I get frustrated here because...

[_thews]

I get frustrated here because... Mormon apologists don't just answer questions asked. They rephrase the question, attempt to argue distortion of factually-based information, allude to an answer without committing to it, or simply just leave a thread once cornered.

[_mikwut]

Hello Dr. Scratch,

I am not assessing Dr. Petersen's statement as neutral, anything but. I am simply pointing out that in debate over religious and secular worldviews the value of certain perspectives, judgments, and awards for the same will vary along a wide spectrum. No opinion on the spectrum allows for anything near a proper description or insult of "human dung heap" and asserting such a vindictive indeed shows poorly on the party doing so.

But, even from the perspective you just gave of going after just the award. That still doesn't invoke justification for such denigrating and personally insulting language. For what its worth I think very highly of Mr. Vogel's arguments and his ability as an historian. I think very highly of Dr. Petersen's impressive knowledge base and how extraordinarily well read as well as his application of that knowledge, and his acumen in the use of logic and argument. He offers some of the best Mormonism has to offer in that regard and I value that and it interests me. I even think very highly of your mastery of much of the written word, satire and oftentimes the nuance you find that is interesting and insightful. Maybe you grew up in a neighborhood where "human dung heap" is a rather benign insult compared to really nasty things that could be said, and we should take the statement to mean something like, "that was a rather rude thing to do". I am sure Dr. Petersen would pleased to know that. Without that informative background to weigh I am left with the admission that your simply being stubborn, but I offer the two cents from the peanut gallery that offering apology where it is obviously merited would add credibility and that even satire doesn't escape that fundamental moral principle.

I admit my motives are selfish, I am interested in the arguments and focusing on them rather than personalities and egos. I think the Mormon and the critic all too often lose credibility when they lose focus on that. I am also quite interested in reading your acumen regarding those issues rather than personal ones, again for selfish reasons. Alas, we can't always get what we want, I just hope we don't actually need we what were getting.

my regards, mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Mikwut.

I'm afraid that I still disagree with you.

See, here's the thing: you are essentially arguing that there is no place for insult, invective, coarse language, etc., and I just don't agree with that. Any sociolinguist will tell you that all of these things serve very important purposes. You seem to be saying, further, that you take issue with DCP being labeled a "human dung heap" because, in your mind, this detracts from some "issue" or "debate" that you have in mind. This is a problem because (a) the issue at hand *was* Dr. Peterson's behavior, and (b) you haven't show in any way how this would interfere with or distract from the debate. I.e., in what sense was it a red herring or a non sequitur?

I'm guessing that you don't have an answer, but whatever the case, it's clear you're interested in other sorts of discussion, so I bid you all the best in that, you charming and grimly humorless human dung heap, you.

[_mikwut]

Dr. Scratch,

Very well Scratch, I certainly don't believe there is no place for insult, invective, coarse language, etc.. It serves its purpose and has its place. Quickly,

the issue at hand *was* Dr. Peterson's behavior, and (b) you haven't show in any way how this would interfere with or distract from the debate.

Sure I did. It wasn't balanced, it was exaggerated and overly denigrating to a non-anonymous poster. That placed you in the same position that you decry but being granted the moral highground from others. It also hides more relevant and balanced issues or judgments in the muddy air of unnecessary invective, again allowing for the credible conclusions that you are possibly hiding from more productive dialogue (that still includes coarse language all the same) just as you decry from the apologists. That's how it is a at least reasonably seen as a red herring to take us into personal land and away from the meat of the issues.

I do admit to the selfish reasons I wrote and that your compliment of me is probably more apt than your personal insult of Dr. Petersen. I also admit a overly Piers Morgan to your Howie Mandel and will attempt to rectify that if at all possible.

Well wishes,

mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mikwut---

What, in your view, was the "meat of the issues" in the thread that I linked?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, Dr. Peterson.... Am I missing something? . . . 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

That's right. Let's take a particular one:

Publicly associating me -- on line and by name, in the permanent international medium of the Internet -- with . . . the deliberate destruction of people's careers

I'm not finding the places where I said these things about you.

Dr. Peterson ruins people's lives for sport

Gee, Dr. Peterson.... Am I missing something?

Even more specific illustrations easily available, if really needed.

[_mikwut]

Scratch,

Well depending on my selfish interests perspective or yours. Let's take yours. Your saying the meat is Dr. Petersen's behavior, but your response is at least as un-gratifying as what your coming to the defense of, in my opinion more so.

From my perspective it brings the focus of other foundational Mormon issues into the background and personalities in the front. That is possibly where we disagree, I don't think the personal battle is worth fighting especially against good people.

mikwut

[_Doctor Scratch]

A couple of points here, Dan. First of all, there is a difference between "ruining people's lives for sport" and "deliberate destruction of people's careers," no? Some similarities, here, but some difference, yes?

All that said, I'll give you this one. I do genuinely believe that you've taken a great deal of pleasure in attacking people's professional reputations. I think the evidence for this is abundant throughout the FARMS Review--both the attacks themselves, and your rather bemusedly self-satisfied attitude about all of it. You do seem to view it as a "sport"/game, and your usual explanation/excuse for it is to claim that it's all part of normal "reviewing," and that if anyone has a problem with the "DCP Treatment," they can cease writing altogether.

I mean, let's face it: the pain of critics and anti-Mormons amuses you, doesn't it? You like to see them embarrassed, ridiculed, etc. "Stupid books deserve to be ridiculed." You once said that---didn't you? You enjoy skewering people, and you relish in the fact that some of the junior-tier apologists like you for it. It reminds me of Judge Holden's comment in Blood Meridian, in which he says there will always be war because "young men love it and old men love it in them." The same holds true for this Mopologetic delight in harming people.

This issue re-surfaced with the Infymus SHIELDS debacle, and your disingenuous "apology" to him. How many laughs did you get over seeing him "humiliated" by having his emails posted to SHIELDS? You claim you were "appalled," but that's not the whole truth of the matter, is it? In addition to that, there are loads of examples of the way you and your pals have gone after people, from J.P. Holding, to Mike Quinn, to Robert Ritner and Lord knows who else.

And there's one final point, which occurred to me as I observed your lone comment on Mercury's recent thread. Do you remember what you said? Your lone comment was a defense of Simon Belmont's attempt to engage in Mopologetics and make light of Mercury's situation. You do nothing when the junior tiers do this stuff. I can think of at least two other occasions where you've sat on your hands like a malign Humpty Dumpty in situations like this--i.e., where lower-tier Mopologists are acting abhorrently right under your nose and you not only ignore them, but implicitly encourage them. One was related to SHIELDS posting the police report of Walter Martin's death. "That's not the way I would have handled it," was your reply, as I recall. On another occasion, some LDS critic had passed away, and Pahoran was crapping on him rather mercilessly on the thread, and you did nothing! Kevin Graham was posting over here about his disgust over your silence. You have enormous influence over these junior tier apologists and you do nothing. Perhaps you are sending out PMs behind the scenes, urging people to chill out, or telling Will Schryver to rein it in, or whatever.

But then these junior-tier Mopologists see your behavior here, or on MDD, or in the pages of the Review, and they squeal with delight that Dr. Peterson is slamming a critic yet again. So, yeah: I guess I have characterized you as taking delight in causing people pain, attempting to "ruin" their lives (or aspects thereof), and so on. I think the description is spot-on.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

Well depending on my selfish interests perspective or yours. Let's take yours. Your saying the meat is Dr. Petersen's behavior,

Where did I say that?

From my perspective it brings the focus of other foundational Mormon issues into the background and personalities in the front.

Hmm. Maybe you have a point. Can you show on the thread how and where this happened? I'd like to see you cite specific examples. In other words, I'd like to see you demonstrate how my en passant observation led to a shift in focus on the thread.

[_Some Schmo]

So you disagree with me that calling someone a liar is pretty much pointless so your response is "you're a liar, or at the very least being disingenuous". Whatever.

I called you a liar in response to your body of posts in this forum, not to that single post. Based on the things you had specifically said in that thread, I said you were lying. That you choose to ignore that fact doesn't help your case. It actually helps mine.

You do help to establish my point in the OP, though.

That you're frustrated?

This is stupid. How's that?

What, your post? This exchange? This thread? What?

I think some of your frustration comes from not looking very closely in the mirror and understanding the part you play in all this.

Nice try.

Well, I can't say I had much hope with it. A person who doesn’t like to look at his own behavior isn't going to do it after a mere suggestion from a stranger he thinks hates him (whether that's actually true or not).

I'm sorry you find people like me so frustrating.