Peterson at it again, blasting away in the comments

[_DrW]

DrW,

If Daniel Peterson continues to behave in a way that illicits criticism, why would you think it unfair or unreasonable that he continue to be criticized for such behavior?

I think you're intelligent to realize that this is more a cop out than a reasonable thought process. he is criticized for innocuous nothingness by folks here. he's not behaving in a way to illicit criticism. did you read the OP, follow the links and realize that this criticism, for instance, is stupid? uh...this isn't the only case of criticism directed at him for no credible reason. On top of that the nature of criticism ought to be taken into account. Sure criticize him. Just don't take it to extremes like people do here.

Stem,

I don't think my statement is a cop-out. I would think the validity of it should be self-evident. If DCP behaved as you do, or even as I do, there would be far less criticism of his behavior, and he would not need to worry about any "malevolent stalkers" (his words, not mine).

But he does not. He takes every opportunity to promote himself and Mormonism, but seldom takes the time to defend or justify his claims. Folks just get tired of hearing it (or reading it).

If he wants to persuade people that Mormonism is true and that he the smartest and most debonair individual in Mormonism, then he should stand ready to defend these assertions (whether they be explicitly stated or implied) with evidence.

He seldom does so. He usually just shoots and scoots.

This is exactly the behavior that would be expected from one whose position is indefensible.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, and of course, this is the only thing DCP has ever posted on the 'net.

No, it isn't. But, it is the subject of this thread. DrW said that DCP posts offensive things almost daily. I used the OP as an example. Does it offend you? It surely offends Infymus.

I think DCP is rarely offensive. For the most part he's pretty well-mannered.

[_Buffalo]

Stem,

I don't think my statement is a cop-out. I would think the validity of it should be self-evident. If DCP behaved as you do, or even as I do, there would be far less criticism of his behavior, and he would not need to worry about any "malevolent stalkers" (his words, not mine).

But he does not. He takes every opportunity to promote himself and Mormonism, but seldom takes the time to defend or justify his claims. Folks just get tired of hearing it (or reading it).

If he wants to persuade people that Mormonism is true and that he the smartest and most debonair individual in Mormonism, then he should stand ready to defend these assertions (whether they be explicitly stated or implied) with evidence.

He seldom does so. He usually just shoots and scoots.

This is exactly the behavior that would be expected from one whose position is indefensible.

Very true. This is legitimate cause for criticism. DCP isn't an offensive man. He's just not a very intellectually brave man, either.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

I don't think my statement is a cop-out. I would think the validity of it should be self-evident. If DCP behaved as you do, or even as I do, there would be far less criticism of his behavior, and he would not need to worry about any "malevolent stalkers" (his words, not mine).

But he does not. He takes every opportunity to promote himself and Mormonism, but seldom takes the time to defend or justify his claims. Folks just get tired of hearing it (or reading it).

If he wants to persuade people that Mormonism is true and that he the smartest and most debonair individual in Mormonism, then he should stand ready to defend these assertions (whether they be explicitly stated or implied) with evidence.

He seldom does so. He usually just shoots and scoots.

This is exactly the behavior that would be expected from one whose position is indefensible.

oh brother. I can now tell you will justify anything when it comes to going after that Mormon. The OP in this thread is a ridiculous whiney complaint about DCP because he posted some harmless thing elsewhere. its ridiculous how far you and others will take this.

Have fun if this the game you wish to play.

[_Simon Belmont]

Stem,

I don't think my statement is a cop-out. I would think the validity of it should be self-evident. If DCP behaved as you do, or even as I do, there would be far less criticism of his behavior, and he would not need to worry about any "malevolent stalkers" (his words, not mine).

Seriously, DrW... and I am not just playing games here. Where is this offensiveness you speak of? I have not seen it. Sure, he's said a few things online in the past that were offensive (I could see how someone could be offended at some SHIELDS material), but who hasn't? I mean, jeez, that constitutes a couple of incidents that happened more than five years ago!

His postings here, at MDD, on DesNews, and on other media outlets have been anything but offensive. I honestly do not understand what you are talking about.

But he does not. He takes every opportunity to promote himself and Mormonism, but seldom takes the time to defend or justify his claims.

Oh no! He promotes a faith he's devoted to? How offensive! The nerve! The audacity! How dare he!

Folks just get tired of hearing it (or reading it).

Well, here is an idea for those "folks:" DON'T READ IT. There, problem solved.

I mean, seriously, did someone force Infymus to read DCP's comments on the HuffPost? I think we need to start taking responsibility for ourselves and our choices, DrW. All bad, offensive things are not always someone else's fault.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Recent things Dr. Peterson has done that can be considered offensive:

--Supported Will Schryver's misogyny
--Manipulated the deceased Leonard Arrington's words to craft a bogus "testimony" for MST
--Used MST--essentially, the personal faith-feelings of a few hundred Latter-day Saints--as "ammunition" in his war with critics.
--Referring to Buffalo using a term that means "fecal matter"
--Grossly manipulating a quote from Camus to score a point.
--Falsely accusing Robert Ritner of being a liar.

I could go on...

[_stemelbow]

Recent things Dr. Peterson has done that can be considered offensive:

--Supported Will Schryver's misogyny
--Manipulated the deceased Leonard Arrington's words to craft a bogus "testimony" for MST
--Used MST--essentially, the personal faith-feelings of a few hundred Latter-day Saints--as "ammunition" in his war with critics.
--Referring to Buffalo using a term that means "fecal matter"
--Grossly manipulating a quote from Camus to score a point.
--Falsely accusing Robert Ritner of being a liar.

I could go on...

You are an idiot. I see this list doesn't include posting, blasting away, over at some other place, as this thread is dedicated to, you support as a reason to whine about him.

But still, this list is absurd.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Recent things Dr. Peterson has done that can be considered offensive:

--Supported Will Schryver's misogyny
--Manipulated the deceased Leonard Arrington's words to craft a bogus "testimony" for MST
--Used MST--essentially, the personal faith-feelings of a few hundred Latter-day Saints--as "ammunition" in his war with critics.
--Referring to Buffalo using a term that means "fecal matter"
--Grossly manipulating a quote from Camus to score a point.
--Falsely accusing Robert Ritner of being a liar.

I could go on...

You are an idiot. I see this list doesn't include posting, blasting away, over at some other place, as this thread is dedicated to, you support as a reason to whine about him.

Sure it does. Using people's sacred, deeply-held personal beliefs (i.e., their testimonies) as an "appeal to authority" over on the Huffington Post is pretty darn offensive, in my opinion. The testimonies ought to just stand on their own. I don't think it's right to use them as a means of scoring a point. I guess you do?

[_stemelbow]

You will twist whatever he does, Scratch, to appear to be something it was never intended. I realize that. He did not, and explicitly said so, use MST as an appeal to authority. Of course you will find offense. You are easily offended when it comes to DCP and other LDS folks. You seek out offense when it comes to them. that much is obvious. Its akin to a tragedy that you will play these games because you are so easily offended, finding offense in the most innocuous of things.

But as this thread demonstrates you aren't the only one so bent on attacking some LDS folks. you have plenty of buds and supporters. you and others will justify your poor behavior by twisting something an LDS poster says or does into something that was intended.

[_Simon Belmont]

Recent things Dr. Peterson has done that can be considered offensive:

--Supported Will Schryver's misogyny

I don't think he supports misogyny in any form, no matter who it comes from. If I recall correctly, what he said was that he had met Schryver and didn't agree that he was a misogynist.

But okay, that could be considered offensive.

--Manipulated the deceased Leonard Arrington's words to craft a bogus "testimony" for MST

I thought he quoted from published texts.

But okay, could be offensive.

--Used MST--essentially, the personal faith-feelings of a few hundred Latter-day Saints--as "ammunition" in his war with critics.

I believe you that you are interpreting it that way, but I disagree. MST is what it is, a collection of testimonies from LDS academics. As DCP once said, he would like to see a "Mormon athletes testify" or other group of people.

--Referring to Buffalo using a term that means "fecal matter"

That could be offensive. Buffalo, however, is one of the most offensive posters here (see the SWK thread, for example). I am not saying he deserves what he gets, but I am also not saying we should expect DCP to be perfect and never react to things.

--Grossly manipulating a quote from Camus to score a point.
--Falsely accusing Robert Ritner of being a liar.

I'm not going to comment on these because I don't know anything about them.

So, you've listed six items here. For the sake of argument, let us suppose they are all offensive. Then, let us suppose that the single episode four years ago with Infymus was offensive to poor Infymus. Also, we will add in Tal Bachman and Steve Benson, who were obviously, at one time, offended.

So, about ten offensive things. Give or take a few (I'm not very familiar with the Benson episode(s)). This is a far cry from DrW saying that DCP offends almost daily.

So these things combined, when taken in context, necessitate more than five years of Internet stalking, attempts at blacking and maligning a person's character and academic reputation?

Again, I want to be clear: I am not here to "attack back" -- I'm done with that. I am genuinely curious.