Dan Peterson is Something Else

[_Yahoo Bot]

Not everyone Bob, but you certainly are. You're lying right now when you say I think everyone is a liar.

Point just proven.

You can't tell the difference between somebody pointing out your flaws and somebody lying to you. As I have long known, you know a lot but have very little intellectual capacity.

Cheers.

[_Kevin Graham]

Point just proven.

I knew you'd say that, but the fact is that wasn't the "point" you need to prove. Showing you're willingness to lie doesn't prove I think "EVERYONE" who disagrees with me is a liar. It isn't about disagreement, it is about the falsehoods. That's why Robert Crockett and Daniel Peterson are proven liars. Do you not understand the fact that you and Dan do not comprise "everyone"? If not, then I suggest you get your money back from whatever institution issued your degree.

You can't tell the difference between somebody pointing out your flaws and somebody lying to you.

Sure I can, but when people are lying about my "flaws" there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. You were very specific about what my "flaw" was, and so was Dan. I already proved that what you two said is false, which only adds more evidence to the fact you're willing to lie just to score rhetorical points. This is all you are doing, just for the sake of kissing up to a fellow LDS icon. How pathetic you are.

As I have long known, you know a lot but have very little intellectual capacity.

If that were true, then you and your "intellectuals" wouldn't be reduced to such petulant behavior whenever you try to debate me on any given point. But even if true, to what purpose does this comment serve? To prove you're a hypocrite for complaining about my so-called propensity for engaging in personal attacks? Aren't you the same guy who called someone a fag in Italian? Aren't you the same guy who comes here primarily to call someone a coward, and then walk away? You're one to talk Bobby.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, you are a coward. And quite frankly, a disgusting individual if you cannot bring yourself to condemn William Schryver's repugnant attacks on women. That's something that is going to haunt you for the rest of your career.

I promise you.

Kevin
Why the need to make a threat like this one above? I have seen you do it a few times? Do you feel the need to make it a goal or mission to rub someone's face in one thing or another?

Any way, I am not sure I follow the whole argument of Peterson being a coward nor what you think he lied about. Is there a starting thread here that leads to another on MDD? Can you point me to it so I can follow? Because this thread is confusing.

[_Willy Law]

Are you trying to destroy whatever intellectual credibility you have left?

I think his belief in divining rods has taken care of that already.

[_Chap]

...

Then the tension eventually reached a climax when I decided to email Robert Ritner to find out if some of the things Dan had said about him were true. It turns out that Dan was spreading falsehoods about Ritner, and when Ritner threatened a lawsuit, Dan had a complete meltdown. He then whined to the forum about how his livelihood could be negatively affected if he were to go to court, even if he were found innocent. He solicited sympathy from everyone because according to him, he could lose all the money he has been saving for his poor children as their inheritance.

Believe it or not, up to this point I had NEVER called Dan a liar. I just wanted to hear Ritner's side of the story before taking Dan's claims for granted. In fact I had spoken in Dan's defense when others had called him a liar. I felt bad about Dan's situation, gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked Ritner not to press charges against him. Ritner responded by saying he wouldn't, if Dan and John Gee ceased the libelous charges against him. Since then I don't think Dan has dared to repeat these charges. Charges which Ritner said he could and would prove to be false, using email exchanges he would share with the internet world if push came to shove.

...

Ah ... memories! This was the business where an apparent attempt was made to defuse Ritner's criticisms of John Gee's work by:

1. Noting that Ritner had ceased to be a member of Gee's PhD committee (which was true).

2. Hinting that this had happened because Ritner had done something improper or unprofessional (rather than, for instance, allowing for the possibility that Ritner might have found it very difficult to supervise someone who approached certain Egyptological questions from a faith-based perspective that he did not share).

Of course (2) was done in the usual way, by saying things like 'There is a lot more to this than you know, or that I can reveal here. Suffice it to say that if you knew what I know ...' and so on and so forth.

And as you say, in the end it stopped.

[_Kevin Graham]

Jason, who is making threats? I simply pointed out that Dan's decision to support a despicable character like William Schryver, will follow him throughout his career. I'm willing to let the future decide if that was such a wise idea. He is the only LDS schoalr to go on record and claim Schryver is a victim of a baseless smear campaign. The others seem to have tried to distance themselves from him. I pointed out in a previous thread here that Dan stood up for Schryver over at MAD while refusing to refer to any of the evidence against him. He just assured his readers that the whole thing was a baseless smear campaign, because, well, Dan thinks so.

I didn't comment over there because I knew it would be deleted and I'd be banned. So I commented over here saying Dan was a hypocrite for giving Schryver a pass like this while condemning so many people who don't even approach Schryver's repugnance.

So on a thread at MAD discussing John Taylor's deception to his French audience regarding polygamy, Dan suddenly turns the entire thread into an anti-Kevin free-for-all. He said I called him a hypocrite over at MD, but didn't explain why. He then said anyone who ever disagrees with me is called a liar or hypocrite or moron or whatever. Hence, no surprise I called John Taylor a liar.

THIS IS THE LIE. And it is a LIE Dan has been propagating for YEARS now. He said this about my case against Wells Jakeman the crackpot, and he said the same exact thing in response to my argument against John Gee. Only now have I decided to tell him he's lying for saying it.

The thread over there didn't talk about John Taylor for the next three pages. Everyone had been posting about how I call everyone I disagree with a liar, therefore it should be no surprise that I call John Taylor a liar. All the evidence supporting the fact that he lied, was never addressed. All the evidence proving Dan was a hypocrite, was completely ignored.

The fact that Dan ran over to MAD to attack me in this way, knowing perfectly well the mods would never in a million years let my defense stand, proved to me he was a coward. He does this all the time. He never debates anything. He is the epitome of old school apologetics, where successfully smearing a critic is considered "good enough."

Even now he still refuses to provide evidence backing up his charges. And now the usual suspects are crawling out of the woodwork to earn their brown-nosing noogies by essentially repeating what Dan falsely asserted. None of them are prepared to back it up.

[_Nomad]

Yes, you are a coward. And quite frankly, a disgusting individual if you cannot bring yourself to condemn William Schryver's repugnant attacks on women. That's something that is going to haunt you for the rest of your career.

I promise you.

Kevin
Why the need to make a threat like this one above? I have seen you do it a few times? Do you feel the need to make it a goal or mission to rub someone's face in one thing or another?

Any way, I am not sure I follow the whole argument of Peterson being a coward nor what you think he lied about. Is there a starting thread here that leads to another on MDD? Can you point me to it so I can follow? Because this thread is confusing.

I see Graham’s gone completely off the tracks. Wow. I’m not sure if he’s more likely to be a danger to himself or to others. Maybe both. He definitely needs some kind of professional help. Maybe some enforced medication. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him this bad. What is more interesting to me is that, with only a few exceptions, most of the folks here are acting like this is perfectly acceptable, normal behavior. I guess in a way it is, for Graham at least. But wow! This thread is just one long foaming at the mouth Graham meltdown. Most of what he has written is more or less incomprehensible. Disconnected. Random ranting about this, that and the other. Interesting too that his manic rage against Schryver even threads its way through all this "Dan Peterson is a coward" stuff. "You'll condemn Schryver or else ... or else ... or else ... haunt your career ... or else ... or else ... destroy you I will ... or else ... or else ........................... I promise!"

Hey Kevin, maybe you can get MsJack to whip up one of her "Mormon Misogynist Specials" for Dan Peterson, too. We haven't had a good MsJack misogyny rant going for what ... two or three days now? Maybe she can get the Mormon Times to cancel Peterson's weekly columns, or get him canned from FARMS, or something even worse .............. maybe lock him in a cell, pump him full of Adderall and force him to listen for three days straight to audio versions of Kevin Graham posts read in rapper style by the Chipmunks.

[_Tarski]

I just want to go on record.


Kevin was in several heated debates with me on the subjects of election politics and on atheism.

I do not recall Kevin calling me a liar at any point or -as far as I can recall-attacking my character in sweeping terms.

On the other hand, every time I have tried to see in detail why Kevin was calling someone a liar--and I have by no means checked up on every such instance--I could not find a good defense for the person he accused even when I expected that such a defense would be there. In each case it did look very much like an instance of deception of greater or lesser degree. I hold open the possibility that I may not be looking at things correctly or that more information may change my mind. For the latter reason I myself do not wish to call someone a liar out loud as it were.

Also, there are certain people (e.g. Droopy) that continually characterize Kevin's posts as lacking in substance, logic, or evidence.

However, I cannot find any posts from those people (on topics Kevin posts about) that contains any substance at all.

Could someone please direct me to such a substantive post if one exists? Seriously.

All I see--so far-- is deflection and insult occasionally mixed with ideologically extreme preaching. (Ironically, aren't these very things that Kevin is accused of?)


Kevin's posts contain a fair share of insults and verbal directness but whether one likes it or not, they nearly always contain plenty of data, references, and analysis.

It seems to me that Kevin's main "sin" is that he doesn't let people get away with things.

[_Some Schmo]

Hey Kevin, maybe you can get MsJack to whip up one of her "Mormon Misogynist Specials" for Dan Peterson, too. We haven't had a good MsJack misogyny rant going for what ... two or three days now?

Still smarting from that, huh Willy?

[_Kevin Graham]

Much appreciated Tarski.

As for Nomad's remarks,

I see Graham’s gone completely off the tracks. Wow. I’m not sure if he’s more likely to be a danger to himself or to others. Maybe both. He definitely needs some kind of professional help. Maybe some enforced medication. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him this bad. What is more interesting to me is that, with only a few exceptions, most of the folks here are acting like this is perfectly acceptable, normal behavior.

What precisely is it I have done here that would lead anyone to the assumption that I'm having a "meltdown" or that I need "enforced medication" or that I've "gone completely off the tracks" or that I've become "unhinged" or that I may be a "danger to myself and others"?

What is my sin?

I pointed out that John Taylor was, not just a liar, but rather a proven liar.

I also made a good case that Dan Peterson is a hypocrite and a coward.

Now I've spent enough time as an apologist to know that this is par for the course as far as they are concerned. Virtually every critic they aim to "refute" is first accused of any combination of deception, cowardice and hypocrisy. Half of the FARMS "reviews" could very well start out with "OK now this author is a liar because..." Or "this author is deceiving his readers because..." That's what they do. That's practically all they do, actually. So their hypocrisy continues. Calling someone a coward, liar or hypocrite is perfectly fine in their eye, so long as that person is not a "Saint."

The difference of course, is that I can prove my case with evidence. This is all I have ever done, which is why they are the ones going completely ape-shit, trying to discredit me as some crazed maniac who calls people liars for no other reason except that they dared to "disagree" with me.

This is demonstrably false and Dan should stop lying in this manner. He thinks he can get away with it, and he has for quite a while. But no more. Last night was the final straw because lying and cowardice is just a combination for which I have little tolerance. The funny thing is that Dan occasionally tells his audience that he doesn't want anything to do with me, that he wants no contact with me whatsoever, and that for this reason he refuses to respond to my refutations. But then, suddenly, he does respond; but look how he responds. He responds at MAD for two reasons: 1) It derailed an embarrassing discussion proving John Taylor was a intentional deceiver and 2) he knew the mods would support him and suppress my responses. So his five year claim of ignoring me and wanting nothing to do with me is false. But this in and of itself is just another tactic he uses to indirectly suggest there must be something "wrong" with me, if the great admirable Dan Peterson is appalled by my mere presence.

But I know Dan is just upset because I had the audacity to call him out on a number of arguments he knows he cannot defend. He is so used to being able to preach from his secure perch, being above reproach because he's soooo smart. Hence, the smear campaigning, telling everyone I should be dismissed as a nut-job who does nothing but wander around aimlessly while mumbling "liar liar." Of course, I also appreciate the fact that he and I both know the only people he can ever manage to convince this is true, are folks like Zakuska, Mola, LeSellers, Loran "you're a communist" Blood, William "you're a whore" Schryver, Bob "you're a fag" Crockett, Russell "you're a murderer" McGregor, etc. Those are his kind of people and he shouldn't be ashamed of making his associations known to all his audiences.