DCP naming names again

[_sock puppet]

You are overlooking the fact that the worthless Scratch has relied upon his anonymity as a shield for his relentless campaign of harassment for the last six years.

And I'm sure you're just fine with that. It's not as if questions of right and wrong matter to you at all.

When Daniel Peterson grows a conscience about his participation in the Review is the moment I will care about the inevitable blowback.

There's nothing wrong with his participation in the Review.

His two-decade crusade against people who disagree with him about Mormonism was indeed shameful. He more than looked on serenely while people like the shiftless Greg Smith tarnished the name of Laura Compton and others; he made it possible.

How did Greg Smith's review "tarnish the name of Laura Compton?" Who had ever heard of Laura Compton before his review? Had anyone, apart from her personal circle, heard of her in any connection other than her "Mormons for Marriage" site?

Mind you, calling someone "shiftless," as you do with no justification whatsoever, might well tarnish their name.

I frankly don't feel sorry for him.

Of course you don't. That would require a conscience.

It would be like trying to feel sorry for Lee Atwater for his political smear campaigns.

Thank you for admitting (nay, triumphantly braying) that your hatred is ideologically based.

I just can't bring myself to sympathize with the man's bad reputation, well-earned as it was.

As you perfectly well know, and thoroughly approve, everything "bad" about Dan's reputation was manufactured by the most spiteful wart on the internet.

Hey, you're Daniel Peterson's personal Inspector Clouseau. Clearly you have no room to talk. I don't believe I have ever committed that kind of time to helping Doctor Scratch. I merely join in conversations in which he participates and have a fun time doing it. The day I behave like you do, that is when I will start to worry about myself.

The day you behave like I do, you will have made a quantum improvement.

Regards,
Pahoran

You know, P, a phrase misapplied on MDB yesterday actually applies quite aptly to you: "Gads, yer so pompously incompetent."

[_Kishkumen]

There's nothing wrong with his participation in the Review.

Of course there is. He has been the facilitator of some of the most unkind prose and epic dogpiles on Mormon authors ever seen within Mormondom. You would have to go to anti-Mormon ministries to find more attacks on Mormons than you find in the Review.

How did Greg Smith's review "tarnish the name of Laura Compton?" Who had ever heard of Laura Compton before his review? Had anyone, apart from her personal circle, heard of her in any connection other than her "Mormons for Marriage" site?

If you bring someone to the attention of others by tarnishing their name, you have still tarnished their name. That's really quite simple.

Mind you, calling someone "shiftless," as you do with no justification whatsoever, might well tarnish their name.

He did it to himself by insinuating the worst about Laura Compton.

Of course you don't. That would require a conscience.

My conscience is what demanded that I not sit silent while apologists attacked fellow Mormons unfairly. If you had a conscience, you would understand that.

Thank you for admitting (nay, triumphantly braying) that your hatred is ideologically based.

I know that analogies are a little too sophisticated for you, but it is better to let them pass than to advertise your shortcomings like that.

As you perfectly well know, and thoroughly approve, everything "bad" about Dan's reputation was manufactured by the most spiteful wart on the internet.

Everything bad about Dan's reputation was generated from every keyboard and typewriter that he ever put his fingers to. He has done this to himself. You are into the concept of personal responsibility, right? Well, allow him to take some and cease coddling and flattering him.

The day you behave like I do, you will have made a quantum improvement.

By the standards of the Kingdom of Hell, no doubt.

[_Pahoran]

There's nothing wrong with his participation in the Review.

Of course there is. He has been the facilitator of some of the most unkind prose and epic dogpiles on Mormon authors ever seen within Mormondom.

Pure unmitigated rot.

You would have to go to anti-Mormon ministries to find more attacks on Mormons than you find in the Review.

What "attacks on Mormons?" You mean reviews of books written by people questioning or undermining the truth claims of the Church?

How did Greg Smith's review "tarnish the name of Laura Compton?" Who had ever heard of Laura Compton before his review? Had anyone, apart from her personal circle, heard of her in any connection other than her "Mormons for Marriage" site?

If you bring someone to the attention of others by tarnishing their name, you have still tarnished their name. That's really quite simple.

You keep repeating this slogan as though it does all the work for you. But how did he "tarnish" her name? Was her participation in M4M supposed to be a secret? If so, from whom? Did she ever object to him mentioning her as its administrator? I've read her rather petulant response to Smith's article, but I don't recall her getting anywhere near as hysterical on that point as you seem to be.

Mind you, calling someone "shiftless," as you do with no justification whatsoever, might well tarnish their name.

He did it to himself by insinuating the worst about Laura Compton.

What did he "insinuate" about her? That she runs a website? Oh, no! That her website doesn't exactly crack down hard on those who vent about Church leaders, despite its claimed policies? Well, it doesn't.

And again, how does him writing an article about her website make him "shiftless?" That's really a rather baseless libel, isn't it?

My conscience is what demanded that I not sit silent while apologists attacked fellow Mormons unfairly. If you had a conscience, you would understand that.

Oh come on Kish, now you're just posturing.

Everything bad about Dan's reputation was generated from every keyboard and typewriter that he ever put his fingers to.

Is that a conscious falsehood, or merely an artifact of your own controlling bias?

He has done this to himself.

Liar. His "bad reputation" is a complete beat-up and you know it, since you are a major participant therein.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_sock puppet]

You would have to go to anti-Mormon ministries to find more attacks on Mormons than you find in the Review.

What "attacks on Mormons?" You mean reviews of books written by people questioning or undermining the truth claims of the Church?

The horror, the horror--people writing books, using their minds, asking questions. "Reviews"--I suppose that's a FARMers' euphemism for screeds.

[_Pahoran]

Speaking of frantic-looking, please explain in what way being asked to support your assertions is a red herring or a smokescreen or [insert metaphor here].

That would be explaining how specifically asking you to support the claim you keep making is distracting from the claim you keep making.

Oh, and since you equate a pragmatic interest in privacy with cowardice, may I refer to you by your in real life name henceforth?

As I've explained on a number of occasions, I don't really mind people knowing who I am. I'd just prefer my in real life name not be searchable in connection with this forum (and some others.)

Unlike some people here, I don't have anything to hide. So I won't talk about [deleted] (do you refer to them in that style over there) if you don't canvass my in real life information. Deal?

As for why I'm not getting distracted by your legal sideshow: it isn't germane to anything I'm arguing.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

Pure unmitigated rot.

That is all you ever write. You should just post this in response to everything, because you do anyways. This just cuts down the waste of verbiage.

What "attacks on Mormons?" You mean reviews of books written by people questioning or undermining the truth claims of the Church?

You almost got it, buttercup. Keep thinking. I know it takes a lot of effort. Mean reviews written by people undermining the faith of LDS folk, yes.

I've read her rather petulant response to Smith's article, but I don't recall her getting anywhere near as hysterical on that point as you seem to be.

Citing a pertinent example of the slimy insinuations of an unscrupulous excuse for an apologist is in no way hysterical. It is a public service.

What did he "insinuate" about her? That she runs a website? Oh, no! That her website doesn't exactly crack down hard on those who vent about Church leaders, despite its claimed policies? Well, it doesn't.

You are welcome to read my commentary on it. As usual, you got the whole thing wrong. I know it is too much to ask you to read, think, or use the board's search engine, but I am done coddling idiots like you.

Oh come on Kish, now you're just posturing.

Pahoran, all you do is posture and pose.

Is that a conscious falsehood, or merely an artifact of your own controlling bias?

No, it is the truth. And it is so blatantly obvious to everyone but you, Peterson, and Peterson's other dittoheads, that you look like a complete moron to persist in contradicting what is as plain as the nose on your face.

Liar. His "bad reputation" is a complete beat-up and you know it, since you are a major participant therein.

Ha! Sorry, sunshine. Mere assertion doesn't make it so. He does have a bad reputation for engaging in ill-advised writing and apologetic excesses. He has this kind of reputation with people whom you would never encounter on this board or any board like it. He has this reputation with good, faithful, active LDS people. Educated people. Measured and wise people. People with far more sense than either one of us. They arrived at their opinion of Daniel & Company by reading his worst material. Daniel published this tripe of his own free will and choice. No one forced him, and he clearly thinks there is nothing wrong with it. Well, bully for him. Look at where it got him.

[_Kishkumen]

As for why I'm not getting distracted by your legal sideshow: it isn't germane to anything I'm arguing.

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, the point, deary, that Darth J has effectively made by your failure to respond is that you aren't arguing anything. You are spewing, spitting, and preening. Just as you usually do.

[_Pahoran]

Well, the point, deary,

Hey Queerie, can I suggest that you save the faux endearments for those who might appreciate them?

It's not as if there's any shortage of them around here.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

Hey Queerie, can I suggest that you save the faux endearments for those who might appreciate them?

It's not as if there's any shortage of them around here.

Regards,
Pahoran

Not solid on your gender identity there, Pah-pah? Pardon me for unintentionally arousing your interest. I can assure you that you only make me want to wretch. I hope you can sleep peacefully now. That is, if you aren't into vomit.

I wouldn't be surprised.

[_Darth J]

Speaking of frantic-looking, please explain in what way being asked to support your assertions is a red herring or a smokescreen or [insert metaphor here].

That would be explaining how specifically asking you to support the claim you keep making is distracting from the claim you keep making.

Oh, and since you equate a pragmatic interest in privacy with cowardice, may I refer to you by your in real life name henceforth?

As I've explained on a number of occasions, I don't really mind people knowing who I am. I'd just prefer my in real life name not be searchable in connection with this forum (and some others.)

Unlike some people here, I don't have anything to hide. So I won't talk about [deleted] (do you refer to them in that style over there) if you don't canvass my in real life information. Deal?

I don't have anything to hide either, Pahoran. I don't want my real name used here for the same reason you do. I'm sure you feel that the information you are being fed is really supposed to freak me out, but there are other pending matters that are of much greater concern to certain religious organizations at the present time.

But as far as what you may or may not decide to publicly talk about, you and your fellow jihadis may want to talk to someone about false light invasion of privacy. I am happy to arrange a very, very thorough education for you on that subject if it becomes necessary.

As for why I'm not getting distracted by your legal sideshow: it isn't germane to anything I'm arguing.

Regards,
Pahoran

Yes, it most certainly is. You have gone on and on about how Daniel Peterson has an actionable claim for defamation against Doctor Scratch. You can either support your assertions or you can't. That's true in general, however---it's simply happenstance that I chose this particular example.