DCP: "RfM is My Laboratory"

[_Mister Scratch]

Holy cow... I can hardly believe I am seeing this! Prof. Peterson has at last come out an admitted that his obsession with RfM extends into the professional realm. Not only does he participate in a sort of juvenile, back-and-forth name-calling badmitton with many of the posters over there, he has now declared that it is an object of serious academic scrutiny for himself:

Ray, one of the reasons that I keep something of an eye on RFM is that I'm interested, precisely, in the kinds of things that lead people out of the Church. I've publicly said, on at least a couple of occasions, that it's a kind of laboratory for me. I'm quite serious about that. (Some there, I know, think that I have a calling or am being paid to monitor RFM. That's not true. But, of course, since it's an article of faith with some of them that I'm a professional liar, I don't suppose it does much good for me to deny it.)

(emphasis added)

Stunning, eh? For those who wondered why he doesn't have more peer-reviewed publications in his chosen field of study, now you have an answer from the man himself. But what kind of "laboratory" houses a scientist who routinely flings petty insults and mud at his object of study? In fact, here is DCP's current signature line:

"Why are those at Mormonapologetics.org are [sic] vicious, cowardly refuse? . . . I see the lot as cowardly human refuse." (Green Messiah, "Recovery" board, 30 December 2006)

"The man is a barracuda! . . . He is a mean spirited person of the highest order. I have no sympathy for this poor excuse for a human being at all! Blech!!!" (Lucyfer, "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006, regarding Daniel Peterson [a.k.a. "El Lardo"])

What could honestly be the purpose of this? If you're asking yourself this question, you can rest assured that you are not alone. Here is the poster called "gitxanartist":

Your not going to get civil anything with them with that signature of yours. That just stirs the pot even further, am I wrong?

What do you suppose DCP's reply is? Are you imaging that he says, "Hey, yeah. You're right. It's sort of pointless for me to cite these insulting quotes like this. In fact, it seems a tad sophomoric." If so, you will be disappointed:

I'm only quoting them. I've got two or three dozen more such quotations on file -- the search function at RFM is pretty good, and I find such things amusing -- and could easily have had several times that many, and some considerably worse. (Would you be interested in the insults directed toward my wife?)

The uncivil offenses haven't been coming from me. And it seems odd (to me, at least) to fault the person who cites an insult directed against himself, as if he were the guilty party rather than the person who offered the insult.

Well, perhaps it's just me, but I can't see any "fault finding" in gitxanartist's post... What is it that DCP is talking about? Does he honestly think his use of this material in his signature line is totally benign and void of any political significance? Does he think this somehow makes him seem more benevolent and saintly?

A bit later, Uncle Dale offers up this sage piece of advice:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Prof. Peterson, unfortunately, often dislikes advice. Read on:

If you're trying to say that I hate my enemies, curse them, do evil to them, and refuse to pray for them, and to suggest that I cease doing so, I can only wonder which one of my posts here granted you this insight into my character and intimate behavior.

And U. Dale's reply:

You misunderstand me, Doc. -- I was speaking of your foe, not you.
But, if the shoe fits, it is one might all wear now and then, eh?

Now watch as DCP reneges on his initial claim:

I'm sure that all do wear it from time to time. But, by and large, that's not one of my principal failings. (I have others that I cherish.)

In other words, he does implicitly "hate [his] enemies, curse them, do evil to them, and refuse to pray for them" "from time to time." Actually, I seem to recall an email posted by Rollo Tomasi in which DCP really did proceed to issue a number of GA-style curses. So at least he's being honest. For now.

A bit further on, in an inadvertent refutation of juliann's nonsensical apostate argument, DCP offers up this satiric response to a post from "veritasvocat"

Both boards are EXACTLY the same in character, the ONLY difference is which side of the debate they are on.

You're right. They're indistinguishable.

RFM forbids defense of the Church. This board forbids criticisms of it.

I'm barred from posting on RFM. You're barred from posting here.

RFM trafficks heavily in personal and collective attacks on "Morgbots" as, among other things, cheapskates, fascists, ignoramuses, liars, fools, sociopaths, fakes, arrogant fanatics, madmen, Morons (get it?), hacks, tyrants, social climbers, and pigs. This board, I guess, does precisely the same (though I must have missed all of those posts).

Identical.

(emphasis added---actually, the board only forbids embarrassing, damaging criticism)

Anyways, back to D'unk's observation, which is expanded upon here by Tarski:

I am quite impressed if you actually do routinely "bless", "pray for" and "do good for" Tal Bachman, Bob McCue or Steve Benson.

Yes, I am too. It is really commendable that Prof. Peterson is so charitable towards people who, by all appearances, are his enemies. Oh, wait a sec....

I didn't say one way or the other whether I "bless," "pray for," and "do good" for Messrs. Bachman, McCue, and Benson. And I won't. I did, however, implicitly deny cursing them, etc. And I'm happy to make that denial explicit.

Ah! So that's how it is. Funny how he left out the "hate," "do evil to," and "refuse to pray for" part via that neat little "etc."---it's is if he can't bear to repeat the words which are closest to his heart. Finally, he offers up this priceless (and completely hypocritical) nugget:

Candidly, I don't aspire to impress anybody with what I do in my private prayers. I'm not going to lay them out here for critique or comment, and I'm not going to use them to boast. They're exactly none of anybody else's business. I'm not here to preen myself on my righteousness or my superior spirituality. You will also not see a list of my charitable donations, however long or short it may be.

Thank you very much.

(emphasis added)

Then what, pray tell, is the purpose of your signature line, Prof. Peterson? Do you simply want to "embarrass" these offenders, and if so, to what end? To make them look bad? To make yourself look better? What?

In any case, I am betting that Prof. P. is going to sorely regret the comments he made in this thread. Lol.....

[_Pokatator]

A prayer by Dr. Dan Peterson .02

A straight jacket for Dr. Pete 59.95

A room with wall to wall padding 2000.00

This thread.............................PRICELESS




They're going mad over there!

[_Yoda]

Hmmm...I wonder if Shade's board will be his next "laboratory"! LOL

[_Infymus]

Did Daniel really write that RFM posters are; "Cheapskates, fascists, ignoramuses, liars, fools, sociopaths, fakes, arrogant fanatics, madmen, Morons (get it?), hacks, tyrants, social climbers, and pigs." ?

Wow. The man is truly arrogant.

[_Jersey Girl]

Did Daniel really write that RFM posters are; "Cheapskates, fascists, ignoramuses, liars, fools, sociopaths, fakes, arrogant fanatics, madmen, Morons (get it?), hacks, tyrants, social climbers, and pigs." ?

Wow. The man is truly arrogant.

No, he's saying that's what RFM posters say about "Morgbots"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I didn't say one way or the other whether I "bless," "pray for," and "do good" for Messrs. Bachman, McCue, and Benson. And I won't. I did, however, implicitly deny cursing them, etc. And I'm happy to make that denial explicit.

I don't know about DCP's cursing Bachman, McCue or Benson, but he sure seemed to be throwing some 'cosmic curse' my way in May of last year, stemming from the FAIR thread about his involvement in rumor-mongering of Quinn's sexual orientation. Here are some of the gems DCP cast my way in personal messages to me (all bold mine for emphasis):

This is not merely disagreement; you are bearing false witness against me, and you will, I believe, someday have to account for it. You have the temporary advantage of what, in this context, strikes me as a rather cowardly anonymity. But that will not save you from the accounting.

But I will deny as false, and slanderously so, your depiction of my attitude and behavior toward Mike Quinn as “venomous,” “sick,” and the like. This is not only untrue, but libelous. Nor did I ever suggest that it was Quinn’s homosexuality that has kept him from getting a job, or that it ought to do so. You traduce me when you publicly say such things, and you will someday be obliged to acknowledge the falsehood and injustice of your public accusations.

I do not take this lightly. I’m not joking, and this is not a game. As God is my witness, what you are saying is false, and I will so testify.

I will have no further dealings with you, so far as I can avoid them. In my eyes, whatever claim you may once have had to the moral high ground -- and I was more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- has now been forfeited. Your behavior is contemptible and unwarranted.

Don't answer. At this point, I don't care. You are beneath notice.

[_harmony]

In any case, I am betting that Prof. P. is going to sorely regret the comments he made in this thread. Lol.....

Actually, he'll probably just deny he ever said it. And when presented with proof, he'll make a joke of it and laugh it off.

[_Infymus]

Did Daniel really write that RFM posters are; "Cheapskates, fascists, ignoramuses, liars, fools, sociopaths, fakes, arrogant fanatics, madmen, Morons (get it?), hacks, tyrants, social climbers, and pigs." ?

Wow. The man is truly arrogant.

Ah. While I still feel he is arrogant, this struck me as an odd thing for Dan to write.

[_Enuma Elish]

He has now declared that it is an object of serious academic scrutiny for himself.

You’ve misunderstood the quote. Dr. Peterson did not claim that RFM provides an opportunity to gage his own work and/or self along the lines of a “serious academic scrutiny.” He said, “I'm interested, precisely, in the kinds of things that lead people out of the Church.”

Stunning, eh?

No, not at all.

For those who wondered why he doesn't have more peer-reviewed publications in his chosen field of study, now you have an answer from the man himself.

Please explain how in the world you came up with this conclusion. I find the idea that Dr. Peterson would use the criticism raised by those at RFM as a type of “peer-review,” more than a little absurd. Very few people who participate in that forum have had any exposure whatsoever to LDS scholarship.

You’ve misrepresented the quote.

But what kind of "laboratory" houses a scientist who routinely flings petty insults and mud at his object of study?

The alleged “petty insults and mud” Dr. Peterson flings could never compare to the hatred directed against him over at RFM. However, as evidenced by his acceptance of such ludicrous titles as the “Crispy Crème King,” Dr. Peterson clearly has a sense of humor; he fails to take both himself and those at RFM too seriously.

What could honestly be the purpose of this?

You’ll have to ask him. But in addition to the fact I find his signature lines quite funny, perhaps he intends to draw our attention to the absolute absurdity of the expressed opinion.

It's sort of pointless for me to cite these insulting quotes like this.

Insulting to who? Dr. Peterson? LDS Apologists?

In fact, it seems a tad sophomoric."

Dr. Peterson has continually expressed his view that contrary to the opinion held by many of their participants, message boards are not the place of serious scholarship.

What’s wrong with being a bit “sophomoric” in this environment?

Lighten up a little.

[_Monitor]

Scratchie, you're obsessed.