DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_asbestosman]

Ho ho ho! Our dear friend, Professor Peterson, is admitting that he needs he beloved MB to be kept squeaky clean. Despite long speculation that he does in fact receive special treatment (and despite McPahoran's numbskull defense of the MADmoderation), Prof. P. is now saying that if he doesn't get his way, he's going to leave the MADboard for good! (Yeah, right.)

Doubtless you are wondering: Why would he leave? Well, the answer is pretty simple: He is afraid of Tal Bachman. Bear in mind that Prof. Peterson has long referred to Tal as "Tal Tales," and that he has ridiculed Mr. Bachman's musical career. Prof. P., nonetheless, seems to be quaking in his boots! Dig this post:

Call it, if you will, just an odd personal quirk on my part, but, since Tal Bachman has linked me at various times with Nazism and Fascism and Heaven's Gate, and has repeatedly called me a "sociopath," a "loon," "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," and a "joke" -- to recall just a few of his impressive ventures into reasoned analysis and argument -- I can't seem to muster much enthusiasm for his appearance here, and don't expect it to raise the level of discourse. I tried to interact with him a few years ago, and, candidly, found it one of the weirdest and most exasperating encounters I've ever had. Though he is unquestionably very bright, he seems chronically incapable of accurately understanding the positions of those with whom he has chosen to disagree.

If he represents the future of this board, I'll leave. (Which I surely ought to do anyway.)

(emphasis added.)

Yep. Sure enough, Dan_G/Chaos immediately swoops in to declare, "No personal threads." Hmm. Coincidence? I think not! Anyways, lest anyone offer up the analysis and criticism, which, incidentally, I just offered, Prof. P. offers up this tiddlywink of a sidebar:

I'm not asking the moderators to ban him. Contrary to popular legend, I've never asked them to ban anybody, and don't seek protection from them.

Now, what does he mean by this? Does he mean that he doesn't proactively seek protection? Because it is quite obvious that his publicly posted entreaties are definitely telegraphing directions the moderating should go...

So, which is it? Does His Highness need protection or not? You make the call!

edited for spelling: thanx, Plu.!

Of all people at MA&D who can defend themselves it would have to be Dr. Peterson and Pahoran. I may disagree with them when it comes to many questions, but their mastery of language, logic, and argumentation are superior. I think Dr. Peterson was merely expressing some disguist, not making any sort of recomendation to moderators. If he were, why not just PM them and disallow you the ability to see his post in plain sight? Seriously, sometimes the conspiracy theories on this board . . .

[_Mister Scratch]

Of all people at MA&D who can defend themselves it would have to be Dr. Peterson and Pahoran. I may disagree with them when it comes to many questions, but their mastery of language, logic, and argumentation are superior. I think Dr. Peterson was merely expressing some disguist, not making any sort of recomendation to moderators. If he were, why not just PM them and disallow you the ability to see his post in plain sight? Seriously, sometimes the conspiracy theories on this board . . .

You think Pahoran has "mastery of language, logic, and argumentation"? I used to have some respect for you Asbestosman, and to think that you were a level-headed guy. Sheesh. So much for that, eh?

Moreover, what was DCP expressing "disgust" about? His unwillingness to engage issues? His own use of Poisoning the Well and other smear tactics? What?

[_moksha]

I used to have some respect for you Asbestosman...

I still have respect for you.
by the way, what is currently happening at MAD with regards to Tal Bachman?

[Anonymous]

by the way, what is currently happening at MAD with regards to Tal Bachman?

Here's what appears to be happening with Bachman.

1) A thread was started about comments Tal made on a podcast. A poster named Freedom said that he knew Tal, talked to Tal--and then commented that Tal was completely nuts (or something akin to that). Here's the entire post taken from Freedom's post (page 4 of the thread "Tal Bachman and LDS Epistemology"):

oh dear, another Tal thread. Yes he has a lot to say about Mormonism, about religion, about lots of things he is struggling to reject. He is at war with himself. I know him well, I have spoken with him recently. It is like a sickness with him. All conversations end up as an attack against God. No matter the subject matter. I don't mind people not accepting the church and identifying the problems with it through effective research but in my opinion, Tal is not fighting the church, he is fighting a personal battle. It is almost at the point of a mental illness. His wife shrugs her shoulders and leaves the room. His kids say 'is that all you can talk about?'.

Mormonism is more than a feeling, it is a way of life that brings peace. It brings one to God. Einstein’s theories were ‘feelings’. His breakthroughs were produced without research, without any education. He worked in an office because he had failed his university entrance exams. He just thought things through and followed his feelings. His feelings fundamentally changed the way we look at the world. If we assume Tals interpretation of the Mormon feeling is accurate and must be rejected, then we must reject science. We are greater than the other living things on this planet because of our ability to feel and think.

2) Tal got wind of someone (Freedom) talking about personal encounters with Tal. Tal apparently doesn't know or has ever met this person so went to MAD to confront Freedom/figure out what was going on and asked about the post. That thread went a while with Tal trying to figure out what was going on and alot of light back and forth banter happened. The thread was eventually closed, with some people thinking the thread was closed on the request of DCP.

3) DCP started another thread saying Tal's thread wasn't closed on his request (Scratch's original post on this thread was quoted, so DCP may have felt the need to answer the idea that he can get threads closed). Alot more back and forth stuff that was eventually closed as a personal thread.

4) Tal started another thread asking if someone wanted to interview him. The regular posters where highly skeptical, some more back and forth with that thread being closed as a personal thread with the Mods saying if Tal wants to start a discussion to start a thread, but no interviews.

5) As it stands:

1)not sure if Tal ever got an answer from "Freedom"
2)Tal can post (not banned yet) but no interviews.

Does that about cover it?

Bond

[_asbestosman]

Of all people at MA&D who can defend themselves it would have to be Dr. Peterson and Pahoran. I may disagree with them when it comes to many questions, but their mastery of language, logic, and argumentation are superior. I think Dr. Peterson was merely expressing some disguist, not making any sort of recomendation to moderators. If he were, why not just PM them and disallow you the ability to see his post in plain sight? Seriously, sometimes the conspiracy theories on this board . . .

You think Pahoran has "mastery of language, logic, and argumentation"? I used to have some respect for you Asbestosman, and to think that you were a level-headed guy. Sheesh. So much for that, eh?

Moreover, what was DCP expressing "disgust" about? His unwillingness to engage issues? His own use of Poisoning the Well and other smear tactics? What?

Since we disagree about Pahoran, I'd like to hear why you think Pahoran doesn't have mastery of language, logic, anr argumentation. Pahoran may not use the most tact, I'll grant that, but I really do think he's better than most people at seeing the argument from various levels. I disagree with Pahoran on the issue of Intelligent Design, but I have to grant that he's still very good at logic.

I agree that Dr. Peterson is probably unwilling to engage the issues, but unlike you I don't think that's because he's afraid. I think it's because he finds no pleasure from doing it. Even The Dude ended his discussion with Dr. Stewart--not out of fear but a sense of futility. Besides, I would also be disguisted if people kept calling me all sorts of negative things. Come to think of it, don't you find it a bit ironic to accuse Dr. Peterson of smear tactics when it appears that the person he expressed disguist over has done so much in that regard? Or am I wrong, has Tal not called Dr. Peterson the sort of things Dr. Peterson claims?

I really think there's a difference between expressing disguist with someone and starting a smear campaign.

[_Brackite]

Hello Moksha,

You wrote:

I still have respect for you.
by the way, what is currently happening at MAD with regards to Tal Bachman?

Well, Tal Bachman started a Discussion Thread last night titled, 'The Rodney King Question, Mo/exmo Style,' with the subtitle, 'An invitation' over there on the MA&D Board. Her is his origianl Post on that Thread there:

Hi

First I want to thank the mods for permitting me at least to mention my fake friend "Freedom"'s weird stories about me without immediately erasing my entire thread. I know that probably sounds like Stockholm Syndrome or something, but I do appreciate it.

Anyway, I have a cool Rodney King (that exemplar of propriety) idea (they should have shot him! Oops) as in "Why cain't we just all git along?". I tried it out on another discussion board about Mormonism, but unfortunately there just aren't that many people on that one. So here it is for all my new MA&D buds (stay tuned for the sleepover invitation):

I interview you, then you interview me - about church stuff, our faiths, experiences, etc. We could do it on here if the mods permit it (my preferred option), or privately via email and then post it somewhere online, or else do it on another board altogether. It could be kind of like a riff on "How Wide the Divide". Plus, it's kind of like in that David Burton talk, where he says "In a recent training meeting for stake and ward councils held as a part of a stake conference I attended, well-prepared presentations centered on the opportunities to be “inclusive” rather than “exclusive” in reaching out and touching new and less-active individuals, as well as those not members of our church." I guess you could say I'm pretty less active right now...(see "A Season of Opportunity", Oct. '98 GC).

Also, those of a certain political persuasion are always trying to tell me that every problem in the universe can be solved "through education!". I think the results of what I'm proposing might be really educational for people of whatever religious persuasion, including devout members.

I confess I am looking for folks who can have proper conversations if they wish.

Any takers? I can't respond via PM on here, but if you don't wish to reply on this thread, you can email me at herrbachmann@gmail.com.

Just an idea,

T.

A few of the LDS Posters there, did not seem to like this Thread that Tal Bachman started over there. Here are a couple of their comments to him:

Okay, I'll bite. From a recent news article:

Now signed with Sextant/EMI and inking a U.S. distribution deal for Staring Down The Sun with Artemis, things are looking up for [Tal] Bachman at last. However, just as his career was starting to turn the corner, he suffered a very personal crisis revolving around his spiritual beliefs.

"I was raised Mormon and was always very devout and I went on my mission," he explains. "I always served in the church and helped out and volunteered. My whole life was devoted to the church, in a way."

Late last year, Bachman experienced a profound shift in his beliefs and values and he's still experiencing the aftershock of this discovery.

"It was through the experience of being an adult schoolteacher in my local congregation that I came to discover, to my shock, that the foundational claims of the church are not based in reality," he says carefully. "So, when you've been raised to accept those things as being literally true, not metaphors, but recitations of physical events that happened within the parameter of physical reality and then come to see, without wanting to see and trying not to see and trying to un-know what you are increasingly coming to know... that was really upsetting."

Translation: Everything he saw as true now looks false. This disillusionment with the foundations of the Mormon Church led to Bachman and his family splitting entirely from the congregation and the community. They still live amongst the Mormons on Salt Spring Island in British Columbia, but no longer participate in the church and its activities.

"Since I walked away, I've heard that it was because I had a secret yearning to live the high life of a rock star; I over-thought everything and didn't have enough faith in God — a million scenarios," Bachman sighs, shaking his head. "And any possible explanation except the only explanation there was, which is that Joseph Smith was a charismatic, religious genius, but not a prophet in the way that he was reputed to have been."


If you are this Tal Bachman, why do you wish to discuss something in which you've already made up your mind? Is this a reality check? What makes you think the claims of the church are not based in reality and what led to where you are today?

Hello, Mr. Bachman. Would this be one of those discussions that ends
up with us believers painted as delusional, uninformed, confused, and in denial?

If so, that's already been done many times. What would be new?

Bernard

Here is Tal Bachman second Message Posted there, after those Messages that were Posted there:

Whoa chilluns! We gotta set this up properly. You can't just start firing questions at me lol.

The motive thing came up on the other site where I tried this....Needless to say, I have no magical powers (though sometimes I like imagining I might), and I doubt very much I could make anyone look ignorant of deluded or silly, who wasn't any of those things - just like I couldn't stop wit and intelligence from shining through. It's an interview, not a magic show, you know?

Besides, like I said, you can interview me when we're done if you want. You can ask me whatever you want - you can tear me from limb to limb!

Also, this isn't necessarily about trying to change someone's mind, though that sometimes happens in conversation.

It's an interview, like...you know - an interview. Like Katie Couric or something. Wait - I mean, like someone cooler, like, uh....like...not Martin Bashir....like......uhhhhh.....like Ed Bradley? Wait, he's dead....Larry King? No, not Larry King....Anyway, you know - an interview. What do you believe? Why do you believe it? What do you think of this or that? What would you say to X?, hypotheticals, "if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" (just kidding). You know - an interview.

T.

The next Message was that was Postedafter right away, was Posted by the Poster named 'Charity' there. Here is what Charity Posted there:

On the other thread, you said you had no friends. Are you looking for friends here? This is cyberspace. And surely, you have cyberfriends among the "fellow travelers" of the anti and ex-mo board(s) you use to rant against the Church.

I don't see your "friendly" invitation as being without ulterior motives. Think of all the invectives you have heaped on Dr. Peterson. With the kind of langauge you use, and the ugly way of speaking about people, I don't think you really believe "hey, we can all just get along."

I really suspect you are trying to sink the board. I don't think you can.

Now the Next Message Posted on that Thread was in response to charity there. That Message was Posted by a Poster named 'Not quite me. Here is that Message Posted there:

I think almost everyone here has at one time or another "heaped invectives" on one another. You've had a few choice words for me, after all. And I'm including myself. I've said unkind things I've regretted, and yet I think I'm getting along reasonably well around here.

I guess we have two choices here: we either decide to give Tal the benefit of the doubt, or we don't. No need to suspect that the man is trying to singlehandedly bring down the board. I don't think he or anyone else is capable of doing that.

All I know is what I've seen on the other board. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt based on that experience.

The URL Address to that Discussion Thread there is: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 21080&st=0

[_Brackite]

On Page #2, of that Disucussion Thread there, the Moderator named 'Orpheus' entered into it. Here is his first Post on Page #2, of that Discussion Thread there:

Orpheus:
We don't allow personalized threads. We want to discuss topics not people that is what has made this board popular and that isn't going to change any time soon. Mr. Bachman there is a topic that is devoted to a podcast of youres. I am curious why you aren't there when you have made multiple threads talking about that thread. I think that is where you need to be instead of trying to manage the board.

The Next message that the Moderator Orpheus Posted there, was in response to another Poster Posted there. here is what the Moderator Orpheus Posted next there:

Orpheus:

QUOTE(MJNSW @ Jan 12 2007, 10:11 PM)

I don't mind sharing information about myself or answering questions...

As one moderator always said personalized threads get personal.

NOw let's go to a Message that was Posted there, by the 'chief' LDS Apologists Daniel C. Peterson there, who gets special treatment from the Moderators over there on the MA&D Board. Here is what the LDS Apologist Daniel C. Peterson Posted in response to another Poster there:

QUOTE(Severian @ Jan 13 2007, 09:33 AM)
I will assume that Dr. Peterson would be unwilling

You assume right. I want nothing to do with Bachman. I think his arrival here is likely to damage this message board.

QUOTE(Severian @ Jan 13 2007, 09:33 AM)
but the lure of a chance to counter interview Tal Bachman may be tempting.

Tempting, perhaps. But the temptation is easily overcome. I've tried to converse rationally with him. It was a complete, and thoroughly frustrating, waste of time. Repeating "That's not what I said" and "I believe nothing of the kind" and "You're grossly misrepresenting my views and the views of my associates" over and over and over again palls pretty quickly. And then, when you add to the mix his vocally hateful contempt for the absurd lesser beings who disagree with him and/or who, um, "hold" the idiotic views that he assigns to them . . . No, I can easily withstand the temptation.

I have, I confess, found him an interesting person to watch, and (although, sadly, I've missed more than I've captured) I've collected several fascinating specimens of his thought processes. Here, for example, are two samples in which he illustrates his bizarre and wholly groundless conviction that those who write for FARMS are anti-realists, in thrall to the twentieth-century German philosopher (and, as Bachman likes to point out, Nazi-sympathizer) Martin Heidegger and to a rather eccentric reading of the earlier German philosopher Immanuel Kant:

QUOTE
Daniel Graham may have done some brilliant stuff - but that's entirely irrelevant to this issue, isn't it? He could be Martin Heidegger himself (in fact, judging by the fascination with anti-realism BS Mormon apologists seem to have, he probably loves the guy).
-Tal Bachman (RFM, 12 June 2006)

(Dan Graham, a friend of mine, is a world-renowned expert on Aristotle and the pre-Socratic philosophers, and the chairman of the Department of Philosophy at BYU. He is, I happen to know, not a fan of anti-realism, postmodernism, and Heidegger. But what do a few facts matter?)

QUOTE
Whether I threw you on the back of my motorcycle or not, or whether we "consummated" our "thing", is totally up in the air, you know? It's one of the lessons I've learned from FARMS writers like Dan Peterson: if you can manage to buy into Kant's comments on perception, accepting uncritically Kant's protestations that his thought is entirely different than idealism (that is, without noticing the embarrassing fact that Kant's comments on this owe almost everything to Berkeley), and then you can bat around in your head long enough that you can't really prove to yourself what is real and what is imagined by you, then you can work yourself into a state where any kind of "reality" you need to exist, you can make exist, and then instantly believe as plausible as any other "reality"...and after that, the whole concept of reality can only ever be thought of as having a possessive in front of it: "my reality", "your reality", "whose reality?". See how it works? That's when you know you've become Marshall Applewhite Peterson...and it is freeing! Huzzah! Our non-existent make-out sessions (like non-existent ancient American civilizations) for us, can be just as "real" as real ones. After all, can someone perform an experiment whereby it is proved that you and I didn't make out? If not - then Mormonism is all it claims! "The church is safe once again". (Tal Bachman, 17 August 2006, RFM)

Good stuff, no? (Don't be troubled by the fact that, at least so far as I can recall, I've never cited Kant -- nor Heidegger, for that matter -- in anything I've ever written.)

I don't know whether it was Tal Bachman who first discovered our alleged obsession with postmodernism, or his fellow western Canadian Bob McCue. Or perhaps, like so many great leaps forward in human thought (e.g., Wallace and Darwin with evolution, and Leibniz and Newton with the calculus), they discovered it independently:

QUOTE
The smell around Daniel Peterson and his ilk at FARMS are symptoms of an ideological system in distress as much as the smell of decaying flesh is of a dead body. They are Derridian postmodern fog machines whose purpose is to make the terrain around the borders of Mormonism so hard to find and to appear so baffling and unattractive that the faithful who wander in that direction will turn back in dismay.
Don’t hold your breath (though it is hard to resist doing this) while waiting for Peterson or FARMS to clarify anything. But even smelly fog shows can be enjoyed at a distance. Peterson and his FARMSy friends put out some spectacularly pungent fog. (Bob McCue, on the “Recovery” board, 13 March 2006)

Their discovery is all the more remarkable, I think, when it is understood that I've sought very carefully to conceal my deep debt to Jacques Derrida, for instance, by the usually reliable method of never quoting Derrida, never citing Derrida, never mentioning Derrida, and never advocating any position or view associated with Derrida. But these sleuths managed to smoke me out nonetheless.

And, for some of those who post over at the Compound in which Bachman and McCue publish their finest work, this sort of baseless nonsense has now become the received wisdom:

QUOTE
”I'm not excusing his pompous diatribes or attacks on ex-Mormons or his twisting of church history and bizarre Kantian relativist leanings, but still, I feel sorry for him.” (Kimberly Ann [on the "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006], regarding Daniel Peterson)

Perhaps, reading between the lines, you can gain some idea as to why I will not interact with Bachman. Observing him is one thing. Fruitlessly trying to talk with him is quite another.

And here is part of a Message that was Posted by a Poster named 'Tarski' there:

I personally don't understand the attempt to divide apologists and exmos along realist/antirealist lines.
For example, I find Heidegger quite thought provoking and I think it naïve to characterize Heidegger's thought as simply anti-realist. The critic Sidewider wrote a little something about this and I would like to see those two debate postmodernism and its relevance to Mormon apologetics.

The URL Address to Page #2, of that Disussion Thread there is: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1080&st=20

Eventually that Discussion Thread there, was shut down by the Moderator Orpheus over there.

[_Mister Scratch]

Of all people at MA&D who can defend themselves it would have to be Dr. Peterson and Pahoran. I may disagree with them when it comes to many questions, but their mastery of language, logic, and argumentation are superior. I think Dr. Peterson was merely expressing some disguist, not making any sort of recomendation to moderators. If he were, why not just PM them and disallow you the ability to see his post in plain sight? Seriously, sometimes the conspiracy theories on this board . . .

You think Pahoran has "mastery of language, logic, and argumentation"? I used to have some respect for you Asbestosman, and to think that you were a level-headed guy. Sheesh. So much for that, eh?

Moreover, what was DCP expressing "disgust" about? His unwillingness to engage issues? His own use of Poisoning the Well and other smear tactics? What?

Since we disagree about Pahoran, I'd like to hear why you think Pahoran doesn't have mastery of language, logic, anr argumentation. Pahoran may not use the most tact, I'll grant that, but I really do think he's better than most people at seeing the argument from various levels. I disagree with Pahoran on the issue of Intelligent Design, but I have to grant that he's still very good at logic.

I absolutely do not think Pahoran is good at "seeing the argument from various levels." He is so unsympathetic to antagonistic positions that he winds up undermining his own cause, in my opinion. Further, despite his thorough condemnation of folks such as the Tanners, he nonetheless has no problem using information they unearthed in his ongoing campaign to discredit his opponents.

I guess I would say that he is okay at logic, but again, his application of it tends to be tainted by his other behavior: his taunting, and snarling---what you characterized as his lack of "tact." He is also just plain a bad person, in my book. I don't know if you saw it or not, but KG reported that Pahoran put a man's life in danger by "outing" him. (The man had previously worked in a prison, and was using a pseudonym to protect himself and his family. Pahoran obviously didn't care a white about that.) On another occasion, Pahoran told a person who was contemplating suicide that it was the person's own fault. Actions such as these---coupled with his stubborn refusal to ever acknowledge any wrongdoing either in himself, or in his "precious" Church---mark him as a genuinely insensitive and careless human being, imho.

I agree that Dr. Peterson is probably unwilling to engage the issues, but unlike you I don't think that's because he's afraid. I think it's because he finds no pleasure from doing it.

And why? He tends to repeat over and over again---before any discussion has even begun---that he will be "misunderstood."

Even The Dude ended his discussion with Dr. Stewart--not out of fear but a sense of futility.

The key difference being, of course, that those two actually engaged in discussion.

Besides, I would also be disguisted if people kept calling me all sorts of negative things. Come to think of it, don't you find it a bit ironic to accuse Dr. Peterson of smear tactics when it appears that the person he expressed disguist over has done so much in that regard? Or am I wrong, has Tal not called Dr. Peterson the sort of things Dr. Peterson claims?

Professor Peterson has been equally guilty of namecalling and smear tactics. They are both guilty.

I really think there's a difference between expressing disguist with someone and starting a smear campaign.

Perhaps, but since DCP has a history of smear tactics (such as his handling of Mike Quinn's work and life history), it is reasonable to attribute such motives to him, in my opinion.

[_beastie]

Could one of the admirers of pahoran or DCP link me to a thread where they are demonstrating their logic and argumentation at their best?

[_asbestosman]

On another occasion, Pahoran told a person who was contemplating suicide that it was the person's own fault.

Hold on a second. Didn't Pahoran already address that? I seriously doubt that Pahoran was aware that the person was contemplating suicide. Sometimes it's hard to tell these things. If a person isn't contemplating suicide, then I think it is actually a good idea to make them accept the consequences of their actions--to be a man and deal with it. Suicide is something else. Someone in that situation is obviously not in a position to think rationaly and handle their problems.

I agree that Dr. Peterson is probably unwilling to engage the issues, but unlike you I don't think that's because he's afraid. I think it's because he finds no pleasure from doing it.

And why? He tends to repeat over and over again---before any discussion has even begun---that he will be "misunderstood."

And wonder of wonders, he actually is misunderstood time and time again. People love to read a lot into what he writes as though they are looking for something to criticize.

Even The Dude ended his discussion with Dr. Stewart--not out of fear but a sense of futility.

The key difference being, of course, that those two actually engaged in discussion.

Yes, but Dr. Peterson has probably been on message boards for much longer. Furthermore Dr. Peterson is often the focus of criticism. I don't find it hard to imagine that anyone would lose interest in such exercises in futility and frustration. Furthermore, hasn't Dr. Peterson actually engaged criticism many times only to be frustrated at being misunderstood?

Professor Peterson has been equally guilty of namecalling and smear tactics. They are both guilty.

I don't know if it's equal and I don't care. Still, I don't see how Dr. Peterson's expression of disguist is a smear tactic.