goads you too much by trying to defend Daniel Peterson?
My real question is this: why bother telling us all "I wasn't going to post today but this topic won't allow me to sit on my hands." Why not simply say what you want to say? Is it somehow noble to sit on your hands unless some topic goads you too much by trying to defend Daniel Peterson?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Listen; I'm sorry if you're offended when I don't respond to your posts directed towards me.
What do you want me to say?
I get it, you're LDS. You don't particularly like me or agree with many of my positions. I don't particularly like or agree with the positions held by the LDS posters here. It's really nothing personal, try and get over it.
What do you want me to say?
I get it, you're LDS. You don't particularly like me or agree with many of my positions. I don't particularly like or agree with the positions held by the LDS posters here. It's really nothing personal, try and get over it.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Eric,
It's true that I don't particularly care for your antics here, but I don't feel personally offended by you so there's nothing for me to get over. While I don't like your antics here, I do hope that justice will come to your situation. If it weren't for that I'd probably largely ignore you like I do several others (more than I ignore Scratch).
What do I want you to say? While I don't expect you to be respectful to the church or Daniel Peterson, I wish you'd quit talking about how such and such forced you to act. Saying something made you do it makes you look like a wuss to me, and I know you're not one. I shouldn't care, but there you have it. I've said my piece.
Good luck.
But I still dislike your antics and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
.
It's true that I don't particularly care for your antics here, but I don't feel personally offended by you so there's nothing for me to get over. While I don't like your antics here, I do hope that justice will come to your situation. If it weren't for that I'd probably largely ignore you like I do several others (more than I ignore Scratch).
What do I want you to say? While I don't expect you to be respectful to the church or Daniel Peterson, I wish you'd quit talking about how such and such forced you to act. Saying something made you do it makes you look like a wuss to me, and I know you're not one. I shouldn't care, but there you have it. I've said my piece.
Good luck.
But I still dislike your antics and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
asbestosman wrote:
What do I want you to say? While I don't expect you to be respectful to the church or Daniel Peterson, I wish you'd quit talking about how such and such forced you to act. Saying something made you do it makes you look like a wuss to me, and I know you're not one. I shouldn't care, but there you have it. I've said my piece.
But I still dislike your antics and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
.
I think either you misunderstand hyperbole when I say, "I'll be forced to say this..." to mean something other than, "In response to...", or you are just trying to be nit picky and gripe about something. I think you also don't quite pick up on the fact that when I make posts like this, they are usually directed towards someone, named or unnamed. There are many people who have read the OP that know exactly what person and events I'm hinting at.
For the people that don't, it's still an interesting scenario to ponder. Mormon apologists, like in the example you brought up involving Quinn, will resort even to using someone's sexual orientation to defame them without provocation or guile.
Simply being critical, or expressing doubt towards a set of beliefs (that have no basis in fact), should not warrant personal smear campaigns or character assassinations. Even when those campaigns are dressed up to look like academia.
Writing a book about horrifying childhood experiences also does not warrant such depravity. When Martha Beck, the mother of a mentally handicapped child, was disrespected and run through the mud - in three separate articles in the FARMS Review of Authors - it was wrong.
FARMS could have ignored the accusation altogether, or privately formed their own opinions but instead set out to attack, minimize, and blame the victim. Hell, the Nibley family even issued a statement. Why did FARMS need to publish three more attacks on Martha? None of the "reviewers" were qualified to weigh in on the topic.
Bottom line: the way the FARMS reviewers treated Martha Beck was appalling, unChristian, and really a testament to what kind of people they are.
For you to defend that, is really a testament to the kind of person you are. Or at least the lengths you would go to preserve a belief.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
I encourage any who want to discover for themselves whether Eric's characterization of the FARMS reviews is accurate to read them. They're up on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website.
Incidentally, Kent Jackson, author of one of the reviews, is the leading candidate for Martha Beck's anonymous (and very probably fictional) "man in tweed," who supposedly came up to her in a supermarket and told her (falsely) that ninety percent of her father's footnotes were "made up." Professor Jackson has publicly criticized Professor Nibley's footnotes, yet he denies Martha's (and her "man in tweed's") claim about them.
And Boyd Petersen, Martha's brother-in-law, was qualified to write his review because he is the award-winning biographer of Hugh Nibley. (To forestall a predictable criticism, he won the prize for a book that is very candid, unvarnished, and occasionally unflattering. As D. Michael Quinn put it in a review in the Journal of Mormon History, "Petersen’s biography amply fulfills his intention 'to be balanced, [in] showing the human side of a man who has become a legend.'”)
I still don't understand why those who believed Hugh Nibley innocent of Martha's accusation should have been morally obliged to remain silent while she spread it nationally via a major publisher. That simply makes no sense to me.
Incidentally, Kent Jackson, author of one of the reviews, is the leading candidate for Martha Beck's anonymous (and very probably fictional) "man in tweed," who supposedly came up to her in a supermarket and told her (falsely) that ninety percent of her father's footnotes were "made up." Professor Jackson has publicly criticized Professor Nibley's footnotes, yet he denies Martha's (and her "man in tweed's") claim about them.
And Boyd Petersen, Martha's brother-in-law, was qualified to write his review because he is the award-winning biographer of Hugh Nibley. (To forestall a predictable criticism, he won the prize for a book that is very candid, unvarnished, and occasionally unflattering. As D. Michael Quinn put it in a review in the Journal of Mormon History, "Petersen’s biography amply fulfills his intention 'to be balanced, [in] showing the human side of a man who has become a legend.'”)
I still don't understand why those who believed Hugh Nibley innocent of Martha's accusation should have been morally obliged to remain silent while she spread it nationally via a major publisher. That simply makes no sense to me.
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Daniel Peterson wrote: As D. Michael Quinn put it in a review in the Journal of Mormon History, "Petersen’s biography amply fulfills his intention 'to be balanced, [in] showing the human side of a man who has become a legend.'”)
Quinn. Quinn. Where have I heard that name before? You mean, he's once again reliable?
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Quinn is now a hiss and a byword in Mormon circles. And who created this strawman? FARMS.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
Re: Scratch's Sudden Departure
Eric wrote:I think either you misunderstand hyperbole when I say, "I'll be forced to say this..." to mean something other than, "In response to...", or you are just trying to be nit picky and gripe about something. I think you also don't quite pick up on the fact that when I make posts like this, they are usually directed towards someone, named or unnamed. There are many people who have read the OP that know exactly what person and events I'm hinting at.
I picked up on the fact that you're using hints.I still dislike it, but who cares at this point. I'm done.
Eric wrote:For you to defend that, is really a testament to the kind of person you are. Or at least the lengths you would go to preserve a belief.
Have I defended that? The only thing I've said about the Martha Beck case is that we would be foolish to assume Hugh was guilty just because she said so. That and I nit picked about the incest vs abuse thing because I think that particular argument is wrongheaded, but you obviously disagree and we're not going to see eye-to-eye there or just about anywhere else. I don't believe I have ever defended a character assassination or smear campaign. Have I tried to justify what FARMS has done? I'm quite certain that I have not.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO