I heartily endorse Dan Peterson's assessment of you, Kevin, as an aggressive and fouled-mouth anti-Mormon (you're pointing the finger at me for swearing? LOL. How hypocritical do you get?).
The only hypocrisy here is your own, Ray. The fact is you swear more than most people on this forum, and you're constantly whining about tone. You don't see me whining about tone from other folks, even when their tone is really out of control. And yes, you curse more than I do. Or I should say, you curse at people, which is more to the point of your hypocrisy about tone. I rarely curse, and whenever I do, I'm usually cursing at something, not someone.
There was a time when I went through the "you're an idiot" phase, but that had more to do with my obsessive addiction to the sitcom "House." It is just something doctor House said a lot and I found myself saying it out loud on a daily basis, usually sarcastically. Some might remember the moniker I used at the time was a photo of House. Anyway, some things aren't conveyed through the web as intended humor so people thought I was being intentionally abusive with the word, when that wasn't my intention at all.
If you had even a smidgen of humanity towards DCP, you might actually be able to engage him in conversation.
Ray, this guy attacks me more than I attack him, this is a fact. He is the one who started two threads attacking me at MADD. When is the last time I started a thread attacking Dan's opinions? He is mean and ruthless the way he goes after people, and yet you think he is a vicitim of sorts. Attacking apostates = defending the Church, and that is what he has been doing as long as I've known him. Even as an apologist I saw it, and because I was a like-minded apologist, I looked forward to the next installment of the FARMS smack down of whatever critic they chose to place in their cross-hairs. Every other apologist I knew looked forward to it as well. We used to relish in this feeling that we made all critics of Mormonism look foolish and deceptive. Dan doesn't know how to get out of that mode, apparently. Even when a GA steps in and turns on the light for him.
So you have no friggin clue what you're talking about. The first time I ever butted heads with Dan, it was when he stomped off and started attacking me on the FAIR boards, calling me a bigot or what not, just because I made him look stupid, when in fact, I had no idea at the time that the moniker he was using at ZLMB, "Freethinker," was him! From then on out it has been downhill for us, even though it was interrupted with pleasant moments of civility when I, without any nudging from Dan, decided to step away from our spat and defend him online in a forum where he was attacked by some ex-Mormons who accused him of lying about some thing or another. I went there on my own to defend him, and he emailed me an appreciation note. A few months later he's back to slamming me on the boards. This guy is a super senstive nutjob at times. Just look at the way he freaked out at MsJack for no reason. You see Ray, it is Dan who creates divisions, not I. The way you constantly fall to his feet and pretend he is an eternal victim, is really getting creepy.
Good Lord. Let me weep. "Go back to Mormonism"?
Then why the hell are you here Ray? Or is your only mission here to jump in front of bullets for DCP? You said it yourself, when I was coming up with reasons for people to stay LDS, you felt inspired. Since then, you haven't been inspired by anything I've said because it encourages people to get out of Mormonism. So, I figured you were looking to get back in. After all, Dan was able to get you back right? Apparently, it doesn't really take much to nudge you one way or the other.
But you're a contentious person, always looking for a fight with anyone who disagrees with you, whether as a Mormon or ex-Mormon, but I actually think you were more tolerant as a Mormon.
That's a hilarious comment. I've heard precisely the opposite, especially from other LDS apologists. You and I rarely every talked really, so I have to get a kick out of it when people like you pretend to know me so well over the years. PaPa is on the MAD board pretending he knows me in real life. He's made this comment several times now.
I don't dislike you, as DCP does, yet, but you're tempting me
Go ahead. I assure you I'll still sleep at night. I don;t know why you and Dan feel it is so important to keep pointing out how much you dislike me. Who cares? What matters is the facts and the evidence, both of which prove the two of you are extreme hypocrites. Seriously, if we took you, Droopy, and a few other apologist types and booted them from the forum, the civility in overall tone would rise 200%. So it is funny that you are precisely teh same people who keep whining about tone. It is as self-fulfilled prophecy. As if you come here just to antagonize, and then when things get heated, you go "Ah ha, see I told you this forum was toxic!" Most others probably realize by now that I'm not nearly as tempted to reciprocate in such negative back and forth as I was an apologist.
Given how you have harassed the man since you became estranged from the faith
False. I guess you mean my inquiry to Robert Ritner, who informed me that Dan Peterson was spreading lies about him for years regarding the Gee-dissertation affair. This was Dan's first piece of evidence that I was "harrassing" him! How dare I go to the horse's mouth when Dan Peterson spreads hearsay evidence I'm just supposed to take his word for it right? I know you did. Dan puts himself in teh spotlight and presents himself as an authority on a number of apologetic claims I know to be false. If he doesn't want to be corrected, then he needs to stop taking up untenable positions. Whining about harrassment just makes him look childish.
I don't blame him one bit for the way he feels about you.
I don't either. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I were an authority and was constantly being proved wrong by some know-nothing apostate. I'd probably hate me too.
You've incessantly criticised him over the most trivial things, and made him an "offender for a word" at every opportunity.
Yes of course. Dan didn't do any of this himself. I am the one who made him lie about a number of issues. It was all part of my master plan. You got me Ray. And what you call trivial, happens to be an important truth to others. If a critic were wrong on these same points he'd gleefully use it against them in an upcoming "review" claiming deception and "by their fruits you shall know them." The point is Dan has attacked critics and published authors who criticize apostates for some of the dumbest stuff, and almost always implying dishonesty on their part. So Dan deserves a little taste of his own medicine, even if that isn't the reason why I sometimes give it to him.