Prof. P. Continues to Attack GIMR!!!

[_wenglund]

This is perhaps the most annoying thing to me, about Dan Peterson. He did this to me several times in closed thread situations. Once he even acknolwedged that my entire post had been deleted yet he chose to write up a response anyway, knowing perfectly well my original comments could never be placed in their proper context and that I would not be able to respond.

When I was banned for demonstrating that Hauglid was fabricating an excuse to leave a debate, he wrote up another post shortly afterwards in the same thread, trying to add justification to the decision by the mods, insisting that I cannot simply criticize scholars; I have to go overboard and "malign" them "viciously." He then went on to list several instances where I had allegedly attacked scholars.

Of course it is apparently acceptible when Dan call's Serge Trifkovic, a scholar I used in one of my arguments, "idiotic," simply because he referred to the city of Baghdad before it actually was named Baghdad. If I were not banned I would have turned Dan's own logic against him when he referred to the Arab sconquest of "Cairo" when in fact it was actually named Alexandria during the raids. By his own standard, Dan is an idiot.

I would disagree though. Scholars frequently do this for the sake of clarity, especially when speaking in a non-academic venue. Neither Dan nor Serge are idiots; Dan was just bending over backwards trying to make him seem stupid and therefore untrustworthy in his analyses. Ultimately, Dan refuted nothing Serge had said regarding the myth of an Islamic Golden Age.

I sincerely hope that at some point you will be able to move on from that experience, gain some peace and closure, or at the very least diminish its importance in your life, and devote your attentions more to good things in the future, rather than the unpleasantness of the past, and seek to uplift rather than tear down.

Certainly, your current approach doesn't seem to be working to that end.

If you are open to exploring an alternative approach, I would be happy to offer some suggestions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

IDon't play the devil's advocate, it's no fun.

GIMR, what do you feel like playing then? I would like to do a tuba duet, but alas, I do not know the tuba. Any suggestions?

[_dartagnan]

I sincerely hope that at some point you will be able to move on from that experience

Then hope no longer, since I have moved on. In fact, I moved on shortly after the event took place.

gain some peace and closure

Closure to what?

or at the very least diminish its importance in your life

Importance in my life? I can assure you that the time I devote to Dr. Peterson or researching MAD is minimal when compared to his apparent curiosity of what goes on the ex-Mormon web.

devote your attentions more to good things in the future

You think this event has caused me to do fewer good things since it took place? Good grief wade, don’t quit your day job because you suck as a therapist.

seek to uplift rather than tear down.

What the hell am I “tearing down”? Don’t you think your perspective is a bit off the wall?

Certainly, your current approach doesn't seem to be working to that end.

What approach? The subject was raised and I provided an anecdote of my own which pertains to his observation. This is what happens on discussion boards. It doesn’t have to mean someone is - by simply sharing past experiences for the sake of conversation -demonstrating a propensity to “tear down,” or to do less good, or to misplace one’s priorities, et cetera.

If you are open to exploring an alternative approach, I would be happy to offer some suggestions.

Wade you put way too much confidence in your ability to help anyone in anything. Your response above demonstrated your abject agenda and palpable bias. I mean think about this for a second. Dr. Peterson is on MAD bringing up stuff to complain about from RFM and this forum. He does so, far more frequently than my comments appear about him or FAIR. Have you likewise offered him your unprofessional psychiatric services?

Somehow I doubt it.

[_wenglund]

Dart...,

Retracing the same steps from the past over and over again (on the forum that you devoted specifically to this issue on your board, and various threads and posts on this and other boards, periodically over the last several months) can hardly be considered "moving on", let alone an indication that it is a matter of little importance to you--particularly if it is one of the more common, if not the most common subjects you raise. And, your rather lenghty and beligerant response to my kindly wish, ironically speaks volumns as well.

Evidently, though, you have gone into deep denial about the large chip on your shoulder, and that certainly is your choice. I don't happen to think that to be a functional strategy. But, you are, after all, the captain of your ship. If you are determined to look backwards at things in your wake, and thus steer your ship in disgruntled circles, then that is your perogative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

IDon't play the devil's advocate, it's no fun.

GIMR, what do you feel like playing then? I would like to do a tuba duet, but alas, I do not know the tuba. Any suggestions?

LOL, if Keb were to come over here, I'd pull out my Black Avenger costume just for him...whips and chains anyone?

Can I play my nose meanwhile?

[_rcrocket]

Evidently, though, you have gone into deep denial about the large chip on your shoulder, and that certainly is your choice. I don't happen to think that to be a functional strategy. But, you are, after all, the captain of your ship. If you are determined to look backwards at things in your wake, and thus steer your ship in disgruntled circles, then that is your perogative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Stop trying to psychoanalyze responses. Why is necessary to understand why somebody just laid a turd on the table in front of you? Just call it a turd and move on.

P

[_grayskull]

asb,

I personally think message boards are 90% for fun, gossip, and controversy. So I don't condemn DCP at all for the fact that he agrees with me 100%. As a follow up, I wonder how much he's learned, or thinks others have learned, in the thousands and thousands of words he's devoted to subjects like, "are Mormons christians?" and with some of the dumbest reborns the internet has to offer.

I personally think his idea of internet fun is to unload his entire arsenal on clearly unequal opponents. I also think he's come close to outright admitting this. The man is smart and has read a great deal. And really hates the fact that people far beneath him education wise think they've come to the conclusion the church is false through reason. So when Johny reborn comes along and proof texts the church into "another gospel" he's right there. With all kinds of historical and intellectual trivia to load to pepper his sarcastic replies with. It's like he just wants to scream, "Darn it to heck! You can't think the church is false! I'm smarter than you, don't you see?!"

[_rcrocket]

I personally think his idea of internet fun is to unload his entire arsenal on clearly unequal opponents. I also think he's come close to outright admitting this. The man is smart and has read a great deal. And really hates the fact that people far beneath him education wise think they've come to the conclusion the church is false through reason. So when Johny reborn comes along and proof texts the church into "another gospel" he's right there. With all kinds of historical and intellectual trivia to load to pepper his sarcastic replies with. It's like he just wants to scream, "Darn it to heck! You can't think the church is false! I'm smarter than you, don't you see?!"

Or, another way to view it is this.

The early days of the internet consisted of known scholars with university accounts willing to discuss knotty issues. As the internet opened up to the masses, the mob mentality that Joseph Smith faced against brickbats is now manifested with insults, defamations, and all that Lehi saw with the great and spacious building consisting of mockers who have "gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (1 Nephi 22:35.)

As Joseph Smith was killed by an anonymous mob with soot-disguised faces, so the Twelve endures the taunts and insults of anonymous posters who often, on the one hand, claim to be faithful members of the Church but, on the other hand, take pot shots with fake names.

A few good folks are willing to step forward of fight against the forces of cowardice and hypocrisy to defend the Twelve. A few of those are skilled and able to do so. They research, publish and can write to persuade. And, what are they blessed with the folks the likes of you? Threats, taunts and ridicule.

But, carry on.

P-- http://www.lw.com/attorney/default.asp [enter "Crockett"]

[_dartagnan]

Wade, I noticed you’re just doing the same thing over again. Whenever your ability to properly psychoanalyze is brought into question, you go into denial mode again and blame the observer you wish to analyze. You still have not addressed your hypocrisy and obvious agenda, which is manifested in the fact that your buddies at MAD are not being offered your services. If I insisted on using self-depreciating signatures (like DCP does) by my online nemeses, then maybe you could make a case that I could benefit from therapy. You and I joined this forum on the same day. I have yet to break 150 posts while you’re already over 800. Who need therapy?

To be sure, thus far all you have done is spin things to suit your apologetics. You’ve always been about apologetics wade and nothing seems to have changed. Your claims to actually care about individuals and about striving for objectivity, is just another ruse. But maybe you don’t expect intelligent people to realize it – perhaps even yourself.

Plutarch,

Oh you’re not going to start with this “I’m not anonymous, therefore I’m not a coward, and therefore I should be given some kind of credit” game now are you?

I already demonstrated to you that you were in error on this subject, but you fled the scene (coward?) only to bring it up again after the refuting dust had settled. Contrary to your bald assertions, scholars do in fact post anonymously if a real threat exists. I demonstrated this. Nobody calls them cowards except those who cannot refute the arguments. People do feel threatened by the LDS Church and its henchmen (like you); these are not sentiments without merit. I have been in the apologetic circle long enough to know that this is a popular method used by amateur TBMs who cannot deal with arguments.

They investigate critics from within in an attempt to have them marginalized. The LDS Church obviously supports this type of reconnaissance as exemplified in the Strengthening the Members Committee. It is freaky and brings to mind the religious police in Saudi Arabia. Once the perceived threats are marginalized, nobody feels a need to deal with arguments because they can just share the dirt they dug up on the person. An uncaring smear campaign is all it is. LDS apologists love this game and it is not something that is out of favor with the likes of Peterson, Hamblin or Midgely. The sad thing is that it works! LDS members follow the paradigm of spirituality. Everyone is judged by spirituality. If you can point out sins in any given person, LDS members will generally ignore everything they say because the perception is that their sin precludes them from being able to say anything of importance truthfully; especially things about the gospel. This is why so much attention is focused on Walter Martin’s fake doctorates and less attention is focused on his theological arguments. He lied about his doctorate, so why would we believe what he says about the Bible? This is also why so much attention is focused on Brent Metcalfe being a former security guard at the Church archives, and less attention is directed to his arguments. If one can create suspicion that Metcalfe abused his position to steal valuable information from the archives, then who cares what he writes about?

Over at FAIR during the summer one poster named Pacman spent forever and a day trying to make Metcalfe’s history the subject, completely abdicated any obligation to deal with his arguments. Similarly, when Ed Ashment was brought up over at ZLMB a few years ago, DCP directed everyone’s attention to his own investigative efforts about the man. Apparently, Ashment had yet to obtain a doctorate from the University of Chicago, even though critics often advertised that he is a “doctoral candidate.” Peterson felt that by mentioning this unusual scenario – someone being a doctoral candidate for about a decade – would somehow cast doubt on his scholarship and provide observing LDS faithful with all the reason they needed to dismiss him and his arguments. Again, it seemed to have worked.

When JP Holding quickly became a force to be reckoned with, rumors started spreading quickly on the LDS e-list about how he was using a pseudonym, and thanks to a whacked out and obsessive atheist named Farrell Till – who investigated him - some LDS apologists found out his real name and Pahoran decided to publish it for the first time without his consent. Again, the implication is that the critic is telling lies – why else use a pseudonym, right?

When Tvedtness told me in an email that Metcalfe had swindled Christenson’s wife out of the KEP photos by taking advantage of a bereaved widow, I was appalled. This was when I was in pure TBM mode and I bought it. I wanted to buy it. Metcalfe was mopping the floors with me on ZLMB at the time. I then brought it up on ZLMB by asking Metcalfe questions about how he obtained the photos. His version of events differed dramatically from Tvetdnes’s. I then emailed him back and Tvetdness would not stand by his original story and admitted he really didn’t know the facts. But the point is he was willing to spread this vitriol about for apologetic purposes.

On another occasion – about 6 years ago - I sent Lou Midgley an email with some concerns I had with some arguments by Charles Larsen. His response? It was short and bitter and something along these lines: “Chuck Larsen is a former prison guard. John Gee is a minted Egyptologist from Yale. You do the math.” That was it. That was the apologetic relief I received from a FARMS notable.

I shared these concerns with DCP in a private email a few months ago, but instead of acknowledging the fact that poisonous gossip exists in his little academic echo chamber, he just accused me of attacking his friends.

[_rcrocket]

I scarcely know any of those folks you mention, although I was with Ashment at the University of Chicago. [Well, actually, I was a missionary in the University Ward where he was an active member of the ward pursuing his doctorate, but the way I stated it first was more impressive.]

In terms of me being a "henchman," I stand convicted.

I don't remember fleeing any scene. I just can't post every day.

P