However, in context I think it is reasonable to suppose that Kevin meant "fabricate a reason to leave" as in "a pretense to leave" the discussion. Perhaps Kevin meant it differently, but I think it is quite reasonable to suppose that an accusation of Hauglid being less than forthright was in Kevin's last post--at least as it stands today. One could also read it to mean that Kevin accused Hauglid of telling a "white lie" (the way Obi Wan did to Luke Skywalker when he told him his father was dead or the way one might leave an offensive discussion by claiming one must visit the restroom).
But the fact remains I did not call him a liar. The mods didn’t ask for clarification. In fact, one mod didn’t find anything wrong with it. But this was the problem at FAIR. They had numerous mods with different standards. I’ll never forget being on the que and resending the same post twice just to watch a different mod send it through. But the best part was when a mod was complaining about one of my posts that he/she released! I mean if you release it, don’t come crying to me about it.
...for those interested. Suffice it to say he is dead wrong, and demonstrably so. I also touch upon why wade was released from his psychiatric duties.
I see that you have found a new way to avoid saying that you banned me from your site. Calling it "released from psychiatric duty" is a little more clever than "denying user access" as Liz called it. Not that I am interested nor allowed to read your rationalization, but I am sure that you had your reasons for "releasing" me, and I am fine with that. I wish you all the very best at MTT.
Mister Scratch wrote: Also, you said elsewhere that he is your "friend." I say: Prove it. I've never seen him give any indication whatsoever that he views you as a "friend." Instead, I interpret his remarks towards you to mean that he sees you as an obnoxious, obsequious leech who's trying to ride around on his celebrity status, and that he only just barely tolerates you (and your "guard dog" status). I think you wish very, very much that DCP saw you as a friend, but I think that's probably just a pipe dream. Sorry to have to break it to you, my dear sweet friend Pah.
There you have it folks. Since Scratch isn't aware of the friendship between Pahoran and Dr. Peterson, then to his self-inflated mind, the friendship doesn't exist (Scratch has evidently deluding himself into believing he is in a better postiion than Pahoran to know what friends Dr. Peterson does or doesn't have--clearly a function of Scratches scholar envy).
And, so desparate is Scratch's coveting of Pahoran's more favored position, that he has taken to projecting his own self- loathing, and Dr. Peterson's unflattering view of Scratch, onto Pahoran.
But, contrary to Scratch's jealous denials and projections, and having myself spent not a few years on a private e-list with both Pahoran and Dr. Peterson, I can confirm that these two men are, in fact, friends.
Please excuse Scratch while he attempts to remove his head from a place where the sun never shines--something he is becoming quite accustomed to doing.
Mister Scratch wrote:Also, you said elsewhere that he is your "friend." I say: Prove it. I've never seen him give any indication whatsoever that he views you as a "friend." Instead, I interpret his remarks towards you to mean that he sees you as an obnoxious, obsequious leech who's trying to ride around on his celebrity status, and that he only just barely tolerates you (and your "guard dog" status). I think you wish very, very much that DCP saw you as a friend, but I think that's probably just a pipe dream. Sorry to have to break it to you, my dear sweet friend Pah.
Dan visited and ate pizza with "Pah" in NZ, and apparently "Pah" out-ate Dan! It's all on FAIR. You can't be serious in this post, Scratch. Can you?
...for those interested. Suffice it to say he is dead wrong, and demonstrably so. I also touch upon why wade was released from his psychiatric duties.
Folks, I highly encourage you to click on this link of Kevin's and read what's there. It's a great read!
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Mister Scratch wrote:By the way: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
I can confirm that he is, indeed, the author.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Mister Scratch wrote:Also, you said elsewhere that he is your "friend." I say: Prove it. I've never seen him give any indication whatsoever that he views you as a "friend." Instead, I interpret his remarks towards you to mean that he sees you as an obnoxious, obsequious leech who's trying to ride around on his celebrity status, and that he only just barely tolerates you (and your "guard dog" status). I think you wish very, very much that DCP saw you as a friend, but I think that's probably just a pipe dream. Sorry to have to break it to you, my dear sweet friend Pah.
Dan visited and ate pizza with "Pah" in NZ, and apparently "Pah" out-ate Dan! It's all on FAIR. You can't be serious in this post, Scratch. Can you?
Ray---
Thank you for this anecdote. As I have been banned from even viewing FAIR, I must have missed this. Very well: I retract.
However, I still stand by my claim that Pah kisses up to DCP, Hamblin, and the FAIR hierarchy.
Mister Scratch wrote:Professor Peterson likes to portray himself as a jovial saint, but he is no stranger to trash-talking (such as calling Tal Bachman "Tal Tales,"), being foul-mouthed (such as referring to Kevin Graham as a "jackass")
Jackass is foul? Puhleeze. In Disney's Pinocchio (rated G), Jimminy Cricket tells Pinocchio to go ahead and be a jackass. (On Pleasure Isand while Pinocchio was playing pool).
Just as an FYI, I do find the following to be unnecessarily petty on your part:
Also, you said elsewhere that he is your "friend." I say: Prove it. I've never seen him give any indication whatsoever that he views you as a "friend." Instead, I interpret his remarks towards you to mean that he sees you as an obnoxious, obsequious leech who's trying to ride around on his celebrity status, and that he only just barely tolerates you (and your "guard dog" status). I think you wish very, very much that DCP saw you as a friend, but I think that's probably just a pipe dream. Sorry to have to break it to you, my dear sweet friend Pah.
It reminds me of puerile popularity contests from Junior High. It's so overdone it reminds me of villans in movies and cartoons trying to convince others that nobody loves them. See the movie Hook where Captain Hook tries to tell Maggie and Jack about why parents hate their children. It's classic.
Hook: "Now pay attention, class. Lesson Nr 1: Why parents hate their children! Anyone?"
Maggie, whispering to Jack: "Doesn't mommy read to us every night?"
Hook: "You! The little urchin in the front. Would you care to share your thoughts with the whole of the class?"
Maggie: "Yes. I said that mommy reads to us every night, because she loves us!"
Hook: "Love? Isn't that the...?"
Smee: "The no-word, capt'n."
Hook: "Ah, yes. No, child, the reason your mother reads to you every night is to put you to sleep, so that she and your father can have a few minutes off from you and your constant, nagging, agonizing demands! She took my toy! He hit my bear! I need the pottie! I want a cookie! I want to stay up! I want! I want! I want! Me! Me! Me! Now! Now! Now! ... Can't you see child? They tell you stories to shut you up."
Maggie: "That's not true! You're a liar!"
Hook: (laughs) "Me, lie? Never! The truth is so much more fun! (switches to ultra-kind and understanding voice) Child, before you were born, your parents used to stay up all night just to see the sunrise! Maggie, before you were born, they were happier. They were free."
Maggie, whipering: "You're a bad man."
Hook: "Smee, flunk the maggot."
Brilliant, Asbestosman! A wonderful analogy. It totally reminds me of what happens on FAIR. Hook's dialogue sounds remarkably like the effluvium spewed out by juliann and Pahoran regarding "apostates." Thank you for that.
wenglund wrote:But, contrary to Scratch's jealous denials and projections, and having myself spent not a few years on a private e-list with both Pahoran and Dr. Peterson, I can confirm that these two men are, in fact, friends. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Somehow I find this disquieting. Does this indicate Dr. Peterson has a more clandestine and darker side? I hope the scope of that list goes beyond methods of attacking ideas or persons the list generator disagrees with.
Since one must be registered to view the post on my forum I was asked to post here, so here goes:
== I see that Kevin is a regular participant here. I'll give him a chance to set the record straight if he chooses. I can tell you that his most recent banning was for using sock-puppets.
I can also tell you that the moon is made of cheese, but that would also be nonsense. I find it utterly hilarious that the FAIR mods are still reinventing their position on why I was banned. As anyone who can see – anyone who cares to anyway - the thread where I was banned made no mention of sock-puppets(Pahoran's excuse), nor did it make any mention of copyright infringement (Juliann’s reason why I was banned), nor did it mention my failure to keep an agreement to forgo talk on Islam (another ad hoc reason that was given by a mod). The chronological order of events pretty much renders these excuses as blatant falsehoods. I was banned for calling Hauglid a liar, which is something I never did.
Period. And to this day it has not been demonstrated that I have broken one single "rule" in their list of board rules. The rules kept changing and they developed new ones for the sake of convenience.
And by the way, I have no sock-puppets at FAIR. My recent comment to which asbestosman refers was made in jest. I knew for a fact the FAIR mods had been frequenting my board – often hanging out in the “members list” area - and I also knew they had spent many hours trying to block dozens upon dozens of proxy servers (I know of at least 37 proxies they have blocked). My comment was made for fun, assuming they would read it and go nuts trying to figure out which monikers I had been using; perhaps even ban two other innocent, though suspicious posters.
I do admit, however, that I have signed up using two other monikers in the past. However, it could hardly be argued that they were for clandestine purposes. After all, the monikers were Kevin W. Graham, KW Graham, and my primary moniker was Kevin Graham. The previous two were set up when FAIR was having problems and/or I had changed my email address and forgotten my password. I hope the mods achieved some sense of accomplishment by figuring out I was actually using those two as “sock-puppets.”
Incidentally, KW Graham was deactivated about a month before I began to have problems with the mods. It frustrated me because I didn’t know why and I had been using that account to store many private messages from various posters. You’re only allowed 50 per account and mine was constantly overflowing, so I took advantage of those provided in the other monikers. Only recently did it dawn on me that they deactivated it because they were snooping in my private message cache, and didn’t like what they were reading.
== I don't know if all of them have; I do know that another one was recently.
Nonsense. The last moniker of mine that was banned was Kevin Graham.
== Well, it's tantamount to it. It's rather hard to fabricate something that one believes to be true, or validly holds as an opinion.
This is borderline idiotic to anyone who was actually there.
Brian Hauglid was given an opportunity to debate Brent Metcalfe one on one. Even though I started the discussion, I was not permitted to participate. That was all well and good, but what threw us all off guard was Brian’s out of the blue response to Metcalfe, which consisted of little more than complaining about my attitude and warning him that if he sensed Brent was going to adopt my attitude then he was going to leave the discussion. Brent provided a blistering critique of Brian’s previous post, and Brian was expected to come up with something equally impressive. We were all disappointed with his post that we waited more than a week for, and which dwelled not on Brent’s counter-points, but rather me! It was perfectly clear that Brian was already making excuses to leave the debate. That pissed me off and others as well. It pissed me off more because Brian was taking advantage of the fact that I could not respond to his attacks against me. So I simply said it appeared as if Brian was trying to fabricate an excuse to leave the debate.
(And before you say “oh but I bet Brian’s gripe was justified given your history of aggressive behavior,” I also had documented in an exchange just a week prior to this, that Brian accused me of having “bad tone” in an otherwise pleasant exchange, the minute I expressed mere disagreement with him. The mods jumped to his side and threw down the usual threats, but the FAIRites were NOT on Brian’s side, and several of them said they saw absolutely nothing wrong in my response. Gtaggart went so far as to say I was actually “gracious” with him and Will Schryver emailed me to say he couldn’t understand brian’s claim that I had a change in tone. I decided to back out of the discussion only to have numerous posters, including Oreos, request that I remain. This event pretty much proved that Brian complains about bad on when it is convenient for him to do so - he certainly had nowhere else to go with Brent's pummeling refutation. He was trying to pull the same nonsense on Brent, but I didn’t let him get away with it, which is what pissed off the mods)
In common Book of Abraham polemic at FAIR, this type of rhetoric has been perfectly acceptable when coming from Brian, Will, Pacman, and especially the prick of pricks, Pahoran. You have all implied quite emphatically that Brent is dishonest, that he lies about how he got the photos that he manipulates the photos, that he is careful not to show photos that damage his argument, et cetera. Worse of all is the idiotic complaining about his “bias.”
My final post on FAIR was a lightning rod for critical thinkers and many eyebrows popped up as well as lights going off in many heads. I said complaining about Brent’s bias was silly because it should be clear that apologists need the KEP to represent “copies” of an original, far more than Brent needed them to represent original manuscripts. The mods knew this, and realized they had to be rid of me or else Brian would have a meltdown, which later he did. In his attempt to respond to Brent again he instead provided a 60 word quote from something I said on this forum. That left everyone scratching their heads, so Brian went back and deleted it.
== Brian Hauglid is a prominent LDS scholar. Anyone who thinks FAIR exists to expose its valuable posters to vicious cheap shots from anonymous individuals should ask themselves why they would imagine such a thing.
The record will show that it was Brian who attacked me long before I ever said anything about him fabricating excuses. Well, that is what the record showed before it was conveniently erased (after I made copies fortunately). Thus, FAIR exists to make sure its valuable posters are free to make vicious cheap shots to individual posters, whether they are anonymous or not.
== No, I suspect Kevin's latest sock-puppet was "Declan McKenzie."
Declan is a buddy of mine I met on the Catholic forum. Several of them had migrated over to FAIR just prior to that discussion, because of a FAIR poster who went over them and egged them on. I forget who it was.
== So the much-touted MTT isn't that tolerant of divergent viewpoints either? Who'da thunk it!
Sorry but you have me confused with Shades’ board. I don’t have a telestial forum, and there are limits. My board was set up for critical discussion and it was originally by invitation only. Having said that, the forum is extremely tolerant of divergent viewpoints, as evidenced by the fact that wade has his plastered all over it.
But wade is a proven idiot, and it takes a tremendous about of effort land yourself in the unwanted category. But given that wade has been banned from FAIR and ZLMB on multiple occasions, he had proven experience in making himself utterly unbearable to be around. When he came to the forum I went against all recommendations, and gave him the benefit of the doubt. He said his purpose there was sincere. His goal was to prove I was bias and that my retelling of past FAIR events could be skewed.
I agreed with him. After all, we’re all bias. But don’t tell me I could be wrong; show me where I am wrong. That threw him off so he decided to tweak his purpose. His purpose morphed into a mission to not only show that I was capable of misrepresenting the FAIR stories, but that I indeed had. However, he admittedly refused to read up on any of the past discussions at FAIR - claiming disinterest (i.e. laziness) - choosing to remain blissfully ignorant while offering his unprofessional psychiatric therapy on subjects he refuses to read. His idea of proving my bias (which I already admitted having) was to try to catch me in rhetorical traps, and then go “Ah ha, Kevin just misrepresented what I meant to say, being the authority on what I meant I say he is misrepresenting me, therefore he is untrustworthy and you shouldn’t believe anything he says about FAIR.”
Again, an idiot.
When he tried to score points by correcting my spelling of the word agitation (wade: “Did you mean 'aggitation?'"), I let it slide.
When he tried damage control by claiming to have several learning disabilities, I let it slide.
When he failed to understand that the word “might” actually referred to possibility, and even when he argued about it in pig-headed fashion, I let it slide.
When he failed to understand that the word “challenge” had both noun and verb definitions, and even when he argued about it in pig-headed fashion, I let it slide.
When he said I was “wrong” to criticize people who refuse to come tell their side of the story, like DCP, Juliann and Scott Gordon, I let it slide.
When I informed him that I had stopped reading his diatribes and I would no longer respond to them, he then informed me that he would still continue on with his inexhaustible science project (anyone who knows wade and his science projects knows that they never end, and involve hundreds of questions that he never really expects his test subjects to answer anyway. His website is filled with more than a dozen of these aborted projects that have been online for nearly a decade).
I even let this slide since it made him a hypocrite beyond a doubt. After all, if it is “wrong” for me to criticize people who refuse to respond, it should also be “wrong” for wade to criticize me when I vowed never to respond (I felt like my IQ gradually dropped every time I read one of his mind-numbing rants).
What took the cake was when wade stated his purpose on the forum, which had nothing whatsoever to do with discussion. After all, nobody had discussed anything with wade, yet he was one of the top posters.
If he wants to include me in his silly experiments, he can add me to his website. I don’t take donations for my forum, so I am paying for bandwidth and the web space. I see no reason why I should allow some creepy guy with ridiculous spelling habits waste space on a forum where nobody wants anything to do with him. The fact that wade was willing to continue on, knowing perfectly well that nobody would respond, was proof positive that his purpose there was all about helping wade, not me, and not anyone else. He was helping his own creepy sense of gratification in validating himself as a defender of all things DCP.
Now he is your problem Shades. :wink:
Last edited by YahooSeeker [Bot] on Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.