DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

[Moksha]

He really needs this board for his own validation, which he clearly doesn’t get from the comments section of his blog.

On the other hand, if Dr. Peterson goes after a poster for writing something he didn't like, he will get a ton of dittos. Dittos are a sure sign of apologetic validation.

As for the conclusion reached by Everybody’s WC, that I’m “pure evil,” well, I’m not going to deny it. The characterization could well be entirely accurate. Indeed, it probably is.

Being "pure evil" is a trait that undoubtedly assists with the deception and necessary attacks that are irrevocably part of apologetics. That is where the expression "it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it" comes from.

If not Dr. Peterson, then who? Snidely Whiplash is busy and Cruella de Vil does not hold the priesthood.

[drumdude]

Funny how when he lists his 'supposed' evils, he doesn't include serial plagiarism. Is he afraid people might read the thread?

Excellent point and one which will undoubtedly be completely ignored at SeN.

[Doctor Scratch]

He writes:

Just for the record, though: I have never tried to get anybody fired. I have never conducted a multi-year — or even multi-minute — crusade of defamation, slander, and personal attack against anybody. If I have ever caused any family years of stress, hurtm and frustration, that would be news to me.

I have, it is true, published criticisms of certain published works and, to the extent that it has been relevant to evaluating the written materials, of their authors. Some of them I’ve written myself. In this, I’m simply doing what drama critics and film critics and literary critics and editorial writers and writers of letters to the editor have done for centuries. I express my opinions, as do others. But I have never sought anyone’s firing, or engaged in slander or defamation or personal attack, and I have never sought to hurt or damage anyone’s family.

He's ignoring an awful lot here, notably the series of things he did to GoodK--such as ratting GoodK out to his family, which resulted in permanent damage to GoodK's relationship with his stepfather. During this same period, DCP was spreading malicious gossip about GoodK to Darth J via the PM system here. DCP was also accused of writing a defamatory email to a college student's home department, and then there is all his ridiculous email exchanges on SHIELDS. Is that also what "drama critics and film critics and literary critics and editorial writers and writers of letters to the editor" do? Maybe if they're petty and vindictive bullies like DCP. And again: What about the situation with Jonathan Neville? How, apart from his usual kindergarten-level "He was mean to me first!" excuse, does he explain that?

[Moksha]

How, apart from his usual kindergarten-level "He was mean to me first!" excuse, does he explain that?

Wasn't there also something about pursuing Dr. Michael Quinn?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

To paraphrase something Dr. Scratch said years ago, "Daniel C. Peterson trying to publicly dox someone is like Ronald McDonald trying to perform brain surgery." DCP will go to any length to dox me, including breaking several state and federal privacy laws, which he did.

In addition to my friend, just look at a few of the many other people he has publicly attacked and hurt their families in the process. Gerald Bradford, anyone? Blair Hodges? Michael Quinn? Bill Reel? John Dehlin, etc.

I shared my friend's identity with, and told Dr. Shades personal details surrounding DCP's multi-year campaign against my friend. Now, DCP wants to know the identity in an effort to punish my friend and his family even further, and to try to dox me? What an idiot.

[Marcus]

Allen Wyatt, the current editor of the Interpreter Journal, has decided that mocking people is the way to promote LDS mopologetics:

Allen Wyatt
12 hours ago

I laughed out loud at the apparently very earnest expression that Dan's "years long campaign to ridicule the memory of Christopher Hitchens" is an example of someone he's "gone after" or was cruel to.

The fact that some at the G&STP cannot understand the difference between providing evidence that counters Hitchens' well-stated positions concerning religion and actually going after Hitchens himself seems, to me, an overt example that critical thinking skills are in short supply in some quarters. Hitchens had critical thinking skills; some who are concerned about Hitchens' feelings, not so much. (Was that mean? Possibly. However, I can only judge on the basis of arguments offered, no matter how laughable.)

Bad Dan! Bad!

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 6315271158

Well, that's exactly what one would expect from a Mormon mopologist.

What is the G&STP?

It wouldn't be a derogatory term applied to those who believe differently, would it? Because that would render his argument in the first paragraph moot. Attacking people while attacking people you think are attacking people is a particularly silly example of "so are you but what am i?"

Personally, i have followed Wyatt's editing and peer review skills as he has handled the InterpreterJournal editions, and he has failed miserably in some very specific ways. He has let multiple papers with major errors in arithmetic go through, as well as many, many papers containing basic probability and statistical analysis errors. Even when those errors were pointed out, he refused to address them. Personally, i have never experienced a Journal, other than the Interpreter, that allows ARITHMETIC errors to stand after they have been made aware of them. That's the mark of an amateur.

And finally, the papers he has allowed through that used Bayesian analysis were just laughable. One of them i even anonymously use as an example in my classes, just to give students an idea of how far wrong one can go if satisfying starting assumptions Trump's legitimate analysis. (It gets a big laugh, every time.)

Of course, Wyatt understands these comments are a result of applying criitical thinking skills to his woefully ridiculous editorial play at a journal pretending to be an academic source, and not the "personal attack" he so derides, but commits regularly. His Mormon god must be so proud of him for disparaging so many of the actual god's children.

My main concern is this, however. His failure to edit the Interpreter Journal in any academically acceptable way is egregiously unprofessional and downright silly.

[Kishkumen]

My main concern is this, however. His failure to edit the Interpreter Journal in any academically acceptable way is egregiously unprofessional and downright silly.

Are you trying to tell me that a "small computer expert" may not engage in the hobby of defending his religion with scholarly rigor?

[Philo Sofee]

My main concern is this, however. His failure to edit the Interpreter Journal in any academically acceptable way is egregiously unprofessional and downright silly.

Are you trying to tell me that a "small computer expert" may not engage in the hobby of defending his religion with scholarly rigor?

Alas! If only scholarly rigor was actually used... we have evidence the mathematical rigor is refused, lets hope scholarly won't reside in the same camp for too long. It's already been years...

[Marcus]

My main concern is this, however. His failure to edit the Interpreter Journal in any academically acceptable way is egregiously unprofessional and downright silly.

Are you trying to tell me that a "small computer expert" may not engage in the hobby of defending his religion with scholarly rigor?

If he had scholarly rigor, he may.

[Physics Guy]

And finally, the papers he has allowed through that used Bayesian analysis were just laughable. One of them i even anonymously use as an example in my classes, just to give students an idea of how far wrong one can go if satisfying starting assumptions Trump's legitimate analysis. (It gets a big laugh, every time.)

So it was a useful contribution after all! Any chance of citing that work in a paper—and thereby giving Interpreter an impact factor?

There is one thing I've been thinking of writing up into a paper someday, about one very specific scenario in which I think I can connect Bayesian inference and Heisenberg uncertainty. If I ever actually get around to writing it, I could probably swing a reference to that infamous Interpreter paper, if I put some broad Bayesian-inference-gets-used-in-the-darndest-places sentences into an introductory paragraph. Maybe I could even manage that in a way that wouldn't be so obviously forced that it would annoy an editor. Other than that one unwritten paper, though, I'm unlikely to have any chances. My work doesn't really connect to Bayes.