Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Simon Belmont]

I thought you said you didn't make the nuclear-grade meltdown comments, which is true, so I left it at that.

I also gave you an explanation for the remark. Why ask questions at all when you don't want to hear answers?

Or did the answer come from the wrong "type" of person?[/quote]

Found it

I didn't use the phrase "nuclear meltdown", I believe Scratch used that phrase in one of his posts. If I had to try to second guess Scratch (and I don't say that I can) I would say that he was referring to the number of times DCP came back at the criticisms with no evidence of actually "hearing" the criticisms of his conduct.

Just my take, I could have said it better.

I am not sure that would qualify, Jersey Girl. Not listening to criticisms is not a nuclear meltdown. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning?

[_Doctor Scratch]

As is frequently the case, Jersey Girl, you're 100% right. The "nuclear-grade meltdown" (quite a funny phrase, no?) is the sum total of poor, hapless DCP's remarks in the "Comments" section of the Web site. Simon wants me to simply pick some quote, though as you rightfully suspect, it's really the entirety of his behavior coupled with the multi-decade context of his past actions that contributed to my labeling this a "nuclear-grade meltdown." Merely taking one quote in order to show the "meltdown" would be like asking someone to bring a cup of sea water in order to show the extent of the Atlantic Ocean.

[_sock puppet]

1-Time magazine publishes the Shumway 'Happy Valley' photos and essay, timely as two presidential candidates are Mormon.

2-The NAMIRS trio, located in the heart of Happy Valley, goes on the offensive, thinks that the Happy Valley photos/essay cast Mormonism in a bad light

3-The NAMIRS trio snarkily dismiss Shumway's Mormon experience and attempt to invalidate Shumway's Mormon experience as "wrong"

4-Will Schryver steps into the fray days later, giving his eminently qualified photography opinion that the Shumway pictures are ordinary at best, but that other (those that do not involve Mormonism) are quite good.

5-If a reader of Time online was undecided about Mormonism after looking at the photos and reading the essay, the NAMIRS trio+Will surely has pushed them into having a negative opinion of Mormonism.

6-The NAMIRS trio+Will has assured that Time readers don't just suspect that Mormonism is mysterious and odd, but know from the posting that unfolded before their eyes that Mormonism is mean and vindictive. The NAMIRS trio+Will have, in the open for the non-Mormon public to see, moved Mormonism closer to the label 'cult'.

7-Dr Scratch observes that NAMIRS trio+Will have visciously gang attacked Shumway (I suppose marg would have called it a dog-pile if it were hapless stem in Shumway's shoes), and that the NAMIRS trio was have a nuclear-grade meltdown, due to the LDS control rods failing and the NAMIRS trio (and then Schryver) overheating, losing form (the PR veneer of Mormonism is perfect) and giving off noxious gases.

8-Simon jumped into hyperventilation mode, reigniting his Pharisaical harassment of Dr Scratch, inflating a nuclear-grade meltdown to be the detonation of a nuclear warhead.

9-Simon stands by his exaggeration, while yet demanding that Dr Scratch retract what Simon sees as an exaggeration by Dr Scratch.

10-This thread stands as another testament to (a) how mean-spirited the NAMIRS trio (and Will, the NAMIRS wannabe) are, and (b) Simon's chronic inconsistency (or hypocrisy).

[_Stormy Waters]

4-Will Schryver steps into the fray days later, giving his eminently qualified photography opinion that the Shumway pictures are ordinary at best, but that other (those that do not involve Mormonism) are quite good.

Insulting the quality of the photography was petty and vindictive.

[_sock puppet]

If he made this up about DCP, what else has he made up over the last five years?

And since we know Thomas Monson gave two factually different accounts of the WWII soldier dying in the Pacific Theater, what else has he made up while an FP/12? Is the big 21st Century Mormon God's revelation, the one about how many earrings per female ear, and none for male ears, something Monson just pulled out of his a**?

Next in going back, there's GBH, the Mormon king of dodge and weave. If he doesn't know that Mormonism teaches the King Follett Sermon principles then appearing in correlated manuals put out by the Church, what else did GBH not know Mormonism taught?

Howard W Hunter...etc., etc.

Do you really want to adopt this type of argument, Simon?

[_RockSlider]

Well, maybe DCP has gained some sense ... looked like he was back posting with a vengence eariler, but all is now silent ... bummer.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, maybe DCP has gained some sense ... looked like he was back posting with a vengence eariler, but all is now silent ... bummer.

I read the comments section earlier and noticed that DCP actually mentioned his "Malevolent Stalker". I don't want to be mean here, but seriously, the man doesn't have the sense God presumably gave him. If it were me, I would have ignored every single "attack" comment and gone about my merry way saying whatever I felt was relevant to the article and photographic images.

If he'd done that, it would have made the critics look like nutters. Instead, he validated every single criticism by responding to it!

No street smarts at all! Amazing!

[_Dr. Shades]

Insulting the quality of the photography was petty and vindictive.

But what if the photographs really weren't all that great? They looked, to me, like someone handed his or her 12 year-old kid a camera and set him or her loose to snap a bunch of random shots.

[_Drifting]

Let me rephrase that. You disagree and, since you disagree, you want Scratch to apologize. We've got it.

Then why are you and the other Scratchpologists supporting Scratch? If he made this up about DCP, what else has he made up over the last five years?

If he's too proud to apologize, I'd be fine with him simply retracting the statements.

So......

You use the term Scratchpologist even though you have bitterly opposed the term 'Mopologist' and even 'The Mormon Church'.
What is that term used for someone who complains about something that they themselves do....

You also seem to be suggesting that when a person is suspected of telling a fib, then that person should be forever under suspicion. Do you apply that same principle to people like...say...Prophets and Apostles...or do different belmonistic rules apply?

For instance - have you asked Elder Holland to retract those heart rending statements about holding up Hyrum's actual Book of Mormon in Conference that time?

[_Buffalo]

Dr. Peterson seems to be incapable of ever taking responsibility for his own tone, or understanding that there's a good reason why drama follows him no matter where he posts. He's incapable, it would seem, of ever admitting he's done something wrong.