Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Rather than hide behind the red herring of a rather silly conspiracy theory, wouldn't it just be easier to get Hamblin to clean up his office and find the letter?

You're missing the point by light years if you think I'm advocating a conspiracy theory.

And, no, it wouldn't be easier to get Bill to clean up his office and find the letter. Would you like to come over and clean my offices?

[_Mister Scratch]

Your first tactic was to try and pooh-pooh away our questions by trying to defame us, and accuse us of calling you a liar.

From your thread on the origin of FAIR/MA&D:

DCP/FreeThinker is a glib and mean-spirited deceiver

Perhaps I forged that, too?

Now you are trying to cast doubt on the scan of the 1st Letter, which, to this day, all of us can view over at the Tanner's website?

I've never thought of you as stupid, so I don't believe that you're really missing the point so obviously as you pretend to be.

This is a load of crap.

True. Why you keep shoveling it is beyond me.

I assume that, since you are editor of FARMS Review, and that, as such, you are aware of the various articles published in that journal, which go nitpicking through the footnotes of, say, The Mormon Hierarchy books? Why, I'm curious to know, does that somehow not constitute "paranoia" on your part?

Has any writer for the FARMS Review ever accused Mike Quinn of forging a document? Has anybody at the FARMS Review ever accused Quinn of deliberately inventing a text out of thin air?

You guys have accused him of all manner of things. You have accused him of butchering sources, twisting text, etc., etc.

But, apparently, you do "withhold acceptance" of the citation if you are an LDS apologist and the historian's last name is Quinn.

Disputing interpretations is the stuff of scholarship. Suggesting that another scholar has fraudulently created a document in order to support his agenda is the stuff of libel suits. We do the first. We don't do the second.

I have never "suggested" it either! Further, would you say that gossiping about somebody's private sex life on a public messageboard is "the stuff of libel suits"?

Your "FreeThinker" fun & games *was* a lie, was it not? Perhaps we can argue about whether or not it was genuinely "mean-spirited," but there is no question that you lied and deceived.

I used a pseudonym.

You lied and deceived. You pretended to not be Daniel Peterson, despite the fact that you were, in actuality, Daniel Peterson. There is a pretty big difference between adopting a pseudonym for privacy vs. adopting a pseudonym in order to deceive and manipulate people. Do I really need to repost the material from Ray A, absolutely livid at you, which shows just how much you were toying with him?

Anyways, all of this is beside the point. The point is that you should get Hamblin to find the letter, and post a scan of it. Imagine: then you will be able to show how vile I am, since I wondered about the letter! Wow, all the TBMs will kneel down in praise of you, for sticking it to Scratch! Whoaaa!!! You'll show everyone that Mister Scratch was skeptical for no reason at all!!!

[_Ray A]

You lied and deceived. You pretended to not be Daniel Peterson, despite the fact that you were, in actuality, Daniel Peterson. There is a pretty big difference between adopting a pseudonym for privacy vs. adopting a pseudonym in order to deceive and manipulate people. Do I really need to repost the material from Ray A, absolutely livid at you, which shows just how much you were toying with him?

No, you don't need too, we can read. But if it tickles your vanity - go ahead. Don't try, IN ANY WAY, to win my sympathy - because you won't. You can blow all the sunshine up my ass that you want, but my opinion of you will not change until you desist from being an accuser of others on FALSE grounds.

You are schiophrenic SCUM, Scratch, and I will prove this when I do my thread in about 48 hours.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You guys have accused him of all manner of things. You have accused him of butchering sources, twisting text, etc., etc.

We've criticized him for the sorts of things for which scholars routinely criticize those with whom they disagree. But we've never accused him of altogether inventing or falsifying a piece of evidence.

Or have we? You're the fellow with the massive databases of "dirt" or seeming "dirt" on your chosen targets. If we did it, you've surely got the goods on us.

Produce it!

would you say that gossiping about somebody's private sex life on a public messageboard is "the stuff of libel suits"?

Yes I would. Which is why I've criticized you for falsely accusing me of doing so.

You lied and deceived. You pretended to not be Daniel Peterson, despite the fact that you were, in actuality, Daniel Peterson.

And how long did that last, Scratch? This is the third time I've asked you the question. I've also said that I dropped the pseudonym business because it didn't work and because I didn't like the ethical situations it got me into.

If that's the best real evidence of my deeply dishonest personality that you're able to come up with, after at least a year or two of carefully mining everything you can find about me on line, you've got to be more than a little bit disappointed, I should think. Pretty poor results.

There is a pretty big difference between adopting a pseudonym for privacy vs. adopting a pseudonym in order to deceive and manipulate people.

I adopted the pseudonym for reasons that I've stated. When I saw that it wasn't working and didn't like what it took to maintain it, I dropped it. And, as you know (but refuse to acknowledge), I didn't maintain it very long at all.

You're flailing, Scratch. You're now reduced to throwing all of the "dirt" at me, and all of the seeming "dirt," that you can, relevant or not. And it's not very potent "dirt."

Do I really need to repost the material from Ray A, absolutely livid at you, which shows just how much you were toying with him?

I have no idea what your internal needs and compulsions are. Do what you feel you must.

Anyways, all of this is beside the point.

You noticed?

The point is that you should get Hamblin to find the letter, and post a scan of it.

Perhaps I should just fake one. You wouldn't be able to tell.

But why should I even waste the time to do that?

You would still be telling the few people who listen to you that I'm a "mean-spirited liar" and a fraud. You're like the ancient mariner, Scratch.

Imagine: then you will be able to show how vile I am, since I wondered about the letter! Wow, all the TBMs will kneel down in praise of you, for sticking it to Scratch! Whoaaa!!! You'll show everyone that Mister Scratch was skeptical for no reason at all!!!

Nobody else really cares about you, Scratch. I'm all you've got. There's not a single soul among my "Mopologist" friends and colleagues who pays the slightest bit of attention to you. The only one of my colleagues who even knows you exist, as far as I'm aware, is Bill Hamblin. And he doesn't care. He thinks I waste my time on message boards -- he's right about that -- and, since we're writing a book together right now, he wouldn't be pleased to know that I'm wasting my time on this message board.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is simple: Produce the letter, or retract the claim. There's nothing more to be said, really. Those are the only things that will make this issue go away.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is simple: Produce the letter, or retract the claim. There's nothing more to be said, really. Those are the only things that will make this issue go away.

Do you really think that anybody else is paying attention to you, Scratch?

"This issue."

LOL. What a card you are.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is simple: Produce the letter, or retract the claim. There's nothing more to be said, really. Those are the only things that will make this issue go away.

Do you really think that anybody else is paying attention to you, Scratch?

"This issue."

LOL. What a card you are.

I don't care who is paying attention.

by the way: In response to your question about how long you used your "FreeThinker" alias, it seems that this went on, at minimum, for a period of no less than four months. If that weren't bad enough, it seems that you also used the alias, "Logic Chopper."

Go ahead and laugh and call me names, my dear Prof. P. As I said before, the issues swirling around the absent 2nd Watson Letter will not go away until you either post a scan of it, or retract your claims. It is as simple as that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you insist on coming over here to Shadyburg, and in the process increase their traffic several fold,

Pretty stupid of me, wasn't it?

the least you could do is permit me to begin charging (per head) for the privilege and honor of scrapping with you.

I like the idea. Of course, I can't guess what the profit potential might be, since I have no idea, for example, what kind of weekly allowance Polygamy Porter, Some Schmo, and Mercury get. But there are also several apparent adults here, so there's probably money to be made, alright.

You know, we could sneak down tonight and turn the sprinklers on the field at Lavell Edwards Stadium, make a nice mudhole at midfield, and I could charge ten bucks a pop to have you and Scratch and Scratch wrestle. I’d split the proceeds with you 60/40.

Maybe I could invite Bill Hamblin along, and then we'd have Scratch and "Ref" outnumbered two to one.

In fact, now that I think about it, I’ll bet people would pay even more to watch Julie Reynolds and beastie go after it!

Now, don't go all traditional on us. You've got to think outside the box.

Mmmmmmmmmmm … let me see … $15 bucks for admission, $3 hotdogs, $6 spiked Sprite … we could have a bona fide riot on our hands in no time at all.

How about a "See the Second Watson Letter" peepshow, at $5 a pop? Scratch thinks the letter's worth something in the same range as the Magna Carta, it appears. (Maybe, in that light, we should go upscale and market it as a "museum" exhibit. At $5 a pop.)

Give it some thought …

Another idea: Shred Scratch's "dirt"-dossiers and corner the confetti-supply concession for the next ten Macy's Thanksgiving Day parades.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In response to your question about how long you used your "FreeThinker" alias, it seems that this went on, at minimum, for a period of no less than four months. If that weren't bad enough, it seems that you also used the alias, "Logic Chopper."

Whoa! Four whole months of epic deceptions and lies! A tale that fairly sears the screen! Eeeevil, beyond yer wildest imaginations!

Go ahead and laugh and call me names, my dear Prof. P.

Thanks. I'll have the laughter alone, if it's all the same to you. No name-calling.

As I said before, the issues swirling around the absent 2nd Watson Letter will not go away until you either post a scan of it, or retract your claims. It is as simple as that.

The "issues" aren't "swirling," Scratch. You're spinning in circles. That makes it look as if things are "swirling."

Oh yes. "My dear Prof. P."

What a card you are!

[_Tarski]

Maybe I could invite Bill Hamblin along, and then we'd have Scratch and "Ref" outnumbered two to one.

LOL
OK, I don't care which side of this pseudo-debate you are on, that was funny.