Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

Incidentally, Stemelbow, the reason we know that Peterson's story about all this is true is because _________________________________________________.

Its true, you don't know. You simply keep claiming you know.

Oh, so you think it's possible Peterson is just making up this whole thing, and he never really had any bishop check confidential member information, but wanted everyone to think he did? Or do you take it as a given that this whole thing actually happened just because Peterson says it happened?

I think it would add a lot to the discussion if you would provide a link to the post where I claimed to know that Peterson really did this. Fire at will, stemelbow!

[_MrStakhanovite]

Look guys, you all are very smart people and engaging, but this is just turning into a farce. You'll never concede, and I'm not going to (because I understand the purpose of the directory) so, we'll just have to disagree on this.

Oh yeah, that directory, the one whose license agreement you refuse to marshal in defense of your “understanding”.

Sounds legit to me.

[_stemelbow]

I don't want to turn them in and if I did, I wouldn't have made a thread about it. My purpose here is to document DCP's antics as proof that this is the kind of stuff Mopologists do. This gives evidence to the claim that people want to stay anonymous because of activities just like this, it would be harder to find a clearer example for the purposes of an internet message board.

That's funny. Everybody Wang Chung is anonymous. he spreads lies in order to promote his weird attacks on folks like DCP. DCP knowing he lies proved he lies. Somehow that attacked is somehow uncovering someone's anonymity?

Uh...I would say your hostility towards certain folks is getting the best of you. Time to move on, bro.

Could you move on over to the thread about the Kevin Graham/DCP fallout? I'm defending your idol, but the usual suspects are not to be found.

I popped open that thread once and found Kevin's hostility about twice as unbearable as DJ's, so I promptly closed it. I may take another look since you've asked, but that won't be utnil tomorrow. I gots things to do now.

I've never maintained that, I'm pretty confident he did lie. That confidence comes from DCP's rather candid post about his actions. Yes, I'm taking DCP's word over Everybody Wang Chung. Imagine that?

Great. Your getting somewhere.

[_Kishkumen]

Look guys, you all are very smart people and engaging, but this is just turning into a farce. You'll never concede, and I'm not going to (because I understand the purpose of the directory) so, we'll just have to disagree on this.

Yes, and we all know that a guy who uses Snape for an avatar, calls himself "Kishkumen," and actually wastes his time responding to people like you is looking to be taken seriously in this venue. I'm positively devastated by the suggestion that this could be "turning into a farce."

Newsflash: It started as a farce to draw attention to the other farce that actually did take itself far too seriously--FARMS.

[_stemelbow]

Oh, so you think it's possible Peterson is just making up this whole thing, and he never really had any bishop check confidential member information, but wanted everyone to think he did?

Anything is possible, pout in his britches.

Or do you take it as a given that this whole thing actually happened just because Peterson says it happened?

I say it's most likely it happened. Do I care? Not a great deal, obviously.

I think it would add a lot to the discussion if you would provide a link to the post where I claimed to know that Peterson really did this. Fire at will, stemelbow!

Why would I care if you actually claimed you know anything about Peterson? I hope more for you, fellow. Please stop with the hostility. Time to move on.

[_Darth J]

Oh, so you think it's possible Peterson is just making up this whole thing, and he never really had any bishop check confidential member information, but wanted everyone to think he did?

Anything is possible, pout in his britches.

But you affirmatively said in this thread that Everybody Wang Chung is the one who is lying. You have repeatedly said that he is lying. How do you know that?

Or do you take it as a given that this whole thing actually happened just because Peterson says it happened?

I say it's most likely it happened. Do I care? Not a great deal, obviously.

What is the criterion you used to determine how likely this event is to have happened? Please be as specific as possible.

In what way is it obvious, stemelbow, that you don't care about this matter a great deal, since you have gone on and on and on for pages attempting to explain that Peterson did nothing wrong?

I think it would add a lot to the discussion if you would provide a link to the post where I claimed to know that Peterson really did this. Fire at will, stemelbow!

Why would I care if you actually claimed you know anything about Peterson? I hope more for you, fellow. Please stop with the hostility. Time to move on.

If you don't care, why did you affirmatively state that I claimed to know that Peterson really did what he claims to have done?

How would an objective observer arrive at any of the conclusions that you keep saying are essentially self-explanatory? Again, please be as specific as possible with your explanation.

[_Darth J]

And now, please enjoy today's example of

THINGS THAT META-APOLOGISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND!

The Streisand Effect

[_3sheets2thewind]

As far as I am aware, you don't know me, and you don't know Dan, so you are in no place to make a judgment call on what type of a friend I am.

I do not need to know a person to judge the persons actions. If someone admits to something, I am certainly with in reason to look at the situation and make a statement.

You know...when I read this, I was going to tell you to f*** off, or make another obscene suggestion. But instead, let me just suggest that you put me on Ignore and then we'll both be happy. You don't like me. I get it. I'm not that thrilled with you, either. :rolleyes:

Now you are bordering going full-on William Schryver i.e. someone disagrees with you therefore that person has something against you.

We can disagree.
I can point out inconsistent statements you have made.
But that does not equal that I do not like you.

[_Yoda]

Okay, if your paranoid scenario came true,

what would they report Everybody Wang Chung for?

"Hey, Salt Lake, this guy who was on my tour and is a Bishop might be the same guy who's been telling everyone he's a Bishop and saying mean things about me!!"

No, he'd probably just use the information to try to push Everybody Wang Chung around. Mention every now and then how he knows who Everybody Wang Chung is, but he's a great guy for not revealing the information, although he could. And one day, if Everybody Wang Chung pushed it too far, he would find people using his real name in connection with the name of his employer on MDDB.

It's not like we haven't seen this schtick before. Some of us, in fact, have lived it.

The fact that you can't see this makes me wonder whether you have a selective memory, brain damage, or some other defect to explain this lapse in your cognition.

Yes, you were a victim if this kind of treatment. But If I recall correctly, it was Will Schryver who did that, when you anonymously submitted that article to FAIR. And who called his ass on it? That would be me. And I also happen to know that Dan jerked a knot in Will's tail for doing that to you.

[_Kishkumen]

If someone admits to something, I am certainly with in reason to look at the situation and make a statement.

That's the bizarre thing here. Daniel Peterson admitted that he did this. Evidently he thought nothing was wrong with it. He found out quickly that a good many people were stunned by his admission. On further reflection, he got really quiet about this.

The situation speaks for itself. He screwed up. His admission was very revealing. His silence has been too. Heck, his self-defense was one of the most incriminating parts of the whole scenario. It was basically a long confession of the neurotic thought process that led him to behave unethically.

Weird stuff.