DCP is Gossipmongering Again

[_Mister Scratch]

Perhaps this is merely a coincidence, but in light of the recent very lengthy discussion with Ray A, it seemed, uh, "fortuitous" that the Good Professor would slip up in this manner. Here is a recent post of his from the fittingly named MADboard:

There's a famous quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to G. K. Chesterton, to the effect that, when people surrender belief in Christianity, they don't surrender belief. In fact, they'll believe almost anything. An analogous phenomenon sometimes seems to occur when Mormons surrender their faith: A neighbor, following a very bitter and ugly divorce, decided that the Church isn't true. But she believes devoutly in every single New Age superstition, every conspiracy theory, every alien abduction, every quack medicine, every nutritional fad, and, when available, every evil rumor about ward and stake leaders. It's positively astonishing.

Ray A claims that our criticism of DCP and others is "mean," but tell me: how is the above really all that different, at base, from the "psychotic loon" insult which purportedly hurt the Krispy Kreme King's feelings so badly? Moreover, for those who needed more evidence that Prof. Peterson engages in gossip and backbiting, here it is. This is quite an unflattering and nasty caricature of a person who has clearly already undergone enough suffering. I wonder how the neighbor would feel about this portrait? At least the Professor has the decency (?) to keep this person's name a secret, though I'm sure the vindictive TBMs who live near Prof. P. or who know about his neighbor(s) are enjoying a hearty and mean-spirited chuckle over this.

[_beastie]

Too bad I didn't bookmark the old Z thread where DCP, when Grant Palmer's book was being released, talked about how he had insider knowledge about Grant that, if the rest of us knew, would make us more skeptical about his claims. I accused him of being a gossip mongerer then, too. (and this was long before I ever heard scratch do it) He was very huffy about my accusation, but I thought it was clear that was what he was doing. "Oh if you only knew what I know about this fellow..." is even worse than what he said about his neighbor, because people's minds can fill in horrible possibilities.

I think it turned out he was alluding to Grant having used some pseudonym in the past, or something along those lines. But he didn't make that clear when he first made his comments, so it sounded like he might know really awful moral information about Grant.

[_Mister Scratch]

Too bad I didn't bookmark the old Z thread where DCP, when Grant Palmer's book was being released, talked about how he had insider knowledge about Grant that, if the rest of us knew, would make us more skeptical about his claims. I accused him of being a gossip mongerer then, too. (and this was long before I ever heard scratch do it) He was very huffy about my accusation, but I thought it was clear that was what he was doing. "Oh if you only knew what I know about this fellow..." is even worse than what he said about his neighbor, because people's minds can fill in horrible possibilities.

I think it turned out he was alluding to Grant having used some pseudonym in the past, or something along those lines. But he didn't make that clear when he first made his comments, so it sounded like he might know really awful moral information about Grant.

Yes, it seems this is something the Good Professor engages in with some degree of regularity. Of course, the biggest and most noticeable instance of this was the time that he went absolutely bonkers after getting "caught with his pants down" by Rollo Tomasi re: Mike Quinn's sexuality. That was one of the greatest threads of all-time, in my opinion. DCP got clearance from the mods to issue a "mea culpa," Rollo got banned, and then DCP sent out a series of condemnatory, "GA-wannabe" emails, threatening Rollo with eternal damnation! It was a true classic.

[_dartagnan]

This has always been standard fare with DCP, and I don'even think he realizes that what he is doing is merely gossiping. It is an apologetic tactic for sure and it is one of the major turn offs in LDS apologia. I used to do this all the time too, thinking it was somehow a valid means to discredit someone. But I realized later that it is fallacious. The idea here is to say something, anything, to give your audience a plausible reason not to trust what has been said by any given critic.

They'll use anything they can too. Ed Ashment was indirectly accused of lying about being a "doctoral candidate" because DCP did a little investigation and found out that if he were, then he had been a candidate for more than a decade, and that this was unlikely. Of course the whole idea here is to throw some shadow of doubt on Ashment as a credible source.

Pacman over at FAIR used the same tactic in trying to discredit Brent Metcalfe. The simple fact that Metcalfe obtained ownership of the photographs of the KEP, which were taken by an LDS (who was murdered by Hoffman, Metcalfe's one time friend) who was commisioned by the Church to take them, was all the ammo he needed to start throwing about conspiracy theories to discredit Metcalfe. No longer was the substance of the photos the issue to be discussed because Pacman had successfully diverted all attention to the "mystery" of Metcalfe's business with Christenson and Hoffman. If you think LDS scholars are above such cheap tactics, you're wrong. I was on an E-List where LDS scholars were tossing about all kinds of misinformation about Metcalfe's business with Christenson, how he manipulated a bereaved widow and swindled her out of teh photos, etc. John Tvetdness told me this in an email and when Brent responded with outrage, I contacted John to tell him Brent denied it all. He then started backtracking, assuring me he had no hard proof that this was fact, and that he was merely passing along rumor.

[_Mister Scratch]

This has always been standard fare with DCP, and I don'even think he realizes that what he is doing is merely gossiping. It is an apologetic tactic for sure and it is one of the major turn offs in LDS apologia. I used to do this all the time too, thinking it was somehow a valid means to discredit someone. But I realized later that it is fallacious. The idea here is to say something, anything, to give your audience a plausible reason not to trust what has been said by any given critic.

They'll use anything they can too. Ed Ashment was indirectly accused of lying about being a "doctoral candidate" because DCP did a little investigation and found out that if he were, then he had been a candidate for more than a decade, and that this was unlikely. Of course the whole idea here is to throw some shadow of doubt on Ashment as a credible source.

Pacman over at FAIR used the same tactic in trying to discredit Brent Metcalfe. The simple fact that Metcalfe obtained ownership of the photographs of the KEP, which were taken by an LDS (who was murdered by Hoffman, Metcalfe's one time friend) who was commisioned by the Church to take them, was all the ammo he needed to start throwing about conspiracy theories to discredit Metcalfe. No longer was the substance of the photos the issue to be discussed because Pacman had successfully diverted all attention to the "mystery" of Metcalfe's business with Christenson and Hoffman. If you think LDS scholars are above such cheap tactics, you're wrong. I was on an E-List where LDS scholars were tossing about all kinds of misinformation about Metcalfe's business with Christenson, how he manipulated a bereaved widow and swindled her out of teh photos, etc. John Tvetdness told me this in an email and when Brent responded with outrage, I contacted John to tell him Brent denied it all. He then started backtracking, assuring me he had no hard proof that this was fact, and that he was merely passing along rumor.

You are so right. It does seem like the Good Professor is half-unaware of the fact that this is backbiting, and that is is not Okay. I wonder if the thread in which he posted these remarks will be shut down, ala that old Quinn thread, with DCP issuing a "mea culpa," where he explains how he didn't actually mean to say anything nasty about his neighbor. What strikes me so much about this recent dose of gossipmongering is that it seems to be of the "kick 'em while they're down" variety. Prof. P. himself said that the divorce had been quite painful. So why continue pouring salt in the wound?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Perhaps this is merely a coincidence, but in light of the recent very lengthy discussion with Ray A, it seemed, uh, "fortuitous" that the Good Professor would slip up in this manner. Here is a recent post of his from the fittingly named MADboard:

There's a famous quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to G. K. Chesterton, to the effect that, when people surrender belief in Christianity, they don't surrender belief. In fact, they'll believe almost anything. An analogous phenomenon sometimes seems to occur when Mormons surrender their faith: A neighbor, following a very bitter and ugly divorce, decided that the Church isn't true. But she believes devoutly in every single New Age superstition, every conspiracy theory, every alien abduction, every quack medicine, every nutritional fad, and, when available, every evil rumor about ward and stake leaders. It's positively astonishing.

What I see in his post is ignorance and mean-spiritedness.

Neighbor or not, I doubt he knows this woman well enough to know what she believes in such absolute terms (not that it's even possible to believe every this and that).

Maybe she's just going through a phase (I did, been wondering where that pretty chakra pendant got lost to).

Besides, no matter how many wacky beliefs she may have, stack them up against Mormonism and whose beliefs are wackier?

He is being malicious and sarcastic to make a mean stupid unfounded point. Even if he doesn't reveal her name, it's more like gossip than an example or anectdote.

He has absolutely nothing to be positively astonished about except his own capacity for evil judgment.

[_guy sajer]

Perhaps this is merely a coincidence, but in light of the recent very lengthy discussion with Ray A, it seemed, uh, "fortuitous" that the Good Professor would slip up in this manner. Here is a recent post of his from the fittingly named MADboard:

There's a famous quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to G. K. Chesterton, to the effect that, when people surrender belief in Christianity, they don't surrender belief. In fact, they'll believe almost anything. An analogous phenomenon sometimes seems to occur when Mormons surrender their faith: A neighbor, following a very bitter and ugly divorce, decided that the Church isn't true. But she believes devoutly in every single New Age superstition, every conspiracy theory, every alien abduction, every quack medicine, every nutritional fad, and, when available, every evil rumor about ward and stake leaders. It's positively astonishing.

I'm surprised that someone who spends so much time surfing the DAMU could make such a statement. RfM, FLAK, here, etc. are disproportionately populated by skeptics, agnostics, and atheists.

If anything, my experience with the DAMU leads me to the exact opposite conclusion (though this too would be a gross generalization).