DCP Threatens to Flee the MADboard!

[_Jersey Girl]

Nightingale,

I just wanted to welcome you to this board. I was Lady Sundancer (LSD) on FAIR. I'm glad you took a chance on reading this board and that you've chosen to try it on for size. There are many from FAIR (now MAD) who post here. Please check out the nature of each forum so you find your own best fit.

Jersey Girl

[Gadianton]

Ho ho ho! Our dear friend, Professor Peterson, is admitting that he needs he beloved MB to be kept squeaky clean. Despite long speculation that he does in fact receive special treatment (and despite McPahoran's numbskull defense of the MADmoderation), Prof. P. is now saying that if he doesn't get his way, he's going to leave the MADboard for good! (Yeah, right.)

Doubtless you are wondering: Why would he leave? Well, the answer is pretty simple: He is afraid of Tal Bachman. Bear in mind that Prof. Peterson has long referred to Tal as "Tal Tales," and that he has ridiculed Mr. Bachman's musical career. Prof. P., nonetheless, seems to be quaking in his boots! Dig this post:

Call it, if you will, just an odd personal quirk on my part, but, since Tal Bachman has linked me at various times with Nazism and Fascism and Heaven's Gate, and has repeatedly called me a "sociopath," a "loon," "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," and a "joke" -- to recall just a few of his impressive ventures into reasoned analysis and argument -- I can't seem to muster much enthusiasm for his appearance here, and don't expect it to raise the level of discourse. I tried to interact with him a few years ago, and, candidly, found it one of the weirdest and most exasperating encounters I've ever had. Though he is unquestionably very bright, he seems chronically incapable of accurately understanding the positions of those with whom he has chosen to disagree.

If he represents the future of this board, I'll leave. (Which I surely ought to do anyway.)

(emphasis added.)

Yep. Sure enough, Dan_G/Chaos immediately swoops in to declare, "No personal threads." Hmm. Coincidence? I think not! Anyways, lest anyone offer up the analysis and criticism, which, incidentally, I just offered, Prof. P. offers up this tiddlywink of a sidebar:

I'm not asking the moderators to ban him. Contrary to popular legend, I've never asked them to ban anybody, and don't seek protection from them.

Now, what does he mean by this? Does he mean that he doesn't proactively seek protection? Because it is quite obvious that his publicly posted entreaties are definitely telegraphing directions the moderating should go...

So, which is it? Does His Highness need protection or not? You make the call! edited for spelling: thanx, Plu.!

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-

[_Sam Harris]

There's that McTherapy again.

Wade, when are you ever going to raise the caliber of your proffered help so you can take it off of the proverbial dollar menu?

[_wenglund]

There's that McTherapy again.

Wade, when are you ever going to raise the caliber of your proffered help so you can take it off of the proverbial dollar menu?

You may not believe this (and that is okay), but you are valued far more than a dollar by me. In fact, you are priceless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

Yep---he addressed it all right. He was a completely callous and insensitive jerk.

Pahoran stated that he would never encourage suicide. I think you were expecting an apology, but I think Pahoran feels that since he intended no such harm there is no need for one. Pahoran is Pahoran. Deal.

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.

If you "don't care" then why did you swoop in to come to His Highness's defense? Basically, I think his behavior has been hypocritical: he wants to show how horrible, immature, and awful his opponents are, and yet he stoops to namecalling and smear tactics.

I didn't come to defend "His Highness". Dr. Peterson probably doesn't even like me. If I really wanted to gain his favor, I would quit posting here, quit attacking Intelligent Design, and actually read a few scholarly works. As it is my life does not revolve around making people respect me, whether that be you, him, or anyone else. I'm more worried about wheter I could respect a critic who acted as I do--could I respect myself if I were wrong? I believe I can answer that question in the affirmitive.

I am here to bounce a few ideas around and challenge you a bit. Perhaps you prefer that I shut up and not provide any sort of objections? Besides, trying to challenge you in turn challenges me.

If Dr. Peterson is hypocritical, then what about you with regard to Dr. Peterson? Are you also a hypocrite and stooping to namecalling and smear tactics?

Further, citing insults is not the same as "expressing disgust." If he had said, "You know, my opponents have said a lot of really disgusting things about me, and it upsets me greatly," I would agree with you. But that's not what we get from him. Instead, we get this lengthy "poisoning the well" business, along with his threats to abandon the board if he doesn't get his way.

Why would his posts be considered a threat? 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. I doubt you have that effect on him. 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.

[_Runtu]

Pahoran stated that he would never encourage suicide. I think you were expecting an apology, but I think Pahoran feels that since he intended no such harm there is no need for one. Pahoran is Pahoran. Deal.

I really do not like talking about this incident, but yes, I am convinced that both Pahoran and I misread the situation. He did not recognize the seriousness of things, and I misread his intent (as you said, you don't think particularly clearly when you're in that frame of mind). I'll always be grateful for a whole host of FAIR posters for encouraging me to get some help, which I did.

[_Sam Harris]

There's that McTherapy again.

Wade, when are you ever going to raise the caliber of your proffered help so you can take it off of the proverbial dollar menu?

You may not believe this (and that is okay), but you are valued far more than a dollar by me. In fact, you are priceless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I find it hard to see how a person the likes of whom you have described so eloquently here can be anything positive to you, outside of verifying your long-held assumptions about folks who for whatever reason choose not to be LDS.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing such words from folks who can create things like what I linked to.

[_wenglund]

There's that McTherapy again.

Wade, when are you ever going to raise the caliber of your proffered help so you can take it off of the proverbial dollar menu?

You may not believe this (and that is okay), but you are valued far more than a dollar by me. In fact, you are priceless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I find it hard to see how a person the likes of whom you have described so eloquently here can be anything positive to you, outside of verifying your long-held assumptions about folks who for whatever reason choose not to be LDS.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing such words from folks who can create things like what I linked to.

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-

[_asbestosman]

I'll always be grateful for a whole host of FAIR posters for encouraging me to get some help, which I did.

Glad you did. I think you're one of the more reasonable posters here.

[_Sam Harris]

There's that McTherapy again.

Wade, when are you ever going to raise the caliber of your proffered help so you can take it off of the proverbial dollar menu?

You may not believe this (and that is okay), but you are valued far more than a dollar by me. In fact, you are priceless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I find it hard to see how a person the likes of whom you have described so eloquently here can be anything positive to you, outside of verifying your long-held assumptions about folks who for whatever reason choose not to be LDS.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing such words from folks who can create things like what I linked to.

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.