asbestosman wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:I took a moment to look up the post you mentioned on page 3 of LD&D and would like to point out to you that Daniel made a false statement in that. That is to say, he lied.
What was the lie?
Here is the post that I think you were looking at:
Daniel Peterson Yesterday, 09:36 AM Post #9
Krispy Kreme King
Group: Pundit
Posts: 4007
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407
QUOTE(Tarski @ Jan 15 2007, 09:02 AM)
I think that the insults directed toward Dan Peterson are unfortunate but I wasn't there so I don't know how much "egging on" it took.
I'm not permitted to post on the oddly-named "Recovery" board where Bachman publlshes his work. That should give you some sense of how much "egging on" I did.
This is the only board where I post. I do it too much, of course, but my notes here are easily searchable. On a couple of other boards, I see, it's being alleged that I've engaged in a "smear campaign" against Bachman -- one of the many such campaigns, apparently, with which I've occupied my time in recent years -- and that I've routinely insulted Bachman just as viciously as he has routinely insulted me. For good reason, though, no evidence is ever cited to support this allegation.
I briefly referred to Bachman as "Tal Tales" here because he has continuously spread untruths about me (e.g., that I had confided in him that the question of Mormonism's truthfulness didn't interest me either because I'm afraid of it or because I'm indifferent to truth and reality, and that I am a postmodernist who doesn't believe in objective reality and a historical relativist or subjectivist who believes that all opinions about history are equal) on a board where I cannot respond.
Others may judge whether that epithet is on a par with the behavior of a person who has has repeatedly linked me with Nazism and Fascism and Heaven's Gate, and who has, many times, called me a "sociopath," a "loon," insane, "sub-average," a "fanatic," a "madman," an "idiot," a stupified intellectual coward, an "anti-realist," and a "joke."
I'll be interested in anything that anybody can find from me that, referring to Bachman, comes close to the spirit of the quotation in my signature or that approximates this kind of baseless nonsense:
QUOTE
Whether I threw you on the back of my motorcycle or not, or whether we "consummated" our "thing", is totally up in the air, you know? It's one of the lessons I've learned from FARMS writers like Dan Peterson: if you can manage to buy into Kant's comments on perception, accepting uncritically Kant's protestations that his thought is entirely different than idealism (that is, without noticing the embarrassing fact that Kant's comments on this owe almost everything to Berkeley), and then you can bat around in your head long enough that you can't really prove to yourself what is real and what is imagined by you, then you can work yourself into a state where any kind of "reality" you need to exist, you can make exist, and then instantly believe as plausible as any other "reality"...and after that, the whole concept of reality can only ever be thought of as having a possessive in front of it: "my reality", "your reality", "whose reality?". See how it works? That's when you know you've become Marshall Applewhite Peterson...and it is freeing! Huzzah! Our non-existent make-out sessions (like non-existent ancient American civilizations) for us, can be just as "real" as real ones. After all, can someone perform an experiment whereby it is proved that you and I didn't make out? If not - then Mormonism is all it claims! "The church is safe once again". (Tal Bachman, 17 August 2006, RFM)
--------------------
I know the ladies can sound irrational too, but how many women have you ever met who are as nuts in the same way that, say, Dan Peterson is nuts? How man women can create alternative realities as idiotic, angry, deep, ego-fueled, and convoluted as a dude can, and then actually believe in them so much, that they don't even flinch when people are getting raped and tortured and killed for believing it? Come on - this is where we excel, bro. The Bolsheviks? The Nazis? The Branch Davidians? The Mormons? How many girls helped come up with those? . . . Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't think women overall are stupid enough to actually think they can justify their silly positions with monstrous absurdities like those trotted out by Louis Farrakhan or Hugh Nibley. No - for lunacy on this grand a scale, you need males. I don't expect that to change. (Tal Bachman, "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 21 February 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to throw this one out to the masses. Does anyone else except me see a false statement in Daniel's comments? If so, please identify it.
Jersey Girl