For Selek--Welcome, want to apologize now?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you apologize for never having been there for any critic being attacked by one of your own?

You're wrong that I've never been there for any critics. You're simply wrong.

Or can you explain why you reserve your admonishing for critics?

I don't admonish all or even most critics. Even on the threads on which I participate.

Why do you think it is that you and other "defenders" of the principles of the Gospel do not defend said principles when they are being violated by your own.

There's absolutely no question that "team spirit" or "team loyalty" plays a role in these things. On both sides. That is, for example, why relatively few people here have stepped forward to condemn Master Scartch for his persistent efforts to slander and defame me.

In fact, it would seem that even MORE damage is done to the Church when a "defender" violates the principles so blatantly and openly. One would think that another "defender" would come in and say, "Hey, stop that, you are making us look really bad, here." But no, it simply does not happen. Hmmmm.

I've seen it happen a number of times.

[_harmony]

Except, of course, that you live in a little town in Washington State to which evil apostles never come, while I don't; none of my neighbors graduated in sociology from WSU; none of my neighbors works as a fundraiser for a non-profit; and the wife of the brand new president of my home stake (whose name I can't remember, since I'm currently involved in a wholly different stake) probably knows less about me than I know about you. And so forth.

ummm... no (I don't live in a little town in Washington state).... and no (I didn't graduate in sociology from WSU).... and I doubt that since my agency has fundraisers in Provo and since you don't know who I work for, you'd be hard pressed to eliminate every single neighbor (unless you're classifying neighbor as the people who live in the houses on either side, while I'm using neighbor in the neighborhood sense)... and you don't know that either (since you just said you don't even know her name).

And again, Daniel: just because you don't see your own faults doesn't mean you don't have them. I know exactly what mine are (and they are legion), but claiming to take a high road while ignoring my own culpability is not one of them.

[_harmony]

Do you apologize for never having been there for any critic being attacked by one of your own?

You're wrong that I've never been there for any critics. You're simply wrong.

I'd love to see an example of you taking Pahoran to task.

Or can you explain why you reserve your admonishing for critics?

I don't admonish all or even most critics. Even on the threads on which I participate.

Only those he feels superior to. Which is virtually everyone, with the exception of maybe The Dude and Tarski.

Why do you think it is that you and other "defenders" of the principles of the Gospel do not defend said principles when they are being violated by your own.

There's absolutely no question that "team spirit" or "team loyalty" plays a role in these things. On both sides. That is, for example, why relatively few people here have stepped forward to condemn Master Scartch for his persistent efforts to slander and defame me.

And you've seen every post here? Jersey defends you often. Heck, even I've defended you here. Please point out where you have defended us. Or anyone like us. Or even someone like Runtu, who is such a gem of a guy.

In fact, it would seem that even MORE damage is done to the Church when a "defender" violates the principles so blatantly and openly. One would think that another "defender" would come in and say, "Hey, stop that, you are making us look really bad, here." But no, it simply does not happen. Hmmmm.

I've seen it happen a number of times.

[/quote]

By you? When have you said "hey! stop that! You are making us look really bad here."? Because that would be a watershed day.

[_mms]

The difference, DCP, between "defenders" of LDS Gospel principles failing to defend such principles when violated by their own and critics, who make no claim to such gospel principles failing to "defend" these principles should be rather obvious, no? Sometimes this is so easy, but mostly because the arguments are so disengenuous and so facially flawed.

[Guest]

ummm... no (I don't live in a little town in Washington state).... and no (I didn't graduate in sociology from WSU)....

Alright. Maybe I just fell for all your talk over the years about WSU and sociology and Armand Mauss and the insignificant place that you live in where apostles never deign to visit, whereas they visit my area because I live in Utah (the last time being President Hinckley -- in a motorcade -- for a temple dedication in an adjacent community a number of years ago), and things like that.

And maybe, though you've never given me the slightest reason to suspect that you know me personally or live in my neighborhood, you really do watch me every day and speak with me regularly and pronounce righteous and justified judgment upon my life. But I doubt it very, very much. And, if it were true, it would make me wonder why you've never spoken with me about your concerns, but have chosen, instead, to take them anonymously to a public message board.

And again, Daniel: just because you don't see your own faults doesn't mean you don't have them.

Fortunately, though, judge harm, who may or may not have ever met me, is there -- anonymously -- to announce to the world that I'm a very poor Christian.

Who am I to judge another
When I walk imperfectly?
In the quiet heart is hidden
Sorrow that the eye can't see.
Who am I to judge another?
Lord, I would follow thee.

I'd love to see an example of you taking Pahoran to task.

No doubt you would. Public moral condemnation of people you don't know is something you plainly like.

You know nothing, though -- and, unless or until Master Scartch tells you something, you'll continue to know nothing -- about what I do and say behind the scenes. Which, in such matters, is my preferred method.

And you've seen every post here?

Of course not.

Jersey defends you often.

And I respect and like her for it.

Heck, even I've defended you here.

I guess you didn't notice that I said relatively few, and not none?

Please point out where you have defended us. Or anyone like us. Or even someone like Runtu, who is such a gem of a guy.

Ask Tarski whether I've ever stood up for him. Ask Runtu how I've treated him.

When have you said "hey! stop that! You are making us look really bad here."? Because that would be a watershed day.

I don't do public moral grandstanding.

[_mms]

I'd love to see an example of you taking Pahoran to task.

No doubt you would. Public moral condemnation of people you don't know is something you plainly like.

You know nothing, though -- and, unless or until Master Scartch tells you something, you'll continue to know nothing -- about what I do and say behind the scenes. Which, in such matters, is my preferred method..

You mean, when you are admonishing a fellow "team members", of course. Because it is rather apparent that your preferred method is not what you claim when admonishing those of the "opposing" team.

When have you said "hey! stop that! You are making us look really bad here."? Because that would be a watershed day.

I don't do public moral grandstanding.

:)

[_Daniel Peterson]

You mean, when you are admonishing a fellow "team members", of course. Because it is rather apparent that your preferred method is not what you claim when admonishing those of the "opposing" team.

I'm quite happy to "admonish" people that I'm conversing with.

I never signed on for the internet police. I have no responsibility for conversations in which I'm not participating.

Look, it's obvious that you're upset by something that Selek allegedly said to you. I'm not responsible for Selek. I don't believe I've ever heard of this before. Take it up with Selek. Don't blame me.

[_moksha]

And yes, you've mellowed. You aren't the old firedog, oozing malice and venom anymore.

LOL. I never was.
You never knew me, Judge Harmony. You don't know me.

There is no good fruit in trading barbs. Why not just say that there was a past disagreement and from this point on, work on treating each other with dignity and respect?

Harmony, I apologize to you in behalf of those who care, for Selek attempting to sentence you to hell.

[_Tarski]

Ask Tarski whether I've ever stood up for him.

I guess since Dan brought it up I can recount an instance. It wasn't quite a public defense but it was a defense and I appreciated it.

I was banned from MAD for some really weak trivial reason. I pointed this out to Dan and asked him to give his opinion on the banning to the Mods (I figured he would see how silly it was). He mentioned that he agreed with me that the banning was unjustified and that he gave that opinion to the mods (or something like that). I was subsequently (and quickly) unbanned. I guess he was convincing.

For the record, I don't think Dan controls the MAD board. He is apparently respected by the Mods and I guess that was enough. After that, I once pressed for a debate with Dan on a thread, gave a rebuttal to an article of his, and then was banned from just that thread. I have no reason this suppose that Dan was behind this thread-specific banning--I think the mods just didn't like it.

Also, for the record, I had previously also defended Dan here a couple times and would do it again if it seemed appropriate. In fact, I think I did it more than once.

However, I also sympathize with those who are irritated with Daniel Perterson. He has an acerbic and quick wit. As long as he is a believer, I would expect him to use his wit in defending those, like me, that atteck some aspect of his religion (I would have done the same when I was a member). I have been the victim of his sardonic wit and felt that he had scored a point (in that he had phrased things so that I looked a bit silly-at least to those cheering him on). However, I also felt the humor depended on an ungenerous reading of what I had said. I fearlessly jump in with both feet sometimes with mixed results.

I should also mention that I have noted a couple times when he conceded, without fanfare, that there was something to an argument or concern I have presented. You don't see that too often in debates about religion.

I have posted on these boards for maybe 4 years now and in that time I have exchanged emails or PMs with Dan only maybe about 5 times or so. In each case, he was less combative and more friendly than some of you might think.

He is one of the few apologists that has caught the drift of some of my more subtle concerns/arguments, even indicating that he had thought about similar things before. This counts big with me since I like to be understood and am tired of being attacked by apologists who don't get my point in the first place.

Maybe others have had experiences with Dan that don't fit with my impressions. I understand that my experience with him is limited.

[_Moniker]

Only those he feels superior to. Which is virtually everyone, with the exception of maybe The Dude and Tarski.

I'm fairly certain that most people that post on these boards feel superior to me. Sometimes they tell me!

Dr. Daniel Peterson has always been extremely kind, to me. He's never been condescending, to me, never been haughty, etc...

He has people smearing him, making jokes about his physical appearance, calling him all sorts of horrid names and he keeps replying with wit and self depreciation. I don't understand how he does it.

There are threads here continually made to lambaste him. To talk about his weight, his wife (!), etc... I think Dr. Peterson deserves a little compassion from us. He certainly has mine. I've never seen him be cruel to anyone - ever! I see some nasty critics (lots!!!) and quite a few nasty defenders, yet, Dr. Peterson I've never seen become really nasty. Maybe I missed it, or perhaps I'm looking at this as an impartial observer and understand that he takes his religious views seriously and defends them all the while being attacked personally.

I'm not a Christian, yet, I won't judge Dr. Peterson for his behavior on the net. I doubt many of us here could cast the first stone.

There are no doubt things said that touch sensitivities. I get stung all the time on these boards by people that are rude and inconsiderate. I just attempt to avoid them, for the most part. More often than not I'll PM them to attempt to apologize for anything that I may have done to bother them and attempt to reach an understanding. Or I've asked them to refrain from certain behavior, towards me, that I find embarrassing (coggins). I've done that numerous times on MAD when I thought that perhaps people took offense to the words I typed-- with good results, for the most part. I've found that posters, at times, act quite differently privately than they do on the boards.

Some people really are jerks and allow that aspect of themselves to manifest on the boards... just avoid them, I suppose. Yet, I don't see Dr. Peterson other than a man defending his religious views and defending his name. I can't imagine having threads and threads about my physical appearance and my every move put up on a message board to taunt me. I can't even fathom how I would respond -- I went into an emotional meltdown with a few instances where I was attacked where people in my life (off the net) were reading it. I think Dr. Peterson deserves some credit for keeping his composure and not being nasty like some others on BOTH SIDES.

~edited -- oops, I must have been composing my message when Tarski replied... I didn't see someone had already come to his defense. There was a lil pop up that told me I should look at new replies and I didn't... will from now on!~