Scratch is anonymous. I am not. Publicly associating me -- on line and by name, in the permanent international medium of the Internet -- with racism, anti-Semitism, dishonesty, the deliberate destruction of people's careers, malicious slander, threats of violence, voyeurism, and etc., affects me in real life.
Putting it that way truly does add to my disrespect for Scratch and his antics, which is saying something. I don't get the support he gets here. Someone called him "classy" earlier, i believe. What is it opposite day?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Scratch is anonymous. I am not. Publicly associating me -- on line and by name, in the permanent international medium of the Internet -- with racism, anti-Semitism, dishonesty, the deliberate destruction of people's careers, malicious slander, threats of violence, voyeurism, and etc., affects me in real life.
Putting it that way truly does add to my disrespect for Scratch and his antics, which is saying something. I don't get the support he gets here. Someone called him "classy" earlier, i believe. What is it opposite day?
Hi there, Stemelbow.
Dr. Peterson's not being entirely honest with you, and here's how you can test it: issue a CFR for any of the items he listed. Ask him to lay out his case as to how *I* am responsible for "associating" him with those things.
You see: he won't do it. He won't ever back up what he says (and he's been asked to do so, on multiple occasions). And notice his slippery language: he's saying I "associate" him with those things. What do you suppose that means?
Why don't you ask him, stem? If you're interested in "bridge building" and in easing frustration, why don't you start by trying to get to the bottom of all this?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Dr. Peterson I'm sure since you are claiming these have come over the course of the past 5 years it might take quite an effort to source all of this, but if you wouldn't mind I would be quite interested to look into it for Scratch's sake. Or even just a sampling would get the ball rolling.
I see the two quotes you have in your signature were genuinely from Scratch himself. Seems pretty rude Scratch. Its not looking good.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:I see the two quotes you have in your signature were genuinely from Scratch himself. Seems pretty rude Scratch. Its not looking good.
Do you know why I said those things, Stem? I.e., do you know the context? For the one about the "dung heap" I said that in response to Kevin Graham's account of Dr. Peterson attacking Dan Vogel for winning an award. Vogel had apparently been given an award for his scholarly work, and DCP came onto the scene carrying on about how these awards are "meaningless" and whatever else. In other words, he was trying to undercut and make light of Vogel's accomplishments.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: Do you know why I said those things, Stem? I.e., do you know the context? For the one about the "dung heap" I said that in response to Kevin Graham's account of Dr. Peterson attacking Dan Vogel for winning an award. Vogel had apparently been given an award for his scholarly work, and DCP came onto the scene carrying on about how these awards are "meaningless" and whatever else. In other words, he was trying to undercut and make light of Vogel's accomplishments.
Your sleight of hand explanation doesn't amount to proper contextualization that appropriates the use of the degrading phrase, "human dung heap". Dr. Petersen is entitled to his opinion regarding the academic value of the award Dan Vogel received from his believing perspective. Whatever opinion of the value he holds for Mr. Vogel's award certainly doesn't ever justify calling him a human dung heap. In fact, the one who called someone that would justify the moniker more than Dr. Petersen would, but I wouldn't even find that appropriate. Your inability to recognize the difference between critical disagreement and personal degradations is silly. I would think that an award received by Dr. Petersen from the Maxwell institute wouldn't be Dan Vogel's greatest envy and I wouldn't hold it against him either, nor think calling him a human dung heap would be appropriate if he expressed an opinion that he finds the award without value. It is perplexing that you even through satire you attempt to justify these type of things.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
I don't think so, mikwut. You're trying to frame this as a case of DCP remaining basically neutral, and merely assessing the quality of an argument or a work of scholarship, but that's not the case. Dr. Peterson wasn't attacking the award per se; he was attacking it as a means of slighting Vogel's character and abilities. If he had gone on to say that similar MHA awards given out to people like Richard Turley and Richard Bushman also "don't mean much," you might have a point. Besides: if he wants to "criticize" Vogel's arguments and scholarship, why not do that? The fact is he didn't. He went after this award instead, and I maintain that it was a rotten, "human dung heap"-ish thing to do.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: Do you know why I said those things, Stem? I.e., do you know the context? For the one about the "dung heap" I said that in response to Kevin Graham's account of Dr. Peterson attacking Dan Vogel for winning an award. Vogel had apparently been given an award for his scholarly work, and DCP came onto the scene carrying on about how these awards are "meaningless" and whatever else. In other words, he was trying to undercut and make light of Vogel's accomplishments.
And that makes what you said okay? Are you in 3rd grade?
Lol. Hey, Simon: Where's that Master's Thesis?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
stemelbow wrote:Dr. Peterson I'm sure since you are claiming these have come over the course of the past 5 years it might take quite an effort to source all of this, but if you wouldn't mind I would be quite interested to look into it for Scratch's sake. Or even just a sampling would get the ball rolling.
Well, here's a sampling, supplied (without my even asking it!) by a kind observer:
And that's only a sampling. Scratch's anonymous crusade of defamation against me has continued for five full years. Half a decade.
stemelbow wrote:I see the two quotes you have in your signature were genuinely from Scratch himself. Seems pretty rude Scratch. Its not looking good.
They're not especially unusual, either.
On Saturday, 18 June, for example, Scratch alleged not once but twice that "Dr. Peterson ruins people's lives for sport" (at 10:54 AM and at 11:39 AM, on the "Telestial Comments from My Experience with Daniel Peterson" thread).
Half a decade of this nonsense. Five full years of anonymous character assassination, which some here find "amusing."
Gee, Dr. Peterson.... Am I missing something? This is what you said:
DCP wrote:Publicly associating me -- on line and by name, in the permanent international medium of the Internet -- with racism, anti-Semitism, dishonesty, the deliberate destruction of people's careers, malicious slander, threats of violence, voyeurism, and etc., affects me in real life.
Maybe I'm not looking carefully enough, but I'm not finding the places where I said these things about you. And you're naming some pretty specific items; you've been listing this same set of things for a few years now, and to my knowledge you've never, ever substantiated them. (Did you even bother to look at the links in ttribe's posts?) Maybe it's time for you to actually locate them, or to admit you've been stretching the truth?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14