DCP "Busts" Me

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

I count on you to deliver it straight up. Here's my question. Why do you think that Daniel is willing to read this board, post about Scratch on MAD where he cannot respond, is willing to transfer posts from this board to MAD...but is unwilling to participate here?

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I count on you to deliver it straight up. Here's my question. Why do you think that Daniel is willing to read this board, post about Scratch on MAD where he cannot respond, is willing to transfer posts from this board to MAD...but is unwilling to participate here?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, I would be mind-reading if I said I knew Dan's reasons. I don't. He occasionally posted on Kevin's board. He also attempted to post on RFM, but was constantly deleted. I don't believe he's a coward at all, but he is continually misrepresented, and my feeling is that he grows tired of this. Even his critics have expressed some surprise at his views in more balanced venues. People always label him as this and that, and often try to do his thinking for him. I don't believe there is enough balance here for him, and he would be constantly attacked. In short, it would be a fruitless exercise, and for that reason alone I would say he stays away. This is a free and open board, but having a free and open board does not mean that the quality of dialogue is going to be productive. This is also why he does not waste time debating certain people. If you are constantly labelled and called a "crackpot" and an apologist of nonsense, why waste your time? And that's what it eventually becomes - a waste of time. His critics have already drawn all the conclusions about him they need as ammunition to fire with. Then come the sarcastic caricatures and derogatory comments. When Dr. Shades was temporarily under attack and personal things about his life exposed, even legal action was being considered, and there was a lot of sensitivity. Dan Peterson has been subjected to this for more years than I can count. Everything from what he eats, to what he wears. Perhaps when little minds rise to a higher level, Dan might engage them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

I count on you to deliver it straight up. Here's my question. Why do you think that Daniel is willing to read this board, post about Scratch on MAD where he cannot respond, is willing to transfer posts from this board to MAD...but is unwilling to participate here?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, I would be mind-reading if I said I knew Dan's reasons. I don't. He occasionally posted on Kevin's board. He also attempted to post on RFM, but was constantly deleted. I don't believe he's a coward at all, but he is continually misrepresented, and my feeling is that he grows tired of this. Even his critics have expressed some surprise at his views in more balanced venues. People always label him as this and that, and often try to do his thinking for him. I don't believe there is enough balance here for him, and he would be constantly attacked. In short, it would be a fruitless exercise, and for that reason alone I would say he stays away. This is a free and open board, but having a free and open board does not mean that the quality of dialogue is going to be productive. This is also why he does not waste time debating certain people. If you are constantly labelled and called a "crackpot" and an apologist of nonsense, why waste your time? And that's what it eventually becomes - a waste of time. His critics have already drawn all the conclusions about him they need as ammunition to fire with. Then come the sarcastic caricatures and derogatory comments. When Dr. Shades was temporarily under attack and personal things about his life exposed, even legal action was being considered, and there was a lot of sensitivity. Dan Peterson has been subjected to this for more years than I can count. Everything from what he eats, to what he wears. Perhaps when little minds rise to a higher level, Dan might engage them.

Ray,

If you choose to comment again this evening, I won't reply until tomorrow. Ray, the thread that Daniel created violates the MAD board guidelines. It is not about debate, it doesn't represent quality of dialogue, it has nothing whatsoever to do with apologetics, it is filled with derogatory comments about another poster, a poster who is unable to respond and cackling from the peanut gallery. He is for all intents and purposes, doing Scratch's thinking for him and attacking his character in the process.

Do you see that maligning as being any different then what you say Daniel's critics do?

Daniel is reading this board, he is commenting on it, he is willing to transfer posts from here to there (another rule violation), yet he claims to "refuse" to post here. Why? He's obviously not "above" engaging in character assassination, so you tell me, Ray...what's the difference if it isn't control?

When Scratch writes on this board regarding Daniel, Daniel has the option of responding directly to him. When Daniel writes regarding Scratch (or anyone else here who has been banned), Scratch does not have that option.

What is going on, Ray, is simply well...nuts.

Daniel has already posted on Mormon Discussions and he was not constantly attacked. He is currently attacking another poster on MAD who cannot respond in full public view. If he were to post here again regarding the events in question, Shades could easily request that posters refrain from posting and I believe, that the community would meet that request. If not, I assure you that if Daniel posted here in order to address his concerns with Scratch and was personally attacked I would be among the first to challenge which is more than Daniel is willing to offer Scratch.

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

If you choose to comment again this evening, I won't reply until tomorrow.

I will reply tomorrow. I'm off to work.

[_why me]

First of all Jersey, Ray A. has a point. The critics themselves created this situation. No one wants to come to a board and be lampooned to death, complete with obscene photos and sly remarks and this is exactly what would happen.

For some strange reason, critics cannot respond to Dan as a human being but they respond to him as an object. When critics treat dan as a subject, a human being and not as an object, an entity without human characteristics, perhaps he would engage. And because of this critics can not complain about an unfair playing field since they have created that field themselves.

Soution: improve the tone, leave off the personal attacks...show respect...be human....and have a healthy humanity. It is as simple as that.

Oh by the way, cape may is great...and as a boy, I loved seaside heights and I still can hang around Toms River in the summer if I am in that part of the world. But then I am more of a Newark, Jersey City kind of guy.

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray--- I *did* write that! I have never claimed that I did not write that specific post. I have no problem admitting to posts which I did actually write. The post I did not write was the one DCP attempted to smear me with.

Thanks for clarifying that, Scratch.

Sure, Ray. No problem.

I went back and read your OP and this is indeed the case. You also wrote:

Yes, ABman---well done! As I have said before, I *am* guilty of writing derogatory things about DCP. You can find a bit archived on Infymus's site where I referred to him and his pals as "a-holes," too. My point has been all along that I am just not guilty of the specific thing he has repeatedly accused me of having written, and which got me booted off of FAIR.

However, if you wrote derogatory things about DCP, and you really think he's an "a-hole", it's a bit at odds with this statement you wrote on this thread:

Yes, I agree. I think that Prof. P. is a smart, witty, eloquent, and basically decent guy....

So is he a "a-hole", or a decent guy?

Both. the "a-hole" remark was made in the wake of his admission that he and his "circle" were gossipmongering about Mike Quinn's sexual orientation. Overall, I think that Prof. P. is a "basically decent guy." But even "basically decent" guys can make mistakes, indeed can behave like "a-holes."

You clarify your motive in the rest of the comment from above:

I think it is a pity that he is apparently incapable of seeing me as anything other than an "anti-Mormon liar." But, oh well. I do enjoy butting heads with him, even if it is from a distance. : ) (My emphasis)

But from your OP:

This isn't exactly true. Given that somebody is impersonating now, I think it makes the "earlier story" more likely, but I also think it is possible that DCP either flat out lied, or else made a mistake in his reading of the old RfM post. (My emphasis)

Your OP seems to indicate your motivation in continually attacking DCP

See, I always felt that this "apology" was disingenuous. He plainly (in my opinion) wanted me to be banned....And no, I have not forgotten how I was unfairly booted off of the ironically named FAIRboards thanks to DCP's smear campaign.... (My emphasis)

And:

Okay, DCP said there was a punchline.... But what was it? Am I the only one who missed it? I can quote lines, too: "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold." (My emphasis)

What this looks like, to me, Scratch, is that the FAIR mods, even if they were wrong about the "douche-bag" comment, correctly read your intentions, and your true (mixed?) feelings about DCP and aspects of Mormon teachings/doctrine. I think they have said that it's quite okay to be critical, as cksalmon, T-Jane and many others are, without being derogatory.

What "intentions"? To criticize? I thought that was obvious... And where was I ever "derogatory" on FAIR?

So let me remind you again:

I *am* guilty of writing derogatory things about DCP. You can find a bit archived on Infymus's site where I referred to him and his pals as "a-holes," too.

I don't know why you're seeking revenge, Scratch. It was your overall attitude which got you banned, not the specific comments perhaps wrongly attributed.

That simply isn't correct, Ray. Nomos wrote on the thread in which I was banned that I had been banned for "lying to the mods." (Which, of course, I hadn't done.) Prior to that, I was queued due to besting DCP in a debate over the Church and interracial marriage.

This is like throwing stones at someone's house, and when they call the police and have a restraining order placed on you, you cry foul. Cop it sweet, or continue with your campaign of revenge.. The former will make you a big man with a heart, the latter will leave people viewing you as a little man holding big grudges and blaming everyone else but yourself.

Where was I ever "throwing stones"? And what is the "house" in your metaphor? FAIR? Or the Church? If it is the Church, then I must object to the analogy, since I feel that the Church is *my* house, too.

And for the record, I have no doubt DCP was genuine in his apology when he thought he was mistaken about your identity.

I don't. In an email, he admitted that he posted the material in an effort to "embarrass" me. Also, he tossed in the "douche bag" quote into a thread that had absolutely zero to do with the topic. The bottom line is that his use of the "douche bag" quote was a smear tactic. It is literally impossible to view it as anything else.

If you really wanted to post on FAIR/MAD so badly, which is the source of your current obsession campaign, then you poured gas over your body and ignited it. I don't understand the obsession anyway. With all the threads you've done criticising FAIR/MAD, DCP and Juliann, I don't see how you can claim to have been "hard done by". In the minds of the FAIR/MAD mods, your latter actions will leave them feeling fully justified in what they did. What would you have done on FAIR anyway? Pacify the alligator, hoping it will eat you last? Mince words and blow sunshine up people's asses, when you really think they are "a-holes"?

Ray, you were doing so well! Am I mistaken, or are you the same guy who, on MDB version 1.0 went on for post after post, wailing and gnashing your teeth about all the FAIR/MAD threads? There is a simply solution: don't read them. Start threads on topics which are interesting to you.

As for my "motivation", I have a good time reading and writing about MAD and the people who love it. I *was* treated unfairly, but that is not the whole of my "obsession," as it were.

[_harmony]

When Dr. Shades was temporarily under attack and personal things about his life exposed, even legal action was being considered, and there was a lot of sensitivity. Dan Peterson has been subjected to this for more years than I can count. Everything from what he eats, to what he wears. Perhaps when little minds rise to a higher level, Dan might engage them.

Wait a minute. Those two scenarios are completely different.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson uses his real name to post on a few bulletin boards. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades doesn't. therefore, putting Dr Shades real name up without his permission is inappropriate.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson prefers to keep his personal life off the bulletin boards. No one posts his wife's name, his children's names (if he has them), or anything else about his family. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades prefers to do the same thing. Therefore, putting Dr Shades' wife's name up without his permission is highly inappropriate.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson freely admits the name of his employer and his title. He freely discusses his job. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades does not talk about his employer, his title, or his job. Therefore, putting Dr Shades job information up without his permission is unconsciousable (knowing what his job is).

Comparing the two is not at all appropriate.

[_Mister Scratch]

When Dr. Shades was temporarily under attack and personal things about his life exposed, even legal action was being considered, and there was a lot of sensitivity. Dan Peterson has been subjected to this for more years than I can count. Everything from what he eats, to what he wears. Perhaps when little minds rise to a higher level, Dan might engage them.

Wait a minute. Those two scenarios are completely different.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson uses his real name to post on a few bulletin boards. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades doesn't. therefore, putting Dr Shades real name up without his permission is inappropriate.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson prefers to keep his personal life off the bulletin boards. No one posts his wife's name, his children's names (if he has them), or anything else about his family. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades prefers to do the same thing. Therefore, putting Dr Shades' wife's name up without his permission is highly inappropriate.

For reasons of his own, Dan Peterson freely admits the name of his employer and his title. He freely discusses his job. For reasons of his own, Dr Shades does not talk about his employer, his title, or his job. Therefore, putting Dr Shades job information up without his permission is unconsciousable (knowing what his job is).

Comparing the two is not at all appropriate.

Yes; excellent points. Another related question is: If DCP has to put up with this, why doesn't he just use a pseudonym? I have heard him say that "It wouldn't matter; my style gives me away," which I don't buy. He is clearly a gifted writer, and I do not think it would be very difficult for him to consciously alter his style a bit. I think the real reason DCP uses his in real life name lies in the fact that he gets all sorts of respect from TBMs because of it. They practically throw themselves at his feet, due to his status as a BYU professor and leading apologist. If he used a pseudonym, he'd have to forego all the instant respect and admiration.

[_Ray A]

Ray, you were doing so well! Am I mistaken, or are you the same guy who, on MDB version 1.0 went on for post after post, wailing and gnashing your teeth about all the FAIR/MAD threads? There is a simply solution: don't read them. Start threads on topics which are interesting to you.

I have never said I agree with some FAIR/MAD threads, and I have posted disagreements on that board. But I don't get personal, and nasty, and I am not pursuing a vendetta, or some kind of revenge campaign, like YOU, Scratch. I can separate issues from personalities.

As for my "motivation", I have a good time reading and writing about MAD and the people who love it. I *was* treated unfairly, but that is not the whole of my "obsession," as it were.

You were not treated unfairly. Your intention was to denigrate Mormonism, denigate DCP, denigrate Juliann, and how you claim to be a Mormon is totally beyond me. Do you? Or am I just hallucinating? I don't mind people who are upfront, but the more I read your posts I think you don't really understand what Mormonism is. So, are you going to start a smear campaign against me too? Go ahead. I've tried to be tolerant of you and your posts, blogs, and your revenge campaign, but I think you'd better take off your fake Mormon mask and show your real self. If you said you are an apostate and unbeliever, which ALL of your posts indicate, I could respect you. But you insist on this cankerous HYPOCRISY by claiming adherence to Mormonism while trying to cut its throat! Would you like me to spell it out for you? You are a hypocrite and a backstabber. If you claim to believe Mormonism while stabbing it in the back, you are the last person on earth I would trust, because traitors are scum!

[_harmony]

You were not treated unfairly. Your intention was to denigrate Mormonism, denigate DCP, denigrate Juliann, and how you claim to be a Mormon is totally beyond me.

Wait, wait, wait.. hold the phone!

1. Scratch's relationship with DCP and Juliann is in no way connected to his relationship with Mormonism. Try to not conflate the two again. DCP and Juliann do not equal Mormonism.

2. Scratch's comments about Mormonism are confined to commenting on leaders, changing doctrine, church history, etc as a general rule, not attacks on the gospel of Jesus Christ, which from what I can gather, he's rather fond of. Try to not conflate the two again.