Dan Peterson is Something Else

[_Kevin Graham]

dp

[_stemelbow]

Went off on? Kind of an ill-defined weasel phrase. You mean like people go off on Kevin (without including the substance or refutations)?

Well whether you want to play it off as nothing, I think its clear that Kevin complained about them when attempting to comment about a completely unrelated person and subject. If that's not being weaselly and you want to complain about my phrasing as if your disagreement proves something, then cool. I think it was fair for Peterson to note that Kevin whined and whined about him, claiming Peterson was a hypocrite for whatever reason. It was, fairly clear, a rant about Peterson.

Put into perspective? More weasel words? Hey, did Taylor lie or not?

Man, you want to complain about symantics? Is this a deflection in some vain, at least to me, effort to make Kevin come off as some innocent bystander? Fine by me. So Zakuska's post was not trying to put things into perspective. he was trying to refute Kevin's claim of Taylor being a liar, based on Taylor's lie. Wooptey...we all ahve lied at some point in our lives.

Could it be construed as a question? (yes) Was it harmful? In what sense?

It was very much akin to what Gee's questioning amounted to, as I saw. Surely that's not condoning Gee's questioning at all, if you intend to take it there. I'm merely calling Kevin out on a bit of selective presuming here.

?? so?

That was playful--throwing myself into the mix. But it was a decent point to be made--seeing as Kevin's argument on that point was much akin to the arguments made by Gee apologists in the Gee-Reed affair.

Do comments about DCP have to be solicited?

Nah..its quite fine behavior to whine about how DCP is a hypocrite while commenting on a book from an author you don't like, which author has nothing to do with DCP. If you truly think so, then that's too bad, honestly.

In fact the statement about Kevin inevitably calling those with whom he disagrees has been proven to be false.
You have it exactly backwards.

How could I have it backwards? He surely called DCP a liar. He did in this very thread. But, to be fair, back on MDD I kinda came to Kevin's defense on this whole thing. Yet, he still went off claiming DCP is a coward and a liar. Surely DCP's claim can be seen as some helpful hyperbole, no?

What Kevin does or does not say about DCP gives no credence to the notion that Kevin responds that way with everyone with whom he disagrees. Not true as proved by me.

I'd say DCP"s claim is proven as hyperbole by you. While not everyone he disagrees with will inevitably be uncovered as some derogatory, but some surely will.

Commenting and complaining about Kevin --OK
Commenting and complaining about DCP - not OK
Check! Got it.

Kinda hypocritical since you okay the complaining about DCP but not Kevin. Ont he other hand, no I don't think complaining about Kevin is okay. It is alright to point out when he's being hostile to people though.

[_Kevin Graham]

See? Tarski is too smart to fall for your silly synopsis. What "names" did I call Dan?

This is the remark Stem complained about yesterday:

Thomas Sowell is a professional liar who is only interested in serving far Right Wing extremism. He favors Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for God's sake. That's enough to discredit anything he has to say. But ever since he was proved wrong about the role of the CRA in the housing crisis, along with his subsequent refusal to admit being proved wrong, that did it for me. He has no credibility except among those who hail from the far Right. Kinda like how Dan Peterson has credibility in his apologetics, except among like-minded sheep. And Dan has no credibility in his judgment of characters because he rushes to defend folks like William Schryver who call ex-Mormon women whores and accuse all ex-Mormons on this forum of engaging in group anal sex. That's the kind of people Dan Peterson wants to defend. He wants to call them victims of smear campaigns. He isn't interested in the evidence, as usual. Dan is all about loyalty to the tribe. Truth is relative

How many "names" do you see in there?

After this, Dan ran over to MAD and turned the John Taylor thread on its head and started yapping his usual nonsense about how anyone who ever disagrees with me is immediately accused of lying or hypocrisy. At that point, and ONLY at that point, did I call Dan a liar. And I did so because he obviously was. It is absurd to say I cannot disagree with someone without accusing him/her of lying. But Dan knew that.

[_Chap]

<snip Italian self-pity and preening ad lib.>

Don't rush to your dictionaries. No, really don't. You've heard it all before.

LOLouder!

È proprio ovvio che non ne hai capito nulla.

The wonderful thing, of course, is that you will never know whether I know some Italian, am figuring it out through Latin, or am using Google Translate like anyone can. by the way, given the latter possibility, what on earth is the point of posting in a language other than English here? Do you feel a need to impress?

Since we are in MTC territory, could you teach me the First Discussion, please?

[_stemelbow]

See? Tarski is too smart to fall for your silly synopsis. What "names" did I call Dan?

This is the remark Stem complained about yesterday:

To be fair, I believe you have offered the wrong quote concerning that which Dan took issue with.

YOu said in that thread in response to my effort to get you to stop complaining about certain people, randomly, when topics do not concern these others:

What's wrong Stem, truth hurt? I have "rage" now for simply pointing out the facts? You're turning into a Droopy clone. Anyone who thinks I am seething with rage is really out of touch with reality. The fact is Dan Peterson is a hypocrite, and should really keep his hypocritical remarks to himself unless he wants to be called out for hypocrisy.

Not only did you call Dan a hypocrite for some odd reason, you also went off on me saying I'm turning into a Droopy clone,in some effort to expose me. And to think, my response to you was rather tame. Name-callign came out, for sure. Oh well.

[_schreech]

Man, you want to complain about symantics? Is this a deflection in some vain, at least to me, effort to make Kevin come off as some innocent bystander? Fine by me. So Zakuska's post was not trying to put things into perspective. he was trying to refute Kevin's claim of Taylor being a liar, based on Taylor's lie. Wooptey...we all have lied at some point in our lives.

LOL - so Taylor was a liar??

The fact that you are actually defending (and supporting) anything posted by Zakuska (the man who uses children's picture books to prove the existence of Book of Mormon elephants) is enough to tell me that you are pretty out of touch...but then again, not many have accused you of having a firm grasp on reality....If you could pull your nose out of Dan's arse long enough to take a breath, you might realize how silly you look trying to defend a liar by saying "everyone lies"...

[_Darth J]

Fratello Schryver:

Questo messaggio non e' in italiano, anche se la lingua in cui e' scritto si chiama "italiano." "Italiano" non vuol dire la lingua italiana, ma invece e' il nome di un codice segreto che io ho inventato e che lo chiamo "italiano," nonostante il fatto che una persona ragionevole avrebbe l'impressione che io volgio che ognuno pensi che io so parlare italiano.

Infatti, questo messaggio e' una traduzione di una scrittura antica. Ho creato il codice segreto che io chiamo "italiano" finche' i miei nemici non possano capire la traduzione che ho fatto della scrittura antica che, per coincidenza, fu scritta in italiano. Ovviamente, qualcuno che parla italiano capira' che questo messaggio non dice niente riguarda una scrittura antica. Communque, io sono certo che c'e' un messaggio mancante (chissa' dove sarebbe trovato) che contiene la scrittura antica che ho tradotto per creare questo messaggio che stai leggendo.

[_stemelbow]

LOL - so Taylor was a liar??

The fact that you are actually defending (and supporting) anything posted by Zakuska (the man who uses children's picture books to prove the existence of Book of Mormon elephants) is enough to tell me that you are pretty out of touch...but then again, not many have accused you of having a firm grasp on reality....If you could pull your nose out of Dan's arse long enough to take a breath, you might realize how silly you look trying to defend a liar by saying "everyone lies"...

1. How did I defend anything that Zakuska posted? Not that I don't reserve the right to do so?

2. Everyone has lied. That Kevin thinks he exposed a time when he lied in his life doesn't mean he's a liar. Throwing the word around that loosely obviously ruins any meaning it might have.

3. I don't' care what you think of me, Schreech. Sad but true, I don't' hold much respect for your opinion at all.

[_Kevin Graham]

I think it was fair for Peterson to note that Kevin whined and whined about him, claiming Peterson was a hypocrite for whatever reason. It was, fairly clear, a rant about Peterson.

"Whined and whined"? Good grief Stem, I made a short remark that consisted of just a few sentences. As far as I was concerned that was the end of it. The only reason it got dragged out further is because you complained about it and Dan misrepresented what I said where he knew I'd be banned. Calling a short remark a "rant" ruins your credibility as a reliable observer. As does your claim that I accused him of hypocrisy for "whatever reason"! Whatever reason?? I thought you just said you were involved and were in a position to explain what happened? So you should know the reason, but for some reason don't want to share that little tid-bit of information. You can't even pay attention to what I originally said. But you know it was a "rant" and that I "called him names" right?

Man, you want to complain about symantics?

"Symantics"?? No, he just expects you to be specific in your accusations. Saying I attacked Dan and called him names is not specific enough. Tarski doesn't appear to be interested in taking your word for it, and for good reason.

Is this a deflection in some vain, at least to me, effort to make Kevin come off as some innocent bystander?

No, he just expects you to be specific in your complaint.

So Zakuska's post was not trying to put things into perspective. he was trying to refute Kevin's claim of Taylor being a liar, based on Taylor's lie.

Zakuska did no such thing. All he did was take snips from teh debate and tried to make Taylor come off as a genius, laughing at his witty comebacks. He didn't even try to address Taylor's lie because in the previous thread Zakuska already conceded the point that he did in fact try to deceive his audience. But he tried to rationalize it using Abraham!

Wooptey...we all have lied at some point in our lives.

Then why am I to be burned at the stake for pointing out specific lies, if according to you, all I am doing is telling the truth?

It was very much akin to what Gee's questioning amounted to, as I saw.

No it wasn't. Not even close. The ministers in France had heard terrible rumors about assassinations, brothels and polygamy. All they did was ask Taylor to explain what he knew about these matters. That's it. That isn't what John Gee did. He made a specific allegation against Reed, asking him if he knew he produced poor scholarship by relying on a hoax.

Surely that's not condoning Gee's questioning at all, if you intend to take it there. I'm merely calling Kevin out on a bit of selective presuming here.

Selective presuming?

Nah..its quite fine behavior to whine about how DCP is a hypocrite while commenting on a book from an author you don't like, which author has nothing to do with DCP. If you truly think so, then that's too bad, honestly.

DCP came up because the issue was a matter of credibility. I explained why Sowell had no credibility, which led to a response to something i had just read at MAD regarding DCP's credibility. Your failure to see any relevance is, in fact, irrelevant. To me the two were connected, which is why I raised the point.

How could I have it backwards? He surely called DCP a liar. He did in this very thread. But, to be fair, back on MDD I kinda came to Kevin's defense on this whole thing. Yet, he still went off claiming DCP is a coward and a liar. Surely DCP's claim can be seen as some helpful hyperbole, no?

I only called him a liar when he gave me good reason to. It was when he lied to his MAD audience by saying I can never disagree with someone without calling them a liar. You chalk it up to hyperbole, but the fact is Dan Peterson has been saying this since 2007. He does it because it works to dismiss me the same way Pahoran uses the word "anti-Mormon" to dismiss anyone who dares criticize something about the Church. It is all about poisoning the well, and nothing more.

I'd say DCP"s claim is proven as hyperbole by you

Oh is that it? How convenient. There are always special qualifications apologists need in order to avoid hypocrisy.

While not everyone he disagrees with will inevitably be uncovered as some derogatory, but some surely will.

But I have never called anyone a liar, who hasn't lied about whatever it was I complained about. This is a fact. And the fact that neither your nor Dan nor Schryver nor Pahoran nor Crockett has tried to make an argument to the contrary, pretty much proves how strong my argument really is. For example, there is simply no way in hell anyone would ever look at the evidence against John Gee and say he made an honest mistake, unless they are LDS apologists who have no interest in condemning their own. For these people no amount of evidence matters.

Given this, he deserves the "liar" title because that is precisely what he is and he has a history of calling critics like Brent Metcalfe intentionally deceptive based on much, much weaker evidence. If he cannot give anyone else the benefit of the doubt, then why does he deserve it?

[_Themis]

2. Everyone has lied. That Kevin thinks he exposed a time when he lied in his life doesn't mean he's a liar. Throwing the word around that loosely obviously ruins any meaning it might have.

You seem to be agreeing now that one can use liar in certain situations even though everyone has lied. Good to know . :)

I would suggest it can be used for one who lies a lot or specifically in relation to an area in which a person is lying to protect themselves like Joseph did with polygamy. He lied consistently to both the public, the church, and his wife.