I get frustrated here because...

[_mikwut]

Hello Scratch,

mikwut wrote:
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?

Well, you didn't say "meat", I am interpreting you saying, " (a) the issue at hand *was* Dr. Peterson's behavior".

I am using "meat" and "the issue at hand" as equivalent. Are you or did I misunderstand?

regards, mikwut

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Maybe it would help if you posted that one page from the HoC that you love so much.

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Yeah right, Scratch. All Dr. Peterson said was "I intend to stay out of it."

That's hardly a comment of support for either side.

You lose again.

[Guest]

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.

Maybe it would help if you posted that one page from the HoC that you love so much.

And the poser chimes in to mock his own tail tuck. Care to make my point for me? You said you didn't discount Joseph may have tried to translate the Kinderhook plates, but stopped there without answering the question asked. Here's the question (actually just one of them) you've continually run away from...

Question for Simon Belmont:
Who said the words recorded by William Clayton claiming the Kinderhook plates contained the story of a descendant of Ham?

(insert name here of the person who said the words)___________________.

[_mikwut]

Scratch,

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.

The most salient point is your consistent use of denigrating Dr. Petersen at the expense of more rich discussions. I just saw it earlier today in a theodicy thread of all places. It consistently shifts the focus to personalities and away from substantive issues. I don't think anyone's curling their mustache, I don't think Dr. Petersen is making the arguments he makes because of a growing fanbase of junior apologists. Even if he was the arguments are still there and need to be addressed. Dung heap or not. I don't have an interest in delving into threads and parsing things out in greater detail for you. It's not fun for me. Maybe its just a matter of perspective I would ask you to come see my garden and it seems you would ask me won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you? (Working on the humorless for you.) Anyway, I wish you well.

I also attempt to always part in agreement, I don't think that master's thesis is going to show up anytime soon from Mr. Belmont.

my regards scratch,

mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

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?

As I said, other illustrations of your ridiculous slanders are easily available if really needed:

How about this one, which you contributed to Infymus's Telestial thread about his supposed experience with me?

"Dr. Peterson . . . yukked it up as . . . Infymus got shafted out of job opportunities." (You then compared my supposed behavior in this matter to that of a "psychopath" watching a "snuff movie.")

A bit later, on the same thread, you falsely claimed of something I had said that "This suggests that you were deliberately out to harm his employment" and declared that, while Infymus had made a totally uncalled-for obscene comment about my wife, my alleged offense -- "doing something that prevents a man from finding work" -- was far worse.

Close enough?

Examples of these sorts of accusations from you are embarrassingly easy to find. You've been saying such things about me for five full years. Half a decade.

Don't feign innocence. You're well beyond that pose.

you've taken a great deal of pleasure in attacking people's professional reputations.

No, I haven't.

You do seem to view it as a "sport"/game

No, I do not.

the pain of critics and anti-Mormons amuses you

No, it does not.

You like to see them embarrassed, ridiculed, etc.

No, I do not.

Mopologetic delight in harming people.

Pure malignant fiction.

Infymus . . . your disingenuous "apology" to him.

It was entirely sincere.

How many laughs did you get over seeing him "humiliated" by having his emails posted to SHIELDS?

Precisely none. Nor am I aware of any evidence that he was "humiliated" by it. Even he hasn't claimed that, so far as I'm aware.

You claim you were "appalled," but that's not the whole truth of the matter, is it?

Actually, it is.

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.

That is a flagrant and easily demonstrated falsehood, and, very probably, a malicious lie. Here is my entire post on that thread:

Am I alone in finding it appalling that Simon Belmont would try to exploit this situation for apologetic purposes?

Don't compound the problem by seeking to exploit it against apologetics.

Just stay out of it. I'm going to.

I'm honestly undecided whether you're so consumed with hatred for me that you sincerely believe such obvious falsehoods, or whether your urge to defame me is so intense that you've simply decided to brazenly lie about what I say and do.

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.

A reply to an inquiry that came in, as I remember, a considerable time after the event (with which I had absolutely no connection). Perhaps years after.

On another occasion, some LDS critic had passed away, and Pahoran was crapping on him rather mercilessly on the thread, and you did nothing!

That doesn't even ring a bell. For all I know, I was out of the country and without e-mail access when this event supposedly happened.

Your demand that I serve as the universal LDS message board sheriff is unreasonable. I don't even open most threads. I'm certainly not responsible for everybody on them.

You have enormous influence over these junior tier apologists and you do nothing.

You have -- and can have -- literally no idea whatever what I do.

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.

It's completely false.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

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.

So... You're not going to draw an example from the thread I linked? Okay.

The most salient point is your consistent use of denigrating Dr. Petersen at the expense of more rich discussions. I just saw it earlier today in a theodicy thread of all places.

Where did I "denigrate Dr. Petersen"? I asked Lamanite a question and Dr. Peterson jumped into the thread.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dan,

If you're really serious about not wanting to cause people pain, then how about some proof? How about a retraction or apology in the Review? How about asking Stan Barker to pull down a lot of those malignant exchanges? What, in short, are you doing to help?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you're really serious about not wanting to cause people pain, then how about some proof?

Beyond the obvious, which is that there is no evidence that I seek to cause people pain?

I don't even know what such proof would look like, but we both know that you wouldn't accept it in any case.

How about a retraction or apology in the Review? How about asking Stan Barker to pull down a lot of those malignant exchanges? What, in short, are you doing to help?

I apologized to Infymus the other day for any harm that I might have inadvertently caused him, and you've pronounced me disingenuous for it.

I'm certainly not going to apologize for all of the unethical acts that you've falsely attributed to me. It would -- as we both know -- accomplish precisely nothing beyond giving you more ammunition with which to try to blacken my character.

[_Doctor Scratch]

If you're really serious about not wanting to cause people pain, then how about some proof?

Beyond the obvious, which is that there is no evidence that I seek to cause people pain?

I don't even know what such proof would look like, but we both know that you wouldn't accept it in any case.

How about a retraction or apology in the Review? How about asking Stan Barker to pull down a lot of those malignant exchanges? What, in short, are you doing to help?

I apologized to Infymus the other day for any harm that I might have inadvertently caused him, and you've pronounced me disingenuous for it.

Well, it was. You can't attach a ton of qualifications onto an apology and expect it to carry any weight, can you?

I'm certainly not going to apologize for all of the unethical acts that you've falsely attributed to me. It would -- as we both know -- accomplish precisely nothing beyond giving you more ammunition with which to try to blacken my character.

Go ahead and prove it. You've never apologized or tried the road of humility, so your claims here are ringing pretty hollow.