DCP Targets Paul Osborne in a Smear Campaign

[_Doctor Scratch]

If it had been just one instance, I would have shrugged it off. If it had been two instances, I would have just chalked it up to the fact that old habits die hard. But three? Yes: three. In a short matter of time, Prof. Peterson has ditched his self-proclaimed mission of "bridge building" in favor of a campaign of smears, mockery, and condescension. The two most obvious instances of this have already been covered on the board, but they merit repeating. On the Gene Cook-Mick Jagger MADthread, Dr. Peterson held no punches when it came to frankly and openly attacking the rock legend's character:

As I say, I see no real reason to doubt Elder Cook's story, and I don't think it harmed Sir Michael's (terrible) reputation even a tiny bit.

Mick Jagger has a well-earned reputation for sexual promiscuity and infidelity, such that Elder Cook's story seems both plausible and unlikely to damage Mr. Jagger's reputation for sexual immorality any more than Mr. Jagger's own behavior has already damaged it.

In this same thread, DCP began to call out and mock our own beloved Paul Osborne. This, it turns out, is only one thread among many in which DCP has been attempting to assassinate Paul's character. Later, DCP began a thread devoted exclusively to attacking Paul Osborne. The intention seems to be to try and paint Paul as a hypocrite:

I love you, Paul. I love everybody. I love everybody more than anybody else does.

There. I've proven my critics wrong.

Wow, you make my heart jump with genuine pleasure until I got to the third sentence. I thought we were about to break new ground.

Paul O

Of course, one might argue that this was a simple matter of poking fun at a Church critic, that it was a simple act of lighthearted mockery. Except that it has now gone on for three pages, with DCP contributing a whopping seven posts. Oddly, this was seen by the MADmoderators as an attempt by DCP to defend his credibility as a Mopologist:

Has it happened more than once, in a public venue? Did the immaturity comment have something to do with your dealings in Mormon apologetics?

When you have a big target on your head and every post of yours is scrutinized you might have a case and I would consider you having a thread defending your immaturity.

Nemesis

This is confusing. I thought that DCP's OP was a complaint about Gadianton Plumber's satiric accusation that DCP had condemned "Christian love"? Based on this, though, it seems that *anything* DCP does is automatically reflective of his connection to Mopologetics. (Except, of course, getting paid.) Obviously, the thread is in no way a "defense" of anything; it is an attack thread. It is meant to belittle and mock the newly minted apostate, Paul Osborne. And the character assassination does not stop there. On another thread, this one dealing with the Book of Abraham (a subject in which Paul O. is quite conversant), DCP's smears came straight out of the gutter:

The New Loving Paul Osborne seems to me no different, really, than the Old Hateful Paul Osborne that I remember so well from his posts here a few years back.

And...

Ok, I'm a bit behind and have yet to read all the posts but Oh my goodness, DCP, I'm not going to start a board war by responding to your post about what I've said on another board. I'm not going to defend myself.

Wow, I need to pour another drink and think about this. This is overwhelming me. I feel like I am about to be linched by a mob.

In view of the hateful sentiments you've expressed and the fact that I've never given vent to any similar things about you, it's amusing to see you pretend to be the imminent victim of a lynch mob (or, as you say over on my Malevolent Stalker's board, of a crucifixion).

But Jack Daniels will do that: Weird, unprovoked aggressiveness followed almost immediately by maudlin self-pity. (I had some hard-drinkin' uncles, and I've seen it many times.)

What are we to make of this? Why the latching on to Paul's drinking habits? What "hateful" sentiments is DCP referring to? This, it seems:

Nibley was a dirty scunk and a liar because he knew much of his apologetics was a dirty presentation. He lived deliciously and was praised his whole life while he sat on his academic throne in the protective dome of BYU. He was admired and worshipped as a god of scholarship and he had his reward.

Ironically (and apart from the direct insults), this largely seems to sum up DCP's position as well, including his "protected" status on MAD. Perhaps this is why it stung him so much, and led him to engage in a multi-day smear campaign against Paul, who has done nothing more than express his love for all mankind? (Additionally, Paul had been cleaning up on the thread and making mincemeat of the pro-Book of Abraham apologetic arguments. The thread *was* closed, after all.) In response to Paul's affirmation of Christian love, DCP replied:

I don't make it a practice to tell people on message boards that I love them, and I'm not about to start doing it now.

Talk is cheap.

I could profess my deep Christian love for everybody on this board and throughout the world 24/7, and it would be essentially meaningless. I'm much more interested, when it comes to how "loving" they are, in what people do than in what they say.

I can scarcely imagine a place more suited to preening and self-glorification than a message board on which posters unknown to each other in real life vie with one another to proclaim how much they love everybody.

Yes; of course. "Take is cheap." DCP's response to this, in the form of his actions, is to write a series of threads aimed at:

---Mocking Paul
---Underscoring Paul's drinking habits
---Painting Paul as being "hateful" (and note that DCP did not cite a single line of text in support of this accusation, apart from Paul's denunciation of Hugh Nibley)
---Making an indirect attack on Paul's class and level of education:

I'm reasonably confident that Paul's vicious words about Hugh stem from his own theological weirdities and from his oft-expressed class hatred and hostility toward academics rather than from any actual knowledge.

Clearly, this is just one cheap shot after the next---all conducted within the confines of the MADboard--a venue he knows will never, ever reprimand him for any of this behavior. It seems that he has forgotten, in rather short order, the claims he made about his activity on *this* messageboard--claims about attempting to build bridges and so forth. If, as he is claiming here, that "Talk is cheap," I guess I would have to agree with him, since he appears to have lapsed once again into his old habit of mockery, condescension, smear campaigning, and character assassination.

I admit I was struck by the odd, ironic resonance of this quote:

But Jack Daniels will do that: Weird, unprovoked aggressiveness followed almost immediately by maudlin self-pity.

It seems to me that this could be re-written---and plangently so--as, "But Mopologetics will do that: Sanctimonious, hypocritical claims about good intent followed almost immediately by grim humorlessness, smear campaigns, and assault on people's character." (Let's not forget that Paul posts openly, using what I presume to be his real name.)

I think it's important to remind people--especially those who may be new to the Mopologetics messageboard environment---that this is fundamentally what these people are all about. They are not interested in "building bridges." They are interested, first and foremost, in attacking critics of the Church. It is no coincidence that this extensive series of attacks on Paul Osborne has followed in the wake of his publicly announced apostasy (and the fact that he was a prominent critic of Book of Abraham apologetics). But, then, that is the way with apologists like Daniel C. Peterson: the goal is not to spread the teachings of Jesus, and to build the kingdom; the goal is all-out warfare, including very cheap and dirty attacks such as the ones mentioned above. They did it to D. Michael Quinn; they did it to Bob McCue; they did it to Robert Ritner; they have done it to countless faithful chapel Mormons. Now they have done it to Paul Osborne as well.

Does this look like "bridge building" to you? As an occasionally wise man once said: "Talk is cheap."

[_Paul Osborne]

Those are very interesting observations, Dr. Scratch. Apparently DCP has a thing against me, that's for sure. But, hey, I've tried to be nice to him the best I can and my conscience is clear. I promised him that I would treat him good and I will keep that promise even if it kills me.

He *is* acting odd. Maybe he is sipping Jack Daniels too, I don't know. I doubt it, but nothing would surprise me anymore.

Maybe since I'm the newest apostate on the block and have spoken harshly about his mentor (Nibley)and beloved friends (GA club) he has taken great offence. Maybe it's what I say or how I say it. I don't know.

I wonder how much time I have left before the Stake President comes knocking on my door. Fortunately, he doesn't know the gate code and I'm not going to tell him.

Dallas is a great town! The hell with Utah! ;-)

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

Paul,

I think your treatment is a consequence of your apostasy coupled with your important criticism of the Book of Abraham. DCP claims that you were "hateful" and that this is the reason why he ceased "interacting" with you here on MDB, but, of course, he doesn't offer up any evidence---presumably because he doesn't have any. In any event, I just thought someone should speak up in your defense. I think that Prof. Peterson is out of line with all of this.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Does it strike anyone else as truly odd that Christian love is seen as a bad thing by Mr. Mustache? He won't even engage his earlier statement.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does it strike anyone else as truly odd that Christian love is seen as a bad thing by Mr. Mustache? He won't even engage his earlier statement.

In all fairness, I believe I have seen Dr. Peterson invoke "Christian love." For example, I'm pretty sure that he used this as his rationale for asking young men and women if they practiced "coitus interruptus" or "oral sex."

[_Paul Osborne]

Thank you for speaking up. Yes, he is out of line somewhat, especially for a public figure of great importance to the church. It's going to bite him in the butt if he doesn't slow down a bit and take a breather. He needs to take his own advice that he gave himself in Dallas and work more on writing papers.

Although I've thought about creating Internet presentations against the Book of Abraham that I think would prove far more damaging than the ones that are currently out there, I don't want to end up as an antiMormon. The Book of Abraham attacks on the Internet against the church are generally weak and poorly presented. The critics are going about it all wrong.

Nonetheless, the church will always have a special place in my heart and I don't want to spend too much effort trying to tear it down. But I want to take the time to express myself in the moment of my fresh apostasy. I deserve at least that much. I put a lot of time and effort into building the kingdom and I have a right to tell why I'm leaving.

Paul O

[_Ray A]

Those are very interesting observations, Dr. Scratch. Apparently DCP has a thing against me, that's for sure. But, hey, I've tried to be nice to him the best I can and my conscience is clear. I promised him that I would treat him good and I will keep that promise even if it kills me.

Several other posters here have now met DCP, including yourself, Sethbag and Chris. Chris has made some very similar observations to mine. In the flesh DCP is apparently a nice person, but when he goes to his keyboard he can drip with sarcasm and mockery in the name of "humour", and that is what he did to you in the Peterson Denounces Love! thread. He mocked you in post after post, and his lapdogs on MAD happily joined to finish the verbal lynching.

You may be a merciful man, and I think you are, and I've enjoyed reading about your recent liberation spelt out with such unreserved honesty. I call that calling a spade a spade. No one doubts where you stand on many issues, because you're so forthright. No apologist that I know of has ever taken Droopy to task for his alcoholism, and his once open revelation of his struggles with the demon drink. That's because he's on the "right" side of the fence. Even here, many critics were sensitive to his struggle and hesitant to bring it up, even when he was at his worst. Yet on the MAD board, they are openly lambasting you, led by DCP, for what you wrote here. Scratch is right, and you should remember it, the apologists have a "take no prisoners" policy. If you are not finally with them, eventually they're going to try to bury your reputation, and yes that might eventually include someone contacting your bishop/stake president.

[_Gadianton]

I saw a few of those comments about Paul, I wondered where the instigation from Paul took place? Not that the Gospel really leaves retaliation like this open as a possibility, but I would be open to reviewing whatever it was Paul said directed toward DCP that hurt his feelings.

I saw the comment about Nibley, i don't think that's enough reason.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I saw a few of those comments about Paul, I wondered where the instigation from Paul took place? Not that the Gospel really leaves retaliation like this open as a possibility, but I would be open to reviewing whatever it was Paul said directed toward DCP that hurt his feelings.

I saw the comment about Nibley, i don't think that's enough reason.

Mr. Stache has simply degraded to the average of the MAD board. I think someone once said that you are the average of your three closest friends. I guess we were keeping him nice?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yet on the MAD board, they are openly lambasting you, led by DCP, for what you wrote here.

You know, I wasn't quite sure what Paul had done, exactly. Yes: he had been open about his apostasy and rather free in his use of expletives, his mention of what he'd been drinking, his hangovers, etc., but did that really merit the degree of smearing that DCP has engaged in? I mean: Paul has been saying for some time now that he has "love" in his heart for Dan and other apologists---and heck, he even went down to that recent event in Dallas and shook DCP's hand! And this is the treatment he gets?

Scratch is right, and you should remember it, the apologists have a "take no prisoners" policy. If you are not finally with them, eventually they're going to try to bury your reputation, and yes that might eventually include someone contacting your bishop/stake president.

I think you may be right. I hope they don't stoop to this, but the risk is certainly there.