Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Kishkumen]

Ultimately, Joey, I don't care two squats about you. You would never have even shown up on my radar if it weren't for the fact that you're helping to prop up bad behavior.

And this is the nub of the whole thing. What has been obvious to everyone all along. I've only ever been a means to end. A way to get to someone else. Casualty of war? Collatoral damage? My own fault for daring to speak up for someone I care about? I wonder if this kind of thinking is any indicator about obsession as well. Can we add something else to the idea of concentration now?

Well, so much for nuanced discussion. I think this is the point where I ask you for those headphones.

As you know, J Green, I have a fairly long history on this little corner of cyberspace, and in that time I have experienced a great deal in connection with both Dr. Peterson and Doctor Scratch. At this point, I have diminishing sympathy for Dr. Peterson where this is concerned. I know that makes me an awful person in the eyes of some, but it has become clear to me over time that Daniel bears a certain responsibility for the phenomenon because of his obsession with critics of Mormonism and critics of Mormon apologetics.

I know few people who would park on some obscure message board waiting for any stray statement about him and then post about it on another obscure message board or blog about it. If you think Scratch is creepy or obsessive, I would say look at the behavior of your friend Daniel and ask whether he does not return and provoke a certain amount of this allegedly unwelcome attention.

More than one associate of Peterson has recommended him to drop the whole Scratch business, but he will have none of it. I feel as though you have a friend who is an alcoholic, and that your idea of an intervention is to go picket the local ABC store, blaming it for his problem. Peterson is the one who yammers on about his "Malevolent Stalker" fantasizing all of these ridiculous scenarios about Scratch picking through his garbage, etc.

But the truth is that this is just hypocritical nonsense. Here you have a guy who shares his personal travel itinerary with the world, who invites people to check out his Amazon reviews, who blogs about his "enemies," etc., and then has the temerity to turn around and moan about what a martyr he is when people give that the wrong kind of attention. Ridiculous. I have no doubt he really believes this drama, and that he sees Scratch as this horrible person, but the tragedy of blindness to his own part in all of this is no less palpable to the rest of us because of his conviction that he is especially aggrieved.

Look, if he wants sympathy, maybe he shouldn't behave like a jackass. I know it is a remarkable suggestion, but it is true. The idea that this negative response came out of some demonic pit of hell completely unprovoked and undeserved is nonsense. I don't hate the guy. He and I have had cordial communications, and in certain respects I like him and like some of what he does. But when it comes to his role in printing shite like the so-called review of Laura Compton and then complaining when others don't like that stuff, he gets zero sympathy from me. Zero.

Then, to top it off, he thinks that lampooning me and hinting that he can reveal my identity is a way to force me to capitulate. I know bullying when I see it, and he is not innocent in that regard at all.

So, instead of dreaming that Doctor Scratch should give two squats about your opinion on this, maybe you should spend your time trying to persuade the guy you believe does care--your friend Daniel--and if he refuses to listen, maybe that should tell you something.

[_J Green]

Kish,

Interesting comments about artisans and esoteric knowledge. I had forgotten about Plato's reference.

As for the other comments, I need to reflect on those for a minute. And I have work to attend to as well. More later.

Cheers.

[_Chap]

Hi, Chap. It's been a while.

J. Green calls it an obsession. Me, I'd prefer to call it a specialty.

I'm not sure that these ideas are exclusive. Couldn't they be both? Aren't most of our own weaknesses related to our strengths in some fashion?

But I'm interested in taking the measure of your argument, so perhaps you'll forgive me for coming at it from an oblique angle:

Droopy's singular focus on politics: obsession, specialty, or both? Why or why not?

Regards

Oh, Droopy has a specialty all right. It's just that:

1. I am not very interested in the topic of his specialty.

2. He does not seem to do it very well. His language is strange and convoluted, his tone is often so angry as to seem crazed, and he keeps on hitting the same note over and over again. Scratch on the other hand is rarely boring, and nearly always urbane in his tone and literate in his prose style.

[_J Green]

Kish,

I’m heading out to inspect one of our units shortly, so I’ll be out of the loop for a while. But before I go I’d like to try to get some clarification from you.

To summarize, I had posted on the other board my feeling that as a public figure, Dan has the right to defend himself against allegations. Here you are essentially arguing that whatever it is that Dan is defending against is of his own making. A self-licking ice cream cone is what we call it in the military. To this end, you provide supporting evidence in the form of the obscure nature of the boards on which the allegations arise, his own invitations to explore his personal life (Amazon), his behavior towards others (Compton Review) and you, etc. Is this a fair assessment?

What I don’t understand is the kind of response you’re looking for from me. I get three different vibes from this post. The first is that you are simply venting. The second is that you might be looking for a larger discussion with me about the argument that you’ve laid out vis-à-vis how much scrutiny Dan invites on himself. And the third is simply that I shouldn’t engage in this discussion at all because I should be having a discussion with Dan instead. Am I accurate? If so, only the second really requires any kind of response. Is that what you’re looking for?

Regards

[_J Green]

Chap,

Fair enough. I would characterize both as obsessions that are harmful. I suppose one question I would ask is how much flexibility and room for compromise would you see in either one in talking about their subject of choice? Regardless of how witty or creative I might find Droopy's little songs or urbane you might find Scratch's musings, I really don't think that engaging either one in their "specialty" could really be called a "discussion" in any sense of the word, could it?

Regards

[_Chap]

Chap,

Fair enough. I would characterize both as obsessions that are harmful. I suppose one question I would ask is how much flexibility and room for compromise would you see in either one in talking about their subject of choice? Regardless of how witty or creative I might find Droopy's little songs or urbane you might find Scratch's musings, I really don't think that engaging either one in their "specialty" could really be called a "discussion" in any sense of the word, could it?

Regards

I am not sufficiently interested to play an infinite bait and switch game with you on the subject of Scratch's posts. I rejected your use of 'obsession'. Now you are trying to see if I will commit to 'discussion'. If I say yes to that, you can go on to ask whether it would be a 'sincere discussion', and so on for ever until I finally agree to join you in making some mildly opprobrious statement about Scratch. We both have better things to do.

I'd rather save my energies for reading Scratch's next post about DCP ...

[_Kishkumen]

To summarize, I had posted on the other board my feeling that as a public figure, Dan has the right to defend himself against allegations. Here you are essentially arguing that whatever it is that Dan is defending against is of his own making. A self-licking ice cream cone is what we call it in the military. To this end, you provide supporting evidence in the form of the obscure nature of the boards on which the allegations arise, his own invitations to explore his personal life (Amazon), his behavior towards others (Compton Review) and you, etc. Is this a fair assessment?

What I am saying is that his response to the problem is an ineffective strategy. It makes me wonder whether, on some level, even unconscious, there is some need to have the ongoing controversy and the accompanying attention. Frankly, I am tired of it, and I would be happy to stop concerning myself with the lunacy altogether, but when it happens to affect LDS friends whom I care about, however imperfect they may be, I get pulled back in. The latest Dehlin debacle is a great example.

Let's think in terms of practical, workable solutions, if people are actually interested in such things. I say in the Dehlin case that maybe it would be good for BYU-supported organs to stop criticizing members of the Church in good standing. Sounds reasonable and Christian to me. In Daniel's case, maybe combing the internet for any slightly off-key coverage of the Church or himself is not the most practical way of avoiding fights and criticism of his own activities.

What I don’t understand is the kind of response you’re looking for from me. I get three different vibes from this post. The first is that you are simply venting. The second is that you might be looking for a larger discussion with me about the argument that you’ve laid out vis-à-vis how much scrutiny Dan invites on himself. And the third is simply that I shouldn’t engage in this discussion at all because I should be having a discussion with Dan instead. Am I accurate? If so, only the second really requires any kind of response. Is that what you’re looking for?

Well, you seem like a sane fellow, J Green. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Someday it would be great to chat with you in person. Maybe I am appealing to your good sense here in telling you that regardless of an alcoholic's right to go to the corner grocer to buy a six-pack, it is probably not a good idea for him to do so. If you live for fights over Mormonism, you are probably going to get them. Big surprise. If you really want others to take you seriously when you complain about the fights, then don't stoke them. I think that's pretty simple.

You can tell me that Dan has a right to defend himself against these accusations. Sure. I agree. He has a right. Now I wonder what he can do to stop them, because I think his strategy has thus far failed miserably. If, on the other hand, this is really not what he wants, but he instead thrives on this controversy and the attention that he gets as a victim of evil critics of Mormonism, then by all means he should continue as he has, because it is working beautifully. I just hope that sensible, honest fellows don't waste their time on the snipe hunt of putting an end to the very thing Daniel secretly wants to keep going, if this really is the case.

I am not saying what is true here. I am just pointing out that either his strategy for ending the fights and accusations sucks, or he really doesn't want them to stop. I don't think it is fair to say that he is a passive victim in all of this.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ultimately, Joey, I don't care two squats about you. You would never have even shown up on my radar if it weren't for the fact that you're helping to prop up bad behavior.

And this is the nub of the whole thing. What has been obvious to everyone all along. I've only ever been a means to end. A way to get to someone else. Casualty of war? Collatoral damage? My own fault for daring to speak up for someone I care about? I wonder if this kind of thinking is any indicator about obsession as well. Can we add something else to the idea of concentration now?

What are you talking about? Lol. How is it that, when I say "You would never have even shown up on my radar," if you hadn't popped up on this board to level criticisms, that you somehow interpret that to mean that I've singled you out as a means to "get to someone else"? It's not like I came looking for you, J Green, in the hopes that I could somehow "manipulate" you so as to score some points against DCP.

Like I said: I never would have had any reason whatsoever to say anything to or about you had you not shown up in the first place.


And getting back to my first post on this thread: what caught my attention was your comment on MDD about how non-LDS had formulated an opinion on DCP because of his online antics. "He has a right to respond!" is your argument. Well, you never said that these non-LDS folks had arrived at their opinion based on reading RfM or The Mormon Curtain, right? Presumably, the read the man's own posts and came to their conclusions on the basis of that.

But, hey: don't listen to me. Listen to Kishkumen, Blair Hodges, etc. You seem to be one of the few remaining halfway intelligent TBM holdouts who thinks that DCP is totally innocent in all of this.

[_Buffalo]

I was quite sympathetic toward DCP until I actually started interacting with him online.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The claim that DCP should speak up in response to criticism because he's a "public figure" is absurd. Take any other well-known Mormon--Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens, say. Do these men feel the need to troll RfM, looking for quotes to put in their signature lines? Do they get into email arguments with teenagers and then post the exchanges on SHIELDS? Do they say "tee hee" to each other as they insert "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostics into their scholarly work? Do they write blog postings comparing female politicians to witches, only to get scolded over this by younger Mormon Studies guys, and then respond by firing off multiple whiny, passive-aggressive blog postings?

Heck, you can even use other Mopologists here. E.g., does Bill Hamblin feel the need to address every criticism that is voiced against him? Does he maintain an archive of RfM quotes? Or, for heaven's sake, what about John Gee? Gee has been absolutely blasted into oblivion on this board, and yet do you see him firing up threads on the MDD board, or posting multiple blog entries responding to criticism of his "two inks" theory? In fact, there are threads right now that are really tearing Gee to shreds over his application of math to the scroll windings (If I recall correctly). Why isn't he kicking up a huge dust storm in response? By golly, he's a public figure, man!! He's got to speak up!