To Kevin, Re: contention in dialogue

[_CaliforniaKid]

In another thread I stated the John-Charles Duffy would probably find Kevin's posting style more objectionable than DCP's. While that particular claim isn't particularly important (I'm not, after all, a mind reader... and who really cares what John-Charles Duffy thinks?), Kevin's response does raise a few interesting questions I'd like to address. I am trying to break my message board compulsion, so hopefully other people will make wonderful and intelligent contributions to the discussion so that my continued participation is rendered only minimally necessary. But this topic is important enough to me, I think, that for the time being I will allow myself a relapse.

To be fair to Dan, I'm certain that John-Charles Duffy would find your style still more objectionable than his.

It is possible but I doubt it. And that is hard to say, especially since I wasn't mentioned in his article while others like Wade Englund and Michael Ash were.

Would anyone like to explain to me what my style is? While Dan insults virtually anyone who comes across his path as a critic- all the while using the humor element as an excuse - there are only a handful of individuals I have really reamed into to, and it is generally because they have insulted the living hell out of me. Whether Juliann, Bokovoy, Dan, Bill or William Schryver, I can provide the original cause of the friction between us and sit in full confidence that objective onlookers will understand that I have been acting in self-defense.

Perspective is everything. Do you think Duffy would have objected to my recent inquiry to Robert Ritner, which has pretty much reinforced everyone's negative image of me as a Hitler? Somehow I doubt it.

I know you objected to me calling Bokovoy an idiot, but that is eaiser for people to say when they are not the ones insulted left and right. The guy is now over on the MAD forum trying to create an entire discussion about apologists turned critics due to vanity; obviously I am the case subject. He didn't leave any room for the possibility that his pet theory was in error, he simply asked the people to take his statement for granted and elaborate on it.

Dan is currently fostering more hate and resentment towards me all the while justifying it because he thinks he is a victim to my "campaign" that intends to get him sued. Don Bradly asked a wonderful question when he challenged Dan on the proof he had that this was my purpose for emailing Ritner. Dan admitted he didn't have proof, but that he was certain the motive was "malicious"!

Juliann is taking advantage of my absence as usual by drudging up old discussions and falsely accusing me of lying about things via ommission. She is ignoring crucial parts of the discussion so she can accuse me of lying, and it has all gone unchallenged. All of this just so she can tell the forum I have a "history" of lying about emails, which is absurd.

This is a concerted "campaign" against me if there ever was one. The jets are scrambling and the talking heads over there are looking as stupid as ever. Juliann, Dan and Bokovoy are all three desperately trying to blacken my reputation more than they already have, and Ritner sees this too, which only reinforces his suspicion that this was the purpose of teh rumors about him.

So I don't know how anyone can say with confidence that Duffy finds my style more objectionable.

And by the way, sometimes people really are idiots. Sometimes people really are lying. I call it as I see it and I do so with evidence. I don't back down because people threaten me with lawsuits or banishment or whatever. Incidentally, I think you should have stood your ground when you rightly said Gee had lied. Of course he lied. We know he lied. He knows he lied. Everyone looking at this from a non-apologetic vantage point knows he lied.

Hello, Kevin. First of all, let me apologize if my comment offended you. As you know, I do respect you and I do believe that you have been on the receiving end of some pretty unfair treatment from persons who would violate the spirit of Proverbs 26:18-19:

Like a madman shooting
firebrands or deadly arrows
is a man who deceives his neighbor
and says, "I was only joking!"

Nevertheless, I am a firm believer in the dialogical approach that seeks to take even the most offensive and destructive interaction and turn it into an opportunity for mutual understanding a la constructive interaction. My hope in this post is to outline, in a non-confrontational way, what I believe is a way forward for all parties involved in the present fracas. Of course, this outline may be vulnerable to critique at any point, as I'm certain the ensuing discussion will reveal. Still, I hope you will take it for what it's worth, in the same spirit in which I offer it.

For starters, I will reply to your closing comment:

"Incidentally, I think you should have stood your ground when you rightly said Gee had lied. Of course he lied. We know he lied. He knows he lied. Everyone looking at this from a non-apologetic vantage point knows he lied."

I am not certain Gee lied. When I paused long enough to take stock of that statement, I recalled that it is in the nature of human beings to deceive even themselves. I think it entirely possible that Dr. Gee's confirmation bias had led him to certain untenable conclusions that became rather magnified in his consciousness as time went on. After conversing with Dr. Gee on the telephone, I am inclined toward the view that Dr. Gee really was not aware, at the time of writing his book, of any dishonesty or wrongdoing in making the claims he made. I think that subsequent critiques have made him painfully aware of where he went wrong, and his position probably is substantially softened at present. In any case, even if it is eventually demonstrated that Dr. Gee did intentionally misrepresent the facts in his book, I think that my seemingly spineless backing down from that statement was nevertheless warranted for purely pragmatic reasons. Note the direction the conversation took in the aftermath of that statement: I had lost credibility, and even some of the people who listened attentively up to that point were now completely sidetracked. The conversation lost all semblance of focus, and the heart of the issue was lost in the mud. I essentially gave a few rhetoric-hungry persons a rhetorical hammer with which to bash my head in over and over.

This is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in when addressing a broad audience, a large segment of which is unympathetic to the points we hope to make: they will sieze upon any opportunity to question our credibility, as it enables them to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. I am able to see through the rhetoric in your current quarrel with Juliann et al to the heart of the issue, which is that a false claim has for years been perpetuated about Dr. Robert Ritner. I can see quite clearly that this is true, and that nothing the apologists have said has altered the truth of it. I can see this because God has endowed me with the unusual gift of being able to wade through rhetoric to get at the fundamental premises and reasoning that undergird a person's position. Unfortunately, the teeming masses generally are not so endowed, and rhetoric has the tendency to excite and polarize them, effectively terminating any real communication. Even I tire quickly of rhetoric; in your recent thread with David Bokovoy on the Council of Gods, I stopped reading halfway through because I couldn't bear to see two people I respect light into each other for no apparent reason.

I have found that when an opponent makes an outrageous ad hominem claim, responding in anger is ineffective. If you want to make the other person look like an idiot, the most effective response follows roughly the following pattern:

"That simply isn't true. The fact that you would even make such a claim, in fact, suggests that your complement of rational explanations for this phenomenon is nearly depleted. But perhaps more to the point, your statement is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The facts are as follows..."

This allows you to briefly but firmly defend yourself against the accusation. You state unequivocally that it isn't true. But more importantly, it allows you to avoid the diversion. The power of ad hominem attacks, believe it or not, does not lie in their power to discredit an opponent. Rather, it lies in their ability to distract from the crux of the issue. If your opponent can divert the focus of the discussion away from the critique you have advanced, they have won a subtle but important victory. The board a few days later will be reeling from a flood of ad hominems and will have completely forgotten what all the fuss was about. Your point gets lost forever, and few people will ever want to revisit it again. I think this pattern is evident in the cases of both my critique of Gee's book and your critique of Peterson's handling of Ritner: in both cases, the crux of the issue is forgotten because the apologists managed to divert the board's attention away from it by means of an ad hominem attack.

As I mentioned above, a polite but firm denial of the ad hominem accusation, followed by a cool reaffirmation of the facts of the matter under discussion, will make your opponent appear irrational to all but the most hostile readers. They will begin to lose face in the eyes even of their supporters, particularly if they continue the attack. I have been in more than one discussion with juliann where I received a flood of PMs from persons on both sides of the issue expressing sympathy with my plight. The truth is, people can see through that kind of nonsense. So really, getting aggravated in return just muddies the waters to the point where readers can't see the difference between your rationality and your opponent's irrationality quite as clearly anymore.

A final reason to avoid pugilism in debate is that it has the tendency to distort even your own thinking. Chemicals like adrenalin are great for escaping predators or pounding a physical opponent's face in, but they do not promote clear thinking. In a state of aggravation one is more likely to make rash statements that one cannot defend and that will serve as yet another opening for the opposing side to engage in ad hominem attacks with increasing credibility. In your recent bout with juliann, you clearly occupied the higher ground until you made the statement that the moderators had edited Gee's letter. Even if this is true, the fact that you couldn't support the assertion made you effectively a punching bag for all the angst of the TBM community. While being wrong about something like that certainly doesn't affect your ability to reason about the Book of Abraham, it does diminish your credibility in their eyes. That is a very unfortunate turn of events, since you have wonderful contributions to make that will now go unheeded by your numerous detractors and their still more numerous minions.

Not only Kevin, but all of us who have a history of heated exchanges of this sort have the opportunity to start fresh. Every day is a new day, and it is never too late to begin rebuilding credibility in the eyes of one's most ardent opponents. I hope that we can all take advantage of the new dialogical horizons that inhere in every sunrise. Blessings,

-Chris

[_beastie]

CK, this is a great post. Too bad Shades doesn't archive or sticky posts, I would vote for this one, hands down. I think this is why I couldn't deal with MAD, aside from the prepoisoning of the well towards vocal exmormons. I had a hard time ignoring the rabbit trails helpful little bunnies like Juliann loved to lay out for me. I would hop right down them in the hopes that even she would see this particular little trail didn't impact my primary point, but of course all that happened was a total derailment of the primary point. And the rabbit trails weren't always insults - sometimes they were peripheral issues that ended up sucking up all my time but had little to do with the point.

[_CaliforniaKid]

CK, this is a great post.

Thanks. I put a lot of thought into it this afternoon, so hopefully it will prove helpful.

I had a hard time ignoring the rabbit trails helpful little bunnies like Juliann loved to lay out for me. I would hop right down them in the hopes that even she would see this particular little trail didn't impact my primary point, but of course all that happened was a total derailment of the primary point. And the rabbit trails weren't always insults - sometimes they were peripheral issues that ended up sucking up all my time but had little to do with the point.

I have unfortunately had to learn these lessons the hard way, as well. That's human nature, I guess.

-CK

[_Runtu]

Excellent post, CK. I find that with certain people, I am so distrusted that everything I say is taken as an attack. And I have to admit that some people affect me the same way. But I really want to take to heart what you said here:

Not only Kevin, but all of us who have a history of heated exchanges of this sort have the opportunity to start fresh. Every day is a new day, and it is never too late to begin rebuilding credibility in the eyes of one's most ardent opponents. I hope that we can all take advantage of the new dialogical horizons that inhere in every sunrise. Blessings,

[_DonBradley]

Chris,

That was a remarkable post worthy of keeping for future reference.

I have just a few supporting comments on the specifics:

Even I tire quickly of rhetoric; in your recent thread with David Bokovoy on the Council of Gods, I stopped reading halfway through because I couldn't bear to see two people I respect light into each other for no apparent reason.

Amen.

I defended David on MAD, but did so without any slur on Kevin G. I didn't have a dog in this fight--I had two. I've always like both David and Kevin, and continue to do so now. I hated seeing the mutual misunderstanding and villification.

I have found that when an opponent makes an outrageous ad hominem claim, responding in anger is ineffective. If you want to make the other person look like an idiot, the most effective response follows roughly the following pattern:

"That simply isn't true. The fact that you would even make such a claim, in fact, suggests that your complement of rational explanations for this phenomenon is nearly depleted. But perhaps more to the point, your statement is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The facts are as follows..."

Perfect. I will use this approach. How can you be so wise while so young?

The power of ad hominem attacks, believe it or not, does not lie in their power to discredit an opponent. Rather, it lies in their ability to distract from the crux of the issue. If your opponent can divert the focus of the discussion away from the critique you have advanced, they have won a subtle but important victory.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I think similar reasoning could be applied to Dr. Peterson's witticisms. If one wishes to respond to these, it should be in kind, rather than a greatly amplified response. But, really, they require no response at all, and responding often, if not usually, diverts from the central issues and arguments. However difficult it may be to ignore or lightly sidestep the rhetorical "points" scored against oneself, engaging them does one's argument no favor.

Whether with explicit intent or not, Dr. Peterson writes in a way that makes him, rather than LDS faith claims and apologetic arguments, the lightning rod for much of the critics' attention and argument. In this way, he shields the LDS church and faith from a great deal of criticism. Persons wishing to offer substantive critique, or secular analysis, of LDS belief and practice should devoutly avoid engaging Daniel C. Peterson's double-edged sword of wit. Those wishing to waste their time and madden themselves by an obsessive focus on someone they dislike should, however, by all means continue to focus on the professor's personality, rather than the issues, evidence, and lines of argument from which this distracts.

Don Bradley

[_DonBradley]

CK, this is a great post. Too bad Shades doesn't archive or sticky posts, I would vote for this one, hands down.

Ditto! In fact, I so vote. Shades, you can sticky this, can't you? Or otherwise archive it/link to it for future reference?

Don

[_CaliforniaKid]

Ditto! In fact, I so vote. Shades, you can sticky this, can't you? Or otherwise archive it/link to it for future reference?

If this were to be immortalized in the form of a sticky, it should only be in a much more generalized form. The present thread, despite all my best intentions, does take the form of a critique specifically of Kevin's posting style. I was actually reluctant to even post it on the open forum (which I did because I think it does have broader relevance), since this type of communication is usually best kept private. I'd rather not have such a personalized post tacked at the top of the forum ad infinitum.

Some kind of fixed reminder to be civil, though, wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe Shades can whip something up. If so, Shades, you're welcome to plagiarize whatever in my post seems relevant (or not, if you prefer).

-CK

[_CaliforniaKid]

Or otherwise archive it/link to it for future reference?

Speaking of archiving posts, a while back I saved your post on hearsay evidence to my hard drive for future reference. That was an excellent post.

[_beastie]

Whether with explicit intent or not, Dr. Peterson writes in a way that makes him, rather than LDS faith claims and apologetic arguments, the lightning rod for much of the critics' attention and argument. In this way, he shields the LDS church and faith from a great deal of criticism. Persons wishing to offer substantive critique, or secular analysis, of LDS belief and practice should devoutly avoid engaging Daniel C. Peterson's double-edged sword of wit. Those wishing to waste their time and madden themselves by an obsessive focus on someone they dislike should, however, by all means continue to focus on the professor's personality, rather than the issues, evidence, and lines of argument from which this distracts.

This is an intriguing point. Is this purposeful behavior on the part of certain apologists?

What tends to occur on MAD is the arrival of certain apologists on a thread almost guarantees that the thread topic will derail onto discussions about this person. The MODS reliably blame the critics for this derailment, and ignore the comments made by the individual that precipitated the derailment. And it does, indeed, ensure that the focus of the criticism shifts from the claims of the church to the individual. It just never occurred to me that this, in fact, might be the entire point. And it doesn't have to be purposeful in terms of a deliberate plan, but more on the lines of past reactions to certain "styles" have predictably derailed the thread, and the poster simply continues the behavior, while knowing what the result will be.

I tend to be naïve about things like this. It took me a long time to understand that "trolls" really do just post with the purpose to inflame people, to entertain themselves by watching the reaction. I naïvely assumed these people really did want to discuss certain topics, they just didn't know how to broach it without causing a ruckus. Now I know the ruckus is the entire point. So perhaps, in these cases, derailment is the entire point, even if not entirely conscious.

[_dartagnan]

I am not certain Gee lied. When I paused long enough to take stock of that statement, I recalled that it is in the nature of human beings to deceive even themselves. I think it entirely possible that Dr. Gee's confirmation bias had led him to certain untenable conclusions that became rather magnified in his consciousness as time went on.

Of course anything is possible, but at this point I see no evidence that Gee would have been so intoxicated with ‘confirmation bias’ that he could overlook so many obvious facts. For example, that it was Ritner who suggested someone else be his dissertation advisor. Who the hell forgets something like this? Other examples leave little room for anything other than a blatant attempt to deceive; for example, his numerous KEP claims which rely on the ignorance of his audience; those who could not test his claims for accuracy (i.e. two inks argument, that KEP Egyptian characters “overrun” or “run over” the English text, etc.)

After conversing with Dr. Gee on the telephone, I am inclined toward the view that Dr. Gee really was not aware, at the time of writing his book, of any dishonesty or wrongdoing in making the claims he made.

And that’s your prerogative. I have had my own correspondence with him –years ago- and I was communicating with him as an apologist desperately searching for valid answers to concerns raised by Brent. Gee, then fed me a bunch of crap from his book and I bought it hook, line and sinker. I then proceeded to look like an idiot for trusting Gee. Nobody else was willing to go head to head with Brent on this issue on ZLMB, so I did it while Gee was coaching me via email.

I think that subsequent critiques have made him painfully aware of where he went wrong, and his position probably is substantially softened at present.

I don’t think he simply went wrong. I think the evidence is strong enough to suggest he was not only wrong, but he was duplicitous. For example, when color photos of the KEP were presented, it not only threw Gee’s claims out the window. It also made it clear that Gee could not have come up with arguments by accident since there was nothing there to support them. He was just inventing stuff from nothing. The two ink argument is just one example. And as you have noted, his claim that the Book of Abraham was entirely translated in July of 1835 flies in the face of virtually every piece of evidence related to this.

In any case, even if it is eventually demonstrated that Dr. Gee did intentionally misrepresent the facts in his book, I think that my seemingly spineless backing down from that statement was nevertheless warranted for purely pragmatic reasons.

Mainly because you are now in an actual dialogue with him, which brings me to another point, I want to make about the title of your thread. Your critique of my style would be more meaningful if your examples actually included me in a “dialogue” with someone. I am not in a dialogue with any of these people at the moment. I have tried to dialogue with Dan Peterson in the past but he absolutely refuses to drawn into another position where he will be compelled to make self-incriminating statements that smack of Islamic apologetics. These people are perfectly able to post here and deal with me one on one, but they choose to snag portions of my posts and drag them over there for misrepresentation and ridicule. So the only thing I resent about your thread is that you felt it would be more beneficial/applicable to post it here, rather than there.

As far as Bokovoy goes, he was way out of line. All I did was post information I recently received from Ritner. The information is stunning to anyone familiar with the rumor circulated by Gee and Peterson. It is Ritner for the first time denouncing their claims. How does Bokovy respond? First he accuses me of hiding something because I didn’t post the entire correspondence, and then he accused me of lying when I said I apologized to Ritner. Then he tries to derail the issue, following Nevo’s lead, and three times asserted that I called Ritner a homosexual. I corrected him each time and then he fled in a huff, while accusing me of playing “semantic” games! He is currently on the MAD board declaring that “apologists turned critics” – using me as the case subject - are simply rhetoric mercenaries who are willing to play for the highest bidder. In this case, the critic camp gives me more applause and attention than the apologetic camp, and since attention is all I’m after, I play for the critics… for now. I am not sure I have ever felt as insulted as I have recently by Bokovoy’s tactics.

But you respect him and think he is a swell guy; that again, is your prerogative. I never tried to turn any of this into a popularity contest.

But I think your post serves to undermine Juliann’s recent claim that I am not really acting out my own feelings because all I am doing is following an apostate role whereby I allow my new “group” to dictate my actions. Again, this is just as stupid as Bokovoy’s nonsense, but not as insulting because I’ve learned not to be insulted by Juliann. Now that it turns out this group really doesn’t appreciate my actions, and is now referring to mine as a style one shouldn’t adopt, it seems her claim is moot on that point.

This is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in when addressing a broad audience, a large segment of which is unympathetic to the points we hope to make: they will sieze upon any opportunity to question our credibility, as it enables them to alleviate their cognitive dissonance. I am able to see through the rhetoric in your current quarrel with Juliann et al to the heart of the issue, which is that a false claim has for years been perpetuated about Dr. Robert Ritner. I can see quite clearly that this is true, and that nothing the apologists have said has altered the truth of it. I can see this because God has endowed me with the unusual gift of being able to wade through rhetoric to get at the fundamental premises and reasoning that undergird a person's position. Unfortunately, the teeming masses generally are not so endowed, and rhetoric has the tendency to excite and polarize them, effectively terminating any real communication.

What rhetoric are you referring to? A week ago I posted the information I came across. I didn’t declare one way or another who was right. There was no rhetoric to be found in my post, yet all hell broke lose anyway. The apologists both at MAD as well as on this forum went haywire without the benefit of rhetoric on my part. Hell, even Nevo got into the action and he isn’t even an apologist. Jersey Girl isn’t either and she called me a “low life.” I think most people understood and respected the point I was making, and I don’t think this requires a divine gift other than common sense. But here is the point really: there was never going to be any “communication” between us anyway because they refuse to post here and they do not allow me to post there. Both Nevo and Jersey Girl have shown no interest in “communicating” with me about this matter. Nevo just though he’d stir the pot by linking everyone to something I said 6 years ago. And it served the apologists beautifully, because they were really looking for something to help them divert attention away from Dan and Gee’s rumors.

Even I tire quickly of rhetoric; in your recent thread with David Bokovoy on the Council of Gods, I stopped reading halfway through because I couldn't bear to see two people I respect light into each other for no apparent reason.

There is always a reason, whether you understand it or not. But the only thing I resent is the implication that I represent the worst, even when including Dan and Bokovoy. To illustrate my point I would simply direction your attention to the fact that I have, on many occasions, given compliments and kudos to Dan Peterson. Just a couple of months ago Dan was being dragged through the mud on some blog. He was called a liar, and that drew in a few apologists to serve as character witnesses. I decided to take timeout of my life and wrote up a piece to concur with the apologists. I made it known who I was and that I had been a critic of Dan Peterson on numerous issues, but that I flatly rejected any assertion that he is a liar. I thought my testimony would have been more effective than the apologists’ since people seem to think I want Dan to be discredited in every way imaginable. Dan never thanks me. Instead, a short while later Dan tells everyone at MAD I have recently been in a “campaign” to “traduce” his character! He is aware of the compliments I have given him, but they seem to matter little. I also remember on this forum about a year ago I wrote up a piece complimenting him after hearing him speaking in Australia. He is listed on Daniel Pipe’s website as one of the “recommended professors,” only because I initiated contact with Pipes and spoke well of Dan. Subsequently, in reference to the Pipes list Dan did say “thank you” on the MAD forum, but only after I reminded him how I was instrumental in that.

Now, in contrast, can you name one single instance where Dan Peterson has complimented me on anything, to any degree? Don’t think too hard, because it doesn’t exist.

I have found that when an opponent makes an outrageous ad hominem claim, responding in anger is ineffective.

Well, that all depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’re holding out for a possible “civil dialogue,” then no, I agree that would be ineffective. But my “lashing out” at Bokovoy after his recent insults served the purpose I intended. I wanted it known that I truly despise Bokovoy’s latest tactics and I resent what he has said in the strongest possible terms. Will this open the door to “dialogue and mutual understanding”? No. But that has been out of the question for some time now anyway.

If you want to make the other person look like an idiot, the most effective response follows roughly the following pattern: "That simply isn't true. The fact that you would even make such a claim, in fact, suggests that your complement of rational explanations for this phenomenon is nearly depleted. But perhaps more to the point, your statement is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The facts are as follows..."

Bokovoy already did a good job at making himself look like an idiot; I was simply confirming that it was a job well done. MY purpose was to express my resentment in the strongest terms. I don’t take well to being called a liar, and let’s face it, Bokovoy did precisely that. He never let up either. When I put to rest one of his theories, he’d instantaneously come up with another which implied I was being duplicitous in some mysterious way. When I proved that I didn’t lie (by showing the email I sent) he then accused me of hiding some of my email. By the time Ritner said he didn’t care about what I said – further proving David is an idiot who was thinking wishfully – he had run off and vowed never to return. And the fact that David ran off with his tail between his legs, tells me my responses to him were done well enough to serve my purpose. He stooped low, and I let him know I wasn’t going to tolerate it. So he went over to Mad where his audience is more sympathetic to his idiocy. As far as I am concerned, good riddance.

This allows you to briefly but firmly defend yourself against the accusation. You state unequivocally that it isn't true. But more importantly, it allows you to avoid the diversion.

The apologists will have their diversions whether or not you call them idiotic. I’m speaking with many years of experience here.

The power of ad hominem attacks, believe it or not, does not lie in their power to discredit an opponent.

I resent the notion that I generally engage in ad hominem attacks.Ad hominem attacks are rhetoric tactics that attempt to derail the subject. That has hardly been my intention in calling Bokovoy an idiot. And again, as Dr. Shades also noted, virtually everything I have posted in the last week has been in self-defense to something someone has falsely accused me of.

If your opponent can divert the focus of the discussion away from the critique you have advanced, they have won a subtle but important victory. The board a few days later will be reeling from a flood of ad hominems and will have completely forgotten what all the fuss was about. Your point gets lost forever, and few people will ever want to revisit it again. I think this pattern is evident in the cases of both my critique of Gee's book and your critique of Peterson's handling of Ritner: in both cases, the crux of the issue is forgotten because the apologists managed to divert the board's attention away from it by means of an ad hominem attack.

I agree with everything you say in general about ad hominem in dialogue, but I am not in dialogue with any of them, nor do I suspect there is that possibility. I have already made them look like idiots by using the proper techniques you have explained above, and for this they will have nothing to do with me.

To shatter the myth that I do not like, nor can I engage in civil dialogue, one only needs to review the Book of Abraham debate at FAIR a year ago whereby the FAIR mods urged me not to leave the discussion. Yes, you heard that right. I offered to back out of the discussion because Hauglid said my “tone” had worsened. I said if he felt that way then maybe it was best that I backed out. Within an hour people from all corners of the forum urged me to stay, and a couple of apologists like Tom Nosser, gtaggart, and even William Schryver, said they had no idea what he was talking about because they thought I was quite civil. Gtaggart went so far as to call my style “gracious” towards Hauglid. And then one of the mods asked me to stay. This was less than a year ago, but I do not know if you were on the forums at that time.

Anyway, shortly after this the mods designed the Pundit’s forum for us to discuss the issue without all the extra commentary throwing us off. The first pundit list was quite short, but I was on it. I made the first pundit thread, and then, for some reason they decided they would narrow the pundit list to just two people: Hauglid and Metcalfe. I was OK with that, but things really took a U-Turn when Hauglid decided to refer to me in his discussion negatively. Brent offered a blistering critique of his previous post, and we had all been anxiously anticipating Hauglid’s response. It was almost a week later Hauglid responded and this is what he had to say:

“I should note that from previous experiences with Kevin Graham it is clear to me that either he does not care about my position (for whatever reason) or he does not understand it. I'm hoping you will be able to avoid his slam-dunk methodology and continue our discussions on a much higher scholarly level of disspassionate discourse.”

This statement flew in the face of his recent attempt to accuse me of bad tone when even his own cohorts didn’t see any “tone” problems on my end. And for good measure, his next post began by citing something I posted on this forum and then criticizing me for saying it. First of all, what the hell is he doing focusing on me when the discussion is between him and Brent?

I responded in the forum and that was the last post of mine because I was immediately banned. What did I say that was so atrocious? I said Hauglid seemed to be fabricating an excuse to back out of the debate by focusing on his so-called “tone” experiences with me, when it is Brent he should be focusing on. The mods accused me of saying “liar liar,” which is absurd.

In your recent bout with juliann, you clearly occupied the higher ground until you made the statement that the moderators had edited Gee's letter. Even if this is true, the fact that you couldn't support the assertion made you effectively a punching bag for all the angst of the TBM community.

Well, if I hadn’t already been serving that purpose, there would have been more incentive to avoid mentioning this.

While being wrong about something like that certainly doesn't affect your ability to reason about the Book of Abraham, it does diminish your credibility in their eyes.

Again, I don’t pretend to be under any delusion that anyone there has any intention of giving me credit where credit is due.

That is a very unfortunate turn of events, since you have wonderful contributions to make that will now go unheeded by your numerous detractors and their still more numerous minions.

Well, I would argue that they never would have been heeded anyway. I can’t compete for minds over there. I have absolutely no voice and the leading thugs insist on making me the object of their ridicule. Links to original posts are disallowed because they usually take place here. Those who dare make an attempt to defend me are usually edited or warned. So who am I kidding? You’re talking as though I actually have something to lose over there.

In conclusion, I just wanted to make it clear what I disagree with. I disagree with any argument that suggests my style is worse than Peterson’s. I reject any argument that tries to explain his bad style on his attempts at humor. I reject any suggestion that ad hominem is a preferred tactic of mine. I reject any insinuation that I cannot discuss matters amicably.