sock puppet wrote:liz3564 wrote:[DCP] told me that he had no problem with meeting Seth for lunch, and that as far as the 2007 comment goes, it simply caught him by surprise, because he hadn't read it before.
Can DCP ever keep his stories straight? It wasn't mere surprise, it was dismissive and expressing the futility of meeting with Sethbag:
DCP wrote:Well, maybe it would be a waste of time to discuss this topic with him. His viewpoint seems less interesting to me than I would have expected.
DCP was taken in by Lloyd's obvious ploy.
Dan's post was based on his initial reading of the comment. He told me via email that the comment took him by surprise. I think that his reaction was based on that "in the moment" response. It sounds, however, that if Seth were to contact him, Dan would have no problem with meeting him for lunch.
It is interesting to note that the MDD thread in question is now closed. I am not sure exactly why.
The good news is, Seth was able to state his feelings before the thread was closed. And, although Scott attempted to poison the well, I think that it is entirely possible that a meeting between Seth and DCP is likely to happen.
This was the final conversation between Scott and Seth before the thread was closed:
Sethbag wrote:I've been working on my car and making merry with family members for several days, and not looking at message boards, but Scott Lloyd's comment about me was brought to my attention, so I suppose I should say something.
I've been an unbeliever now for around 5-6 years. That first year was a sort of continuum from still-believer to unbeliever, and how strongly I leaned in either direction would have depended on what part of the year you caught me in. So four years ago, when the comment Scotty quoted was made, I had only been on the full-on unbeliever side for a year or so. The feelings were a lot fresher, and also the frustrations inherent in discussion about Mormonism between certain types of folks. If I had it to say over again, I'd be more diplomatic about it.
That said, I do think that some things I read from FARMS really did help put things into perspective for me in a way that helped me recognize, and accept, that the LDS Church in fact was on the wrong side of the argument. And it was these things that I indicated in an earlier post in this thread that I was interested in discussing with Dan at some unknown future time when I'm next in Utah and am able to go down to the Y for a visit.
Anyhow, way to go Scott for your attempt to poison the well. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you "won" or not.
Scott Lloyd wrote:Call it well-poisoning if you like, Sethbag. Or do as Dan's Malevolent Stalker and the other members of your cheering section did on the other board: Characterize it as a "smear tactic."
But let's be realistic: What I did -- with minimal commentary -- was nothing more than to draw my friend's attention to Internet content accessible to anyone with a computer and search-engine capability. I did it as a courtesy, by way of forewarning. Judging from his response, I note that he found the information surprising, perhaps even useful.
Ah, well, have no fear. According to one of the contributors to the thread on the other board, she engaged Dan in email correspondence and elicited from him a stated intention still to accept a future invitation from you, despite what alleged mischief I have wrought here. So your prospective luncheon engagement, at least for now, is not in jeopardy. That doesn't surprise me in the least. Daniel has never been one to dodge criticism or evade intellectual confrontation expressed in a civil manner.
I do still wonder about your intent. Though you acknowledge having been more bellicose in that post four years ago than you would be today, I note that you announced on the other board your intention not to "disown" any of it. I take it from this that you still regard the content in the FARMS Review as "inane" "unconvincing" "tripe," "intellectually dishonest," and "defense of the indefensible," a "desperate, last-ditch attempt to hold on to the faithful at all costs" (emphasis mine). That is to say, you see "the Mighty Scholars at FARMS" -- perhaps even Dr. Peterson himself -- as arguing and writing in bad faith.
Were I in his position, I would want to know that before making a lunch appointment.
And now that I have your attention, let me alert you to the fact that I have challenged an insinuation you made on the "Smithmas" thread over on the "General Discussions" forum. I now see the reason you have not responded. I hope your car is now running well now, that your Christmas observance with family was delightful, and that you have a happy New Year.
Let me say here, since Scott obviously reads here, that yes, Scott, Scratch did describe what you were attempting to do correctly. It was, indeed, a smear tactic.
And, as a friend of both Dan and Seth, I, for one, am glad that Dan didn't fall for it.