DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_Jersey Girl]

You know, I hate to pick nits but it's quite amusing to see a moderator in a presumed position of "authority" who can't compose a literate paragraph...

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

They really do need an editor on that board. Did I miss any? Ah, but it's late.

Jersey Girl

[_moksha]

Obviously Pahoran is one of the moderators. Wouldn't that tend to explain a lot? My moderators - almost sounds like ownership. Perhaps Kemara is enthall as well.

[_harmony]

Obviously Pahoran is one of the moderators. Wouldn't that tend to explain a lot? My moderators - almost sounds like ownership. Perhaps Kemara is enthall as well.

Good grief, talk about putting fox in charge of the henhouse!

[_Mister Scratch]

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).

So is it *you* who is "shifting the goal posts," then? And yes, I know what your point is: ironically, your point is to criticize the person who is criticizing.

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.

Well, at least your feelings are clear. (And boy! Do I ever love the namecalling from someone who says he's out to demonstrate what a "puerile" hypocrite *I* am! Terrific strategy, asbestosman!)

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.

What do you think I'm guilty of, asbestosman?

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."

Ah. So *you* are saying that I'm Prof. P.'s equal. Well, I gotta tell you: I disagree.

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.

At least you are willing to admit that he was looking to "call the shots" for "less valiant posters."

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.

Then you are glossing over the last sentence in the cited text.

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.

What you seem to fail to understand is that Prof. Peterson is a symbol. Along with Hugh Nibley, DCP is probably the most notable and best-known apologist. In a sense, he is a figurehead for LDS apologetics as a whole. Thus, for anyone interested in the state of LDS apologetics, it's a good idea to keep a bead on what DCP is up to. On a smaller, more close-knit scale, Prof. P. is a kind of celebrity.

So, your clichéd "pot meet kettle" baloney---which is stock in trade for FAIR/MADites---doesn't really hold up here, because there is really a lot of distance between Prof. Peterson and myself.

[_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).

So is it *you* who is "shifting the goal posts," then? And yes, I know what your point is: ironically, your point is to criticize the person who is criticizing.

No, my point (in the case of Dr. Peterson being misunderstood) was to show you that I could easily name one instance. Sorry for not being clear upfront.

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.

Well, at least your feelings are clear. (And boy! Do I ever love the namecalling from someone who says he's out to demonstrate what a "puerile" hypocrite *I* am! Terrific strategy, asbestosman!)

It wasn't meant to be namecalling. If you recall the movie from which I got the quote, you will realize I just made myself the emperor--the big master of the dark side of the force. I only meant to ask the question of which other threads Dr. Peterson has done name dropping on. Perhaps I should have added a smiley.

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.

What do you think I'm guilty of, asbestosman?

Being hypercritical of Dr. Peterson and probably being unable to see things from another point of view (not that I expect you to agree with them).

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."

Ah. So *you* are saying that I'm Prof. P.'s equal. Well, I gotta tell you: I disagree.

Then do you consider yourself his inferior or superior? If superior, then it seems my inference was correct after all and your objections have been a red herring. If you are his inferior, then why are you so obsessed with reporting his behavior--indeed, why not state that Dr. Peterson's behavior is understandable given your foibles?

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.

At least you are willing to admit that he was looking to "call the shots" for "less valiant posters."

Call the shots? No. Warn us about what will lead to good dialogue and discussion? Probably.

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.

Then you are glossing over the last sentence in the cited text.

He said he'd leave. That doesn't mean it's because Tal makes him upset (although I can't imagine Dr. Peterson is particularly fond of Tal). Another possible interpretation is that Dr. Peterson finds such things to be unenjoyable. There is a difference between something that is unenjoyable and something that makes one upset. I don't enjoy watching golf on TV, but it doesn't make me upset. If golf was all that was on TV I'd quit watching it (not that I watch much in the first place).

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.

What you seem to fail to understand is that Prof. Peterson is a symbol. Along with Hugh Nibley, DCP is probably the most notable and best-known apologist. In a sense, he is a figurehead for LDS apologetics as a whole. Thus, for anyone interested in the state of LDS apologetics, it's a good idea to keep a bead on what DCP is up to. On a smaller, more close-knit scale, Prof. P. is a kind of celebrity.

So, your clichéd "pot meet kettle" baloney---which is stock in trade for FAIR/MADites---doesn't really hold up here, because there is really a lot of distance between Prof. Peterson and myself.

You're right. Dr. Peterson is much more qualified to speak about Mormonism than either of us.

Besides, I think you've changed the subject here. Where has Dr. Peterson called Tal the kind of names Tal has called him? Any other than Tal Tales?

[_Mister Scratch]

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).

So is it *you* who is "shifting the goal posts," then? And yes, I know what your point is: ironically, your point is to criticize the person who is criticizing.

No, my point (in the case of Dr. Peterson being misunderstood) was to show you that I could easily name one instance. Sorry for not being clear upfront.

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.

Well, at least your feelings are clear. (And boy! Do I ever love the namecalling from someone who says he's out to demonstrate what a "puerile" hypocrite *I* am! Terrific strategy, asbestosman!)

It wasn't meant to be namecalling. If you recall the movie from which I got the quote, you will realize I just made myself the emperor--the big master of the dark side of the force. I only meant to ask the question of which other threads Dr. Peterson has done name dropping on. Perhaps I should have added a smiley.

You're the one with an account on MAD. Do the search.

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.

What do you think I'm guilty of, asbestosman?

Being hypercritical of Dr. Peterson and probably being unable to see things from another point of view (not that I expect you to agree with them).

As I already pointed out, DCP is the "kreme de la kreme" of LDS apologists. I don't know what "hypercritical" means in this case.

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."

Ah. So *you* are saying that I'm Prof. P.'s equal. Well, I gotta tell you: I disagree.

Then do you consider yourself his inferior or superior? If superior, then it seems my inference was correct after all and your objections have been a red herring. If you are his inferior, then why are you so obsessed with reporting his behavior--indeed, why not state that Dr. Peterson's behavior is understandable given your foibles?

Because he needs to be taken down a peg or two. And out of revenge. I was unfairly booted off of the ironically named FAIRboard because of DCP's false accusations against me.

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.

At least you are willing to admit that he was looking to "call the shots" for "less valiant posters."

Call the shots? No. Warn us about what will lead to good dialogue and discussion? Probably.

A distinction without a difference.

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.

Then you are glossing over the last sentence in the cited text.

He said he'd leave. That doesn't mean it's because Tal makes him upset (although I can't imagine Dr. Peterson is particularly fond of Tal). Another possible interpretation is that Dr. Peterson finds such things to be unenjoyable. There is a difference between something that is unenjoyable and something that makes one upset. I don't enjoy watching golf on TV, but it doesn't make me upset. If golf was all that was on TV I'd quit watching it (not that I watch much in the first place).

Another false analogy.

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.

What you seem to fail to understand is that Prof. Peterson is a symbol. Along with Hugh Nibley, DCP is probably the most notable and best-known apologist. In a sense, he is a figurehead for LDS apologetics as a whole. Thus, for anyone interested in the state of LDS apologetics, it's a good idea to keep a bead on what DCP is up to. On a smaller, more close-knit scale, Prof. P. is a kind of celebrity.

So, your clichéd "pot meet kettle" baloney---which is stock in trade for FAIR/MADites---doesn't really hold up here, because there is really a lot of distance between Prof. Peterson and myself.

You're right. Dr. Peterson is much more qualified to speak about Mormonism than either of us.

Besides, I think you've changed the subject here. Where has Dr. Peterson called Tal the kind of names Tal has called him? Any other than Tal Tales?

He has said something disparaging about Bachman's musical career.

[_wenglund]

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."

However you may wish to spin it, I still hope that you are able to heal the wound that seems to be driving your mean-spirited reactions and obsession with the good folks at MAD--though I have serious doubts about the workability of your chosen method for supposed healing.

I have offerred to be of some help in that regard, but you apparently are not open-minded at this time to my interventions. So, I won't bother now to offer again, and will leave the door to my therapy sessions open for if/when you decided on your own to walk in.

Thank's, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

Because he needs to be taken down a peg or two. And out of revenge. I was unfairly booted off of the ironically named FAIRboard because of DCP's false accusations against me.

Revenge? So this isn't just a reporting activity after all. Maybe Wade was right ::shudder::.

What false accusations? I don't deny the possibility, I just don't know what you're talking about.

He said he'd leave. That doesn't mean it's because Tal makes him upset (although I can't imagine Dr. Peterson is particularly fond of Tal). Another possible interpretation is that Dr. Peterson finds such things to be unenjoyable. There is a difference between something that is unenjoyable and something that makes one upset. I don't enjoy watching golf on TV, but it doesn't make me upset. If golf was all that was on TV I'd quit watching it (not that I watch much in the first place).

Another false analogy.

How so? My alternative interpretation may be incorrect and perhaps Dr. Peterson really is upset by Tal. However, I cannot safely conclude such a thing based on your quote as I believe what I gave is another plausible interpretation.

Where has Dr. Peterson called Tal the kind of names Tal has called him? Any other than Tal Tales?

He has said something disparaging about Bachman's musical career.

While I consider Dr. Peterson's remarks about his (Dr. Peterson's) musically inclined son's impression of Tal to have been irrelavent and perhaps a bit petty, I do not think it compares with calling Tal a "sociopath," a "loon," insane, "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," a "joke", or even something in the spirit of your "a lowballing trashtalker who deals in smear tactics".

[_Jersey Girl]

asbestosman: While I consider Dr. Peterson's remarks about his (Dr. Peterson's) musically inclined son's impression of Tal to have been irrelavent and perhaps a bit petty, I do not think it compares with calling Tal a "sociopath," a "loon," insane, "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," a "joke", or even something in the spirit of your "a lowballing trashtalker who deals in smear tactics".

Jersey Girl: Are you saying that Tal has referred to Daniel using those descriptors? Is this in the LDS Dialogue and Discussion forum? I'd like to see the quotes from Tal Bachman, please.

[_asbestosman]

asbestosman: While I consider Dr. Peterson's remarks about his (Dr. Peterson's) musically inclined son's impression of Tal to have been irrelavent and perhaps a bit petty, I do not think it compares with calling Tal a "sociopath," a "loon," insane, "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," a "joke", or even something in the spirit of your "a lowballing trashtalker who deals in smear tactics".

Jersey Girl: Are you saying that Tal has referred to Daniel using those descriptors? Is this in the LDS Dialogue and Discussion forum? I'd like to see the quotes from Tal Bachman, please.

I think Dr. Peterson found those quotes on RFM. Dr. Peterson refers to this in the locked thread entitled "Who Is Tal Bachman" located on page 3 of the LDS Dialogue and Discussion forum. I don't have the original quotes from Tal. At most we could ask Dr. Peterson for them and ask Tal to confirm or deny the authenticity thereof. However, since Tal did not deny it on MA&D (and has presumably had adequate chance to do so), I think it likely that Dr. Peterson's collection of quotes from Tal are authentic--that and I have no reason to suppose that Dr. Peterson would lie about that (if he even lies at all).