DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_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.

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."

No, it's because you shifted the goalposts. I'm not interested in a game where you keep changing the rules.

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.

I was clarifying the original context in which I made the "I don't care" comment. If you think that not true, please show what led you to such a conclusion.

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

He's done that what--on one thread?

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.

Oh yes, you're the model of decency. Do I have to remind you of your peurile behavior toward Pahoran which you attempted to justify on the basis that Pahoran deserves it?

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.

I said it was implicit. I merely pointed out the reason I believe such an inferrence is reasonable. Please demonstrate how my reasoning fails.

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.

Heavens no! I'm not trying to help you. I don't know if anyone is qualified to help you. That must be becuase you're "not guilty of anything, so there is no need for self-criticism."

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.

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.

Ah, I may have confused the word "threat". In any case I don't see Dr. Peterson's statement as a threat. A threat would seem to imply that he wished to pressure the moderators to make a change, but I already discussed why this is a silly argument.

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'm not seeing what you're seeing.

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.

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"?

As you say, it's "reporting" not an obsession. It's probably more of a hobby although I must admit that I wouldn't be too thrilled with the person who called me such things either.

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.

Just like your "reporting"?

[Gadianton]

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-

If this is the case, then you can take down half your website, as it is dripping with distrust of those people who feel are antagonists of the church. Money...meet mouth.

Were my website to consist of character judgements and distrust of people motives, then you may have a point.

However, it is not. Rather, it specifically targets behaviors. The fallaciousness and/or inappropriateness of the noted behaviors didn't change subsequent to my change of heart and mind. So, the material on my web site is still appropose.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

I remember Sanpete. He was one of my favorite people at FAIR. The only real disagreement that we had was over my SAD page, and that was one of the few rational and dispassionate discussions I have been able to have on the subject. He and I were able to disagree aggreeably, and it was actually quite a joy to hear his differing point of view. We were able to keep our discussion focused on the topic, rather than diverting it to talk negatively about each other.

As for not suddenly becoming dishonest and unscrupulous, I agree, and I think that works both ways. The Church doesn't suddently become dishonest or unscrupulous about what it claims to be upon the loss of certain people's faith. As you suggest, viewing the Church in that uncharitable way won't change anything except canker one's own soul.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

Are you talking about me?

Yes, indeed. You are a coward and a hypocrite to say defamatory things about living persons -- anonymously. I challenge you to post under your own name and continue to claim you are outwardly a faithful member of the kingdom.

P

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you talking about me?

Yes, indeed. You are a coward and a hypocrite to say defamatory things about living persons -- anonymously. I challenge you to post under your own name and continue to claim you are outwardly a faithful member of the kingdom.

P

By your reasoning, Plutarch, the inclusion of one's real name on a post automatically ensures bravery. Is that what you're saying?

Jersey Girl

[_Mercury]

Are you talking about me?

Yes, indeed. You are a coward and a hypocrite to say defamatory things about living persons -- anonymously. I challenge you to post under your own name and continue to claim you are outwardly a faithful member of the kingdom.

P

Why don't you take internet forums for what they are instead of demandin g to know who is on the other side?

Oh, that's right...because you suck at countering the substance so you go the predictable Ad Hominem route. Your f****** pathetic.

[_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."

No, it's because you shifted the goalposts. I'm not interested in a game where you keep changing the rules.

I don't think so. The "goalposts" here would consist of clear evidence that Prof. P. gets "misunderstood" "time and time again." You gave one example.

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.

I was clarifying the original context in which I made the "I don't care" comment. If you think that not true, please show what led you to such a conclusion.

Well, you've said that you're trying on Wade's good old fashioned "mirroring" technique, so it's a lot clearer now. Sorry about the misunderstanding! ; )

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

He's done that what--on one thread?

I have seen him do it on multiple threads.

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.

Oh yes, you're the model of decency. Do I have to remind you of your peurile behavior toward Pahoran which you attempted to justify on the basis that Pahoran deserves it?

He did deserve it. Besides, I never claimed anywhere that I was "the model of decency." Nor did I claim any superiority, or list dignitaries or luminaries I hang out with, nor do I insist on being called "Professor" or "Dr." or anything even remotely like that.

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.

I said it was implicit. I merely pointed out the reason I believe such an inferrence is reasonable. Please demonstrate how my reasoning fails.

So are you saying that I'm inferior to Prof. P.?

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.

Heavens no! I'm not trying to help you. I don't know if anyone is qualified to help you. That must be becuase you're "not guilty of anything, so there is no need for self-criticism."

I'm so glad we agree.

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.

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.

Ah, I may have confused the word "threat". In any case I don't see Dr. Peterson's statement as a threat. A threat would seem to imply that he wished to pressure the moderators to make a change, but I already discussed why this is a silly argument.

He threatened to leave. If the mods acted (which, incidentally, they did), it is easy enough to read it as an implicit response to Prof. Peterson's wishes. The mods have said that they feel "lucky" to have the Good Professor participating on 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'm not seeing what you're seeing.

It's the part where he says that if Tal is going to hang around the board, he's going to leave.

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.

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"?

As you say, it's "reporting" not an obsession. It's probably more of a hobby although I must admit that I wouldn't be too thrilled with the person who called me such things either.

Ah, I get it. You're trying to show me how I'm no different that DCP. I'm fallible, I make mistakes, etc., etc. Except that DCP and I are not the same. He is a professor, who hangs out with luminaries and dignitaries, whereas I am just your lowly, humble servant, Mr. Scratch.

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.

Just like your "reporting"?

So---you are conceding that "His Highness" is in the wrong here? Look---I'll cut you a deal. I will admit that my "reportage" can be seen as a smear tactic if you will label your beloved Professor as a lowballing trashtalker who deals in smear tactics. How about it, Asbestosman?

[_asbestosman]

I don't think so. The "goalposts" here would consist of clear evidence that Prof. P. gets "misunderstood" "time and time again." You gave one example.

The main point was indeed whether it has happened time and time again. I merely accepted the challenge of the subgoal of showing where it happened once. That was all I cared to demonstrate because it was an easy task. Perhaps you haven't shifted goalposts. It just happens to be one I'm not inclined to persue (as my point isn't to defend Dr. Peterson).

Well, you've said that you're trying on Wade's good old fashioned "mirroring" technique, so it's a lot clearer now. Sorry about the misunderstanding! ; )

Mirror mirror on the wall who's the biggest pain of all?

Oh good, it's still me. ;)

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

He's done that what--on one thread?

I have seen him do it on multiple threads.

Strange that I have not. I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear, Lord Vader . . . I mean Scratch.

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.

Oh yes, you're the model of decency. Do I have to remind you of your peurile behavior toward Pahoran which you attempted to justify on the basis that Pahoran deserves it?

He did deserve it. Besides, I never claimed anywhere that I was "the model of decency."

But you claim you're, "not guilty of anything so there is no need for self-criticism" ? I'm sorry, but I really think that implies you consider yourself a model of decency. If that's not the case, then I think you are indeed guilty of something and should be more self-critical.

Nor did I claim any superiority, or list dignitaries or luminaries I hang out with, nor do I insist on being called "Professor" or "Dr." or anything even remotely like that.

I don't think you hang out with dignitaries or luminaries, nor do I think you have a PhD. Frankly I suspect you're about that same age as me and Vegas (mid to late 20's). But in any case such things are irrelavent. I hardly care about who a person has met (unless it can give me insight into someone I wish to know more about). I care more about what a person is able to do, and on message boards that boils down to how well one can use reason, humor, etc.

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.

I said it was implicit. I merely pointed out the reason I believe such an inferrence is reasonable. Please demonstrate how my reasoning fails.

So are you saying that I'm inferior to Prof. P.?

No. I'm saying, "Pot, meet kettle."

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.

Ah, I may have confused the word "threat". In any case I don't see Dr. Peterson's statement as a threat. A threat would seem to imply that he wished to pressure the moderators to make a change, but I already discussed why this is a silly argument.

He threatened to leave. If the mods acted (which, incidentally, they did), it is easy enough to read it as an implicit response to Prof. Peterson's wishes. The mods have said that they feel "lucky" to have the Good Professor participating on the board.

And lucky they are. However, that does not mean that Dr. Peterson is trying to call the shots. If so he could have easily given the mods an email or other message outside of your view and without letting you know precisely what was going on. If anything I think Dr. Peterson was warning some of the less valiant posters (like your's truly) not to take up Tal's style of posting. In case you haven't noticed, I can be a bit impish at times.

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'm not seeing what you're seeing.

It's the part where he says that if Tal is going to hang around the board, he's going to leave.

I see Dr. Peterson calling the the experience, "one of the weirdest and most exasperating encounters". I see nothing about it making him upset.

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.

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"?

As you say, it's "reporting" not an obsession. It's probably more of a hobby although I must admit that I wouldn't be too thrilled with the person who called me such things either.

Ah, I get it. You're trying to show me how I'm no different that DCP. I'm fallible, I make mistakes, etc., etc. Except that DCP and I are not the same. He is a professor, who hangs out with luminaries and dignitaries, whereas I am just your lowly, humble servant, Mr. Scratch.

Good. Now (as Peter Pan made Captain Hook say) say you're a codfish.

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.

Just like your "reporting"?

So---you are conceding that "His Highness" is in the wrong here? Look---I'll cut you a deal. I will admit that my "reportage" can be seen as a smear tactic if you will label your beloved Professor as a lowballing trashtalker who deals in smear tactics. How about it, Asbestosman?

No deal. I will admit that I think Dr. Peterson could have behaved better in a few areas, but so what. I don't think he comes close to being a trashtalker. I don't even concede that Dr. Peterson has called Tal nearly so many names as Tal called him. I would like to see evidence of that if you think you can meet his challenge.

[_Brackite]

Here is Chaos (Dan G.), the head Moderator on the MA&D Board, latest Post and comments to Tal Bachman over there:

QUOTE(Tal Bachman @ Jan 15 2007, 08:29 PM)

Pahoran, you are absolutely right that I came on and tried to tell everyone how to run the board, if inviting people to have civil and rational one-on-ones, whether on a place somewhere on this site acceptable to the moderators or somewhere else, is equivalent to telling everyone how to run this bulletin board.

But I think that "if" is where you're going to have problems. That you do regard those two things as equivalent might even be taken by some to indicate that you're not exactly an ideal candidate for the kind of conversation I had in mind...

You are the one having problems. Don't come on our board and argue with my moderators about your special ideas after you have been told several times to stop. You lost your ability to start new threads cause of that. The next thing you can do is apologize to our posters that you have smeared if you want to spend time with them. Last you aren't going to last long if you have to call in Hitler, Warren Jeffs and your other cast of criminals to prop yourself up. Look up Godwins Law and memorize it or you will be losing more. - Chaos

QUOTE
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208105296[/

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 045&st=220 )

[_Jersey Girl]

Here is Chaos (Dan G.), the head Moderator on the MA&D Board, latest Post and comments to Tal Bachman over there:

QUOTE(Tal Bachman @ Jan 15 2007, 08:29 PM)

Pahoran, you are absolutely right that I came on and tried to tell everyone how to run the board, if inviting people to have civil and rational one-on-ones, whether on a place somewhere on this site acceptable to the moderators or somewhere else, is equivalent to telling everyone how to run this bulletin board.

But I think that "if" is where you're going to have problems. That you do regard those two things as equivalent might even be taken by some to indicate that you're not exactly an ideal candidate for the kind of conversation I had in mind...

You are the one having problems. Don't come on our board and argue with my moderators about your special ideas after you have been told several times to stop. You lost your ability to start new threads cause of that. The next thing you can do is apologize to our posters that you have smeared if you want to spend time with them. Last you aren't going to last long if you have to call in Hitler, Warren Jeffs and your other cast of criminals to prop yourself up. Look up Godwins Law and memorize it or you will be losing more. - Chaos

QUOTE
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208105296[/

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 045&st=220 )

Excuse me...

Is Tal arguing with a moderator in the above post?

Has Tal been "smearing" posters on the MA&D board, where?

Does Chaos know what day it is? (rhetorical question)

That's nothing short of bizarre.

Jersey Girl