Dr. Peterson's FAIR Conference Talk

[_Kishkumen]

Greetings, gents:

I do not think that the emails were written by Doctor Scratch or Dean Robbers. I know that I sure as hell did not send them. So, Dean Robbers, I think you can rest easy that your oldest colleagues at Cassius are not responsible for this nonsense.

The emails were sent through anonymous email sites. Several different sites, in fact. Could it be someone other than one of our regular board denizens? Sure. It is really impossible to tell because of the way these things were mailed.

The person who sent these emails to DCP must be familiar with our discussions of DCP. The author uses the epithets "Pasterson" and "Paranormal," for example. We are familiar with these insults, which are used by various people here. Note that I am not accusing any individual in particular. Given the public nature of this board and the means of sending the emails, it would be foolish to accuse a specific person.

In the context of this thread, I thought it was worthwhile to challenge the idea that Peterson was lying about the emails in his talk. I don't really care about the talk all that much. I am not that surprised that our discussions here have spawned further activity off-board that crosses the line, whether done by a member of the board, former member of the board, or a lurker. But, I think it is imperative to express my disapproval of such activities.

We are, after all, a community of sorts. It is impossible for a free and open community of this type to be absolutely free of such shenanigans, but I like to think that we can help establish certain boundaries in how we respond to these things that tend to minimize such behavior. I like to ask myself questions like, "What would Runtu do?" You could fill in the names of other board participants of exceptionally high character whom I aspire to emulate.

[_Meadowchik]

Greetings, gents:

I do not think that the emails were written by Doctor Scratch or Dean Robbers. I know that I sure as hell did not send them. So, Dean Robbers, I think you can rest easy that your oldest colleagues at Cassius are not responsible for this nonsense.

The emails were sent through anonymous email sites. Several different sites, in fact. Could it be someone other than one of our regular board denizens? Sure. It is really impossible to tell because of the way these things were mailed.

The person who sent these emails to DCP must be familiar with our discussions of DCP. The author uses the epithets "Pasterson" and "Paranormal," for example. We are familiar with these insults, which are used by various people here. Note that I am not accusing any individual in particular. Given the public nature of this board and the means of sending the emails, it would be foolish to accuse a specific person.

In the context of this thread, I thought it was worthwhile to challenge the idea that Peterson was lying about the emails in his talk. I don't really care about the talk all that much. I am not that surprised that our discussions here have spawned further activity off-board that crosses the line, whether done by a member of the board, former member of the board, or a lurker. But, I think it is imperative to express my disapproval of such activities.

We are, after all, a community of sorts. It is impossible for a free and open community of this type to be absolutely free of such shenanigans, but I like to think that we can help establish certain boundaries in how we respond to these things that tend to minimize such behavior. I like to ask myself questions like, "What would Runtu do?" You could fill in the names of other board participants of exceptionally high character whom I aspire to emulate.

It could be anybody, including, you, or me, or Runtu, or Dan himself. We don't know. And if someone took the trouble to email them from various anonymous sites, that makes it quite possible, for someone who wishes, to step out of their prevailing online persona and yield to more bitter impulses.

A useful reality check is that the internet makes it easier for people to do things "in the dark" avoiding fallout against their professional and/or online reputations. Don't fall for the halo fallacy.

[_Kishkumen]

Don't fall for the halo fallacy.

Yes, I get it. At a certain point, however, it is also necessary to extend trust to some people in your life until you are obviously burned. Maybe I do have multi-personality disorder and I am doing bad things I am not aware of. Until someone convinces me that this is the case, I will continue to trust my basic decency.

[Guest]

But, I think it is imperative to express my disapproval of such activities.

And I also do hereby express my disapproval, not only from a moral standpoint, but from the standpoint that it's indirectly helping the cause of apologetics.

To be consistent, I also express my disapproval -- and I hereby preface what follows with this: to the the extend that this takes place, if in fact, it does take place -- of anyone who opportunistically accuses Doctor Scratch of doing something they do not believe he is doing, but believe can be credibly accused of doing.

By the way, I have met Doctor Scratch in person, which informs my character assessment. While I also agree with meadowchick, I've been relatively successful thus far in my life predicting who I can and can't trust, and Scratch is about as down to earth as they come. I'd put my money on his psych profile against any random pick from FARMS.

[_Kishkumen]

And I also do hereby express my disapproval, not only from a moral standpoint, but from the standpoint that it's indirectly helping the cause of apologetics.

To be consistent, I also express my disapproval -- and I hereby preface what follows with this: to the the extend that this takes place, if in fact, it does take place -- of anyone who opportunistically accuses Doctor Scratch of doing something they do not believe he is doing, but believe can be credibly accused of doing.

Well and shrewdly observed, Dean. Yes, none of us should want to fuel the sense of persecution the apologists feel. On the other hand, one must be wary of convenient accusations that are made not because they are likely true but because they are readily swallowed by those who are ignorant of most pertinent facts.

[_Meadowchik]

Don't fall for the halo fallacy.

Yes, I get it. At a certain point, however, it is also necessary to extend trust to some people in your life until you are obviously burned. Maybe I do have multi-personality disorder and I am doing bad things I am not aware of. Until someone convinces me that this is the case, I will continue to trust my basic decency.

Sure, and I imagine it is different for many of you who have met in real life or know each other's in real life identities.

I hope that, if Dr. Peterson has been threatened illegally, he will report it.

But my online experience with him is that he is reactionary, unkind, and extremely partisan, both religiously and politically. He is not at all the type of online discusser who is willing to dialogue through disagreement in an effort to achieve better understanding and learning, which in my opinion defeats the most important purpose of discussions.

Unfortunately, I could easily see him doing unseemly things to publically bolster a persecution complex if he could avoid being exposed.

[_Kishkumen]

Sure, and I imagine it is different for many of you who have met in real life or know each other's in real life identities.

I hope that, if Dr. Peterson has been threatened illegally, he will report it.

But my online experience with him is that he is reactionary, unkind, and extremely partisan, both religiously and politically. He is not at all the type of online discusser who is willing to dialogue through disagreement in an effort to achieve better understanding and learning, which in my opinion defeats the most important purpose of discussions.

Unfortunately, I could easily see him doing unseemly things to publically bolster a persecution complex if he could avoid being exposed.

I think the relationship between DCP and his some of his critics is a symbiotic one. There is a degree to which both sides benefit from the indulgence and the show. I am not saying that, ceteris paribus, DCP would not much prefer not to receive these malicious missives, but, knowing as he does the risks associated with his role, he will of course make use of this phenomenon to forward his cause, and I do not think he is above blaming a persistent anonymous critic in the interest of constructing a streamlined and focused portrait of deranged opposition to his righteous activities.

Doctor Scratch makes for a marvelously colorful nemesis.

The emails represent an indulgence of anger and the desire for some measure of payback. In this way they resonate with the darker impulses of all of us who are disappointed, if not enraged, over our bad experiences in Mormonism.

[Guest]

Let's recap:

1. DCP claims in his FAIR presentation that for 15 years (since 2003) he has been receiving "obscene emails" on an almost daily basis and publicly blames Dr. Scratch.

2. At no time during this alleged 15 year period did DCP think to apply a content and/or sender filter to block these alleged "obscene emails."

3. Dr. Scratch writes this brilliant thread about DCP's sloppy and ill-prepared FAIR presentation.

4. DCP rather then addressing the content of his FAIR presentation, sends Kishkumen some emails (the oldest, going back 4 years) in what I can only assume as an attempt to drum up sympathy and place the blame on Dr. Scratch and this board, which DCP constantly describes as a "seething cesspool of hatred, evil and stupidity."

5. Many mormondiscussion.com members jump in and roundly condemn the sending of harrassing or obscene emails.

6. DCP sits back and enjoys the controversy he has created by playing the fake victim card and bearing false witness against Dr. Scratch.

I personally know Dr. Scratch and I personally know DCP. One is a good and honorable person, a brilliant scholar and a well respected and upstanding member in his community. The other is a dishonest Mopologist with an ego the size of Mount Everest.

Congratulations mormondiscussions, everyone here was just DCP'd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

[_Meadowchik]

Congratulations mormondiscussions, everyone here was just DCP'd:

Thanks for the synopsis.

I hope that, if Dr. Peterson has been threatened illegally, he will report it.

But my online experience with him is that he is reactionary, unkind, and extremely partisan, both religiously and politically. He is not at all the type of online discusser who is willing to dialogue through disagreement in an effort to achieve better understanding and learning, which in my opinion defeats the most important purpose of discussions.

Unfortunately, I could easily see him doing unseemly things to publically bolster a persecution complex if he could avoid being exposed.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

#1: Gadianton. You're just going to tease us with an awesome harassment story and that's that? Dish, baby, dish.

#2: Unless I see these emails posted here I don't believe it.

#3: If the emails do exist, how in the world do we know Mr. Peterson just didn't draft up a few nastygrams himself? This is exactly the kind of thing these bozos would do.

- Doc