DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_moksha]

For a number of reasons, I am no longer of that heart and mind--not the least of which has been the enlightening example of the Savior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade we all change, and seeking to become more Christ-like is the best reason I can imagine. Good for you. Love, forgiveness and mercy are where its at.

[_Runtu]

I understand.

In fact, I used to view the antagonist against my faith (i.e. those whom I was writing about in the pages you linked to) with similar distrust--including, and perhaps even especially, those who claimed to be acting out of love.

For a number of reasons, I am no longer of that heart and mind--not the least of which has been the enlightening example of the Savior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, there used to be a guy who went by Sanpete over on FAIR. I don't know if you remember him. We got to be good friends (he was dating a friend of mine). It was always puzzling to me that he and I had pretty much the same view of church history and the evidence for and against the church's authenticity. I couldn't understand how we could agree so much, but I was a believer, and he wasn't. Since then, we have talked, and we figure it's just a matter of where you heart and your mind (and maybe even the spirit) lead you. It's not like you suddenly become dishonest or unscrupulous if you conclude that the church is not what it claims to be. I'm still convinced after all these years that most of the people on these boards are honest seekers of truth. That they have reached different conclusions is neither here nor there.

We can spend eternity calling each other delusional or liars, and it won't make any difference except in what it does to canker our own souls.

[_Runtu]

I'll always be grateful for a whole host of FAIR posters for encouraging me to get some help, which I did.

Glad you did. I think you're one of the more reasonable posters here.

Thanks. I'm glad I did, too. I would probably be dead at this point, and being dead is much worse than being here (at least most of the time).

I don't know how reasonable I am, but I try to be evenhanded. I do not believe that Mormonism is the restored church of Jesus Christ, but I also don't believe it is the source of all evil in the world, though sometimes Pahoran's posts make me wonder. Just kidding. :)

I've appreciated your contributions here and elsewhere as well.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.!

I sincerely hope the wound that drives your seemingly obsessive need to ridicule certain participants and moderators at MAD will one day heal--though I am quite confident that the method you have chosen for healing won't work, but will merely serve to deepen the wound or widen the scars.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's really more of a hobby than a "need." Moreover, I think there is a difference between "ridicule" and "criticism."

[_Mister Scratch]

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

Pahoran stated that he would never encourage suicide. I think you were expecting an apology, but I think Pahoran feels that since he intended no such harm there is no need for one. Pahoran is Pahoran. Deal.

Hey, I'm doing my best.

Any evidence for him being misunderstood "time and time again"? Both he---and you, evidently---claim that he gets repeatedly "misunderstood" (rather than embarrassed, or whooped), but where's the evidence? I bet you can't come up with even one example. Thus, this is just blather, I'm afraid.

The Tarski cosmology thread commenting on a Meridian article by Dr, Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. I don't claim that I actually understand their point. I merely claim that there are more charitable ways of looking at what they wote instead of making assumptions and attacking those.

Well, there's *one* example. Still quite a ways to go do demonstrate misunderstanding "time and time again" to the extent that all conversation and debate should be foreclosed.

If you "don't care" then why did you swoop in to come to His Highness's defense? Basically, I think his behavior has been hypocritical: he wants to show how horrible, immature, and awful his opponents are, and yet he stoops to namecalling and smear tactics.

I didn't come to defend "His Highness". Dr. Peterson probably doesn't even like me. If I really wanted to gain his favor, I would quit posting here, quit attacking Intelligent Design, and actually read a few scholarly works. As it is my life does not revolve around making people respect me, whether that be you, him, or anyone else. I'm more worried about wheter I could respect a critic who acted as I do--could I respect myself if I were wrong? I believe I can answer that question in the affirmitive.

I am here to bounce a few ideas around and challenge you a bit. Perhaps you prefer that I shut up and not provide any sort of objections? Besides, trying to challenge you in turn challenges me.

So you do care, albeit in a roundabout fashion. Fair enough.

If Dr. Peterson is hypocritical, then what about you with regard to Dr. Peterson? Are you also a hypocrite and stooping to namecalling and smear tactics?

What, you mean referring to him as "His Highness"? I don't think I've ever tried to portray myself as being in a superior light vis-a-vis Prof. P. For example, I go by "Mister" Scratch, rather than "Doctor" Scratch. I don't hide on a board where the mods give me special protection. I don't put some of the clumsier utterances of DCP into my sig line. So... no. I would not say that I am either hypocritical or "stooping to namecalling and smear tactics," since this post consisted largely of reportage.

Further, citing insults is not the same as "expressing disgust." If he had said, "You know, my opponents have said a lot of really disgusting things about me, and it upsets me greatly," I would agree with you. But that's not what we get from him. Instead, we get this lengthy "poisoning the well" business, along with his threats to abandon the board if he doesn't get his way.

Why would his posts be considered a threat?

Please re-read the OP. He threatened to leave the board is Tal Bachman hangs around.

Dr. Peterson was gone from the board for several months before reappearing. Furthermore, I doubts Dr. Peterson would ever say some nobodies in cyber-space upset him greatly.

Nevertheless, that is precisely what he said.

I doubt you have that effect on him.

I never claimed that I did. DCP never claimed that I did. He was referring to Tal Bachman. As was already pointed out in the OP.

More than likely he would say that such posts are somewhat amusing, but also indicative of people who are not likely to engage in any sort of worthwhile discussions with him.

What, you mean these people would list all the sort of insults and namecalling that Prof. P. has engaged in and... Oh, no wait---that's what DCP does! Silly me.

[_asbestosman]

Any evidence for him being misunderstood "time and time again"? Both he---and you, evidently---claim that he gets repeatedly "misunderstood" (rather than embarrassed, or whooped), but where's the evidence? I bet you can't come up with even one example. Thus, this is just blather, I'm afraid.

The Tarski cosmology thread commenting on a Meridian article by Dr, Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. I don't claim that I actually understand their point. I merely claim that there are more charitable ways of looking at what they wote instead of making assumptions and attacking those.

Well, there's *one* example. Still quite a ways to go do demonstrate misunderstanding "time and time again" to the extent that all conversation and debate should be foreclosed.

You said you thought I couldn't come up with one example. I provide one example and now you want more. I'm afraid it had no influence on whether you think Dr. Peterson's lament was just blather. I have no interest in continuing to play that game.

If you "don't care" then why did you swoop in to come to His Highness's defense? Basically, I think his behavior has been hypocritical: he wants to show how horrible, immature, and awful his opponents are, and yet he stoops to namecalling and smear tactics.

I didn't come to defend "His Highness". Dr. Peterson probably doesn't even like me. If I really wanted to gain his favor, I would quit posting here, quit attacking Intelligent Design, and actually read a few scholarly works. As it is my life does not revolve around making people respect me, whether that be you, him, or anyone else. I'm more worried about wheter I could respect a critic who acted as I do--could I respect myself if I were wrong? I believe I can answer that question in the affirmitive.

I am here to bounce a few ideas around and challenge you a bit. Perhaps you prefer that I shut up and not provide any sort of objections? Besides, trying to challenge you in turn challenges me.

So you do care, albeit in a roundabout fashion. Fair enough.

I don't care to prove whether Dr. Peterson is or isn't equally guilty of namecalling and smear tactics as Tal Bachman.

If Dr. Peterson is hypocritical, then what about you with regard to Dr. Peterson? Are you also a hypocrite and stooping to namecalling and smear tactics?

What, you mean referring to him as "His Highness"? I don't think I've ever tried to portray myself as being in a superior light vis-a-vis Prof. P. For example, I go by "Mister" Scratch, rather than "Doctor" Scratch.

Good for you. Do you have a doctorate in anything? I know that The Dude does and yet does not request people refer to him as Dr. Dude. I think Dr. Peterson mostly insists on that when to point out the difference in relevance of opinions on history and religion. Obviously he is more likely to know what's up when it comes to religion in general and Islam in particular than I am.

If you're not trying to portray yourself as superior to Dr. Peterson, then why are you not criticizing yourself too? If you guys are equal, why don't you follow up by stating that Dr. Peterson's behavior is understandable given your own foibles? I think there is a definite implicit air of superiority in your criticism of Dr. Peterson.

Again, my criticism of you is just to get you to think outside your box while yet challenging me. I could hardly care less about "reporting" your activities or foibles.

I don't hide on a board where the mods give me special protection. I don't put some of the clumsier utterances of DCP into my sig line. So... no. I would not say that I am either hypocritical or "stooping to namecalling and smear tactics," since this post consisted largely of reportage.

Why would his posts be considered a threat?

Please re-read the OP. He threatened to leave the board is Tal Bachman hangs around.

That does not show that Dr. Peterson considers Tal to be a threat. I think it shows that Dr. Peterson considers Tal to be an annoyance.

Dr. Peterson was gone from the board for several months before reappearing. Furthermore, I doubts Dr. Peterson would ever say some nobodies in cyber-space upset him greatly.

Nevertheless, that is precisely what he said.

Where?

I doubt you have that effect on him.

I never claimed that I did. DCP never claimed that I did. He was referring to Tal Bachman. As was already pointed out in the OP.

I meant the plural you as in you and Tal. Nevertheless I will apologize and drop you, Mr. Scratch, from there even though I still think it holds that Dr. Peterson is unlikely greatly upset by either you or Tal.

More than likely he would say that such posts are somewhat amusing, but also indicative of people who are not likely to engage in any sort of worthwhile discussions with him.

What, you mean these people would list all the sort of insults and namecalling that Prof. P. has engaged in and... Oh, no wait---that's what DCP does! Silly me.

Besides calling Tal, "Tal Tales" what other names has he called people? I believe he has challenged people to provide examples and to compare that to the names Tal called him.

[_Mister Scratch]

Any evidence for him being misunderstood "time and time again"? Both he---and you, evidently---claim that he gets repeatedly "misunderstood" (rather than embarrassed, or whooped), but where's the evidence? I bet you can't come up with even one example. Thus, this is just blather, I'm afraid.

The Tarski cosmology thread commenting on a Meridian article by Dr, Peterson and Dr. Hamblin. I don't claim that I actually understand their point. I merely claim that there are more charitable ways of looking at what they wote instead of making assumptions and attacking those.

Well, there's *one* example. Still quite a ways to go do demonstrate misunderstanding "time and time again" to the extent that all conversation and debate should be foreclosed.

You said you thought I couldn't come up with one example. I provide one example and now you want more. I'm afraid it had no influence on whether you think Dr. Peterson's lament was just blather. I have no interest in continuing to play that game.

You have no interest in continuing to play because I am right. The bottomline is that neither he nor you have any legitimate grounds to claim that he gets "misunderstood time and time again."

If you "don't care" then why did you swoop in to come to His Highness's defense? Basically, I think his behavior has been hypocritical: he wants to show how horrible, immature, and awful his opponents are, and yet he stoops to namecalling and smear tactics.

I didn't come to defend "His Highness". Dr. Peterson probably doesn't even like me. If I really wanted to gain his favor, I would quit posting here, quit attacking Intelligent Design, and actually read a few scholarly works. As it is my life does not revolve around making people respect me, whether that be you, him, or anyone else. I'm more worried about wheter I could respect a critic who acted as I do--could I respect myself if I were wrong? I believe I can answer that question in the affirmitive.

I am here to bounce a few ideas around and challenge you a bit. Perhaps you prefer that I shut up and not provide any sort of objections? Besides, trying to challenge you in turn challenges me.

So you do care, albeit in a roundabout fashion. Fair enough.

I don't care to prove whether Dr. Peterson is or isn't equally guilty of namecalling and smear tactics as Tal Bachman.

You're backtracking.

If Dr. Peterson is hypocritical, then what about you with regard to Dr. Peterson? Are you also a hypocrite and stooping to namecalling and smear tactics?

What, you mean referring to him as "His Highness"? I don't think I've ever tried to portray myself as being in a superior light vis-a-vis Prof. P. For example, I go by "Mister" Scratch, rather than "Doctor" Scratch.

Good for you. Do you have a doctorate in anything? I know that The Dude does and yet does not request people refer to him as Dr. Dude. I think Dr. Peterson mostly insists on that when to point out the difference in relevance of opinions on history and religion. Obviously he is more likely to know what's up when it comes to religion in general and Islam in particular than I am.

It doesn't stop there. He is fond of listing the various dignitaries and luminaries he hangs out with.

If you're not trying to portray yourself as superior to Dr. Peterson, then why are you not criticizing yourself too?

What a dumb question. I would be glad to criticize myself if it were necessary. As it turns out, I'm not guilty of anything, so there is no need for self-criticism.

If you guys are equal, why don't you follow up by stating that Dr. Peterson's behavior is understandable given your own foibles? I think there is a definite implicit air of superiority in your criticism of Dr. Peterson.

I never said I was his equal, either. In fact, I never injected myself into this scenario anywhere at all. That has been entirely your doing, Asbestosman.

Again, my criticism of you is just to get you to think outside your box while yet challenging me. I could hardly care less about "reporting" your activities or foibles.

So, you're taking a page out of Wade's book. Okey doke.

I don't hide on a board where the mods give me special protection. I don't put some of the clumsier utterances of DCP into my sig line. So... no. I would not say that I am either hypocritical or "stooping to namecalling and smear tactics," since this post consisted largely of reportage.

Why would his posts be considered a threat?

Please re-read the OP. He threatened to leave the board is Tal Bachman hangs around.

That does not show that Dr. Peterson considers Tal to be a threat. I think it shows that Dr. Peterson considers Tal to be an annoyance.

So "annoying" that he threatened to leave the fittingly named MADboard. I think your mistake has been to confuse the word "threat." DCP threatened to leave the board.

Dr. Peterson was gone from the board for several months before reappearing. Furthermore, I doubts Dr. Peterson would ever say some nobodies in cyber-space upset him greatly.

Nevertheless, that is precisely what he said.

Where?

Re-read the OP.

I doubt you have that effect on him.

I never claimed that I did. DCP never claimed that I did. He was referring to Tal Bachman. As was already pointed out in the OP.

I meant the plural you as in you and Tal. Nevertheless I will apologize and drop you, Mr. Scratch, from there even though I still think it holds that Dr. Peterson is unlikely greatly upset by either you or Tal.[/quote]

Then how do you explain his frequent citations of Tal's posts in his (i.e., DCP's) sig line? Or his making fun of his musical career? Or his calling him "Tal Tales"?

More than likely he would say that such posts are somewhat amusing, but also indicative of people who are not likely to engage in any sort of worthwhile discussions with him.

What, you mean these people would list all the sort of insults and namecalling that Prof. P. has engaged in and... Oh, no wait---that's what DCP does! Silly me.

Besides calling Tal, "Tal Tales" what other names has he called people? I believe he has challenged people to provide examples and to compare that to the names Tal called him.

Yes, he has done that. And to what end? What is he trying to accomplish in doing that? It is a smear tactic.

[_Pahoran]

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.

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

I'd rather be "a completely callous and insensitive jerk" than a bare-faced lying scumbag.

A word to the wise--well, a word: if you are going to pretend that someone was to low for you to speak to, you shouldn't be bringing his name up at every opportunity. People might start to see through the pretense.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_rcrocket]

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

Pretty easy to say against a living person when you are anonymous, isn't it?

P

[_Mister Scratch]

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

Pretty easy to say against a living person when you are anonymous, isn't it?

P

Are you talking about me? Or Pahoran? And yes, it was quite easy to say about him. for what it's worth, I think he is a "bare faced lying scumbag," too. And a bootlick. And a gollum. And that there's good reason to believe that he was a force behind the "Mr. Itchy" stalker-blog.