Guilt by Kinship?

[_MsJack]

Hmm, leave the forums alone for a week and look at all the (not) fun I've missed.

I've long felt that the relatives of people caught in ugly disputes or religious/political wars should not be dragged into the crossfire. For example, in politics, I didn't like all of the "Chelsea Clinton is ugly" jokes that were circulating when she was an adolescent growing up in the White House. I thought it was a low blow when John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney (Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter) during the 2004 Vice Presidential debates, and I vehemently disliked the "Obama isn't taking care of his half-brother living in a hovel in Africa" attacks that we saw during the 2008 elections. Things get ugly fast when family is dragged into it, and it's almost always extremely hurtful to the subjects of the attacks. My feelings are, if there is not a really good reason to bring them up, then yes, family should be off limits.

Yes, nepotism is a fair topic for the board, but I thought that the evidence of nepotism in this case was extremely weak and the allegation itself underwhelming. Even if Jeffrey Peterson's writing is the worst the world has ever seen (it isn't), even if his articles had been completely inferior to what normally comes out of The Deseret News (they weren't) so that Dan had to pull some strings to get him the gigs in question, the idea that a few freelance articles is the best "nepotism" the mighty "Mopologetic Kingpin" Dan Peterson can muster is just laughable. If this is nepotism, frankly, Dan isn't very good at it.

I read the initial thread in question and thought, "This is probably just an ordinary young man trying to make his place in the world, and I don't think he deserves our criticism and ridicule just because of who his father is." I stand by my opinion that the thread had more to do with who Dan Peterson is and his history with Eric than anything Jeffrey Peterson did.

Last but not least, you didn't answer my request for clarification, Dan, so I'll just have to stick with my assumption that your midnight "and then there were three" barb was directed at me. I find it bizarre that you think people have to have "notable literary achievements" on their résumés before they can offer opinions on the quality of the writing they find in everyday reading material like newspapers. I guess you'd better list for us your son's notable film-making achievements ASAP so that we can be sure he was qualified to give an opinion on the merits of Yogi Bear.

In any case, congratulations to your son on his impending nuptials. Now that is a reason to celebrate.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It continues to be claimed, down in the "Terrestrial Forum," that I was "promoting" my son's first newspaper movie review on the Internet, and that I thus effectively invited my critics to denigrate him here. It has now even been asserted that I proclaimed that review "a specimen of genius."

I continue to be curious as to where I did this.

[_harmony]

I continue to be curious as to where I did this.

Kolob Central?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know whether or not Dr. Peterson trumpeted his son's articles on the Internet, or whether the "invitation" to write the pieces was the result of "nepotism," as some have suggested. I do think it's rather strange that an undergraduate was "invited" to do the work, however. Then again, as I recall, DCP is personal friends with the people who own the Des. News. So who knows?

[_Joseph]

Peterson, it is understandable for anyone to mention their kids to those who can help them. It is only natural to help and hope they will do well and try to give them a leg up.

Guilt by kinship? Yes, the same in both positive and negative light. Your stands and insults are sticking with you for both the positive and negative and your posting your son has this reviewing gig in the church paper puts him squarely in the crosshairs of many of us.

It doesn't really matter if he got the job from your mention. It is your mention of it here that sets some off, wrongly for the most part and I am guilty as anyone on that. It is your attitude that rankles many.

As far as guilt by kinship goes, Brigham Young condemned many to the third and fourth generations, didn't he? What was the guilt of the grandchildren in shooting the sexual predator joseph smith? You and your kid have it easy compared to these people.

[_Daniel Peterson]

your posting your son has this reviewing gig in the church paper puts him squarely in the crosshairs of many of us

Can you provide a link (or links) to the place(s) where I did this?

It is your mention of it here that sets some off

I didn't mention it here. Somebody else mentioned it -- even started a thread about it -- here.

Can you provide a link (or links) to the place(s) on the Internet where I boasted about my son's film review and promoted it?

[_Doctor Scratch]

your posting your son has this reviewing gig in the church paper puts him squarely in the crosshairs of many of us

Can you provide a link to the place(s) where I did this?

I think the larger question is this: Why didn't you do something to protect him from the attacks? E.g., why didn't you encourage him to use a pseudonym? (Or did you?) It seems like you're well aware of the fact that your 30+ year career as a Mopologist is now going to result in repercussions for your son...and yet you've done nothing to try and assuage the situation? At best, all you've done is try to build some case around some potentially phantom "links." Pretty weak, in my opinion. Your behavior vis-a-vis this situation is just baffling.

[_Joseph]

Daniel, without re-reading the whole batch of postings I can't find it. I may be incorrect and it was someone else who brought out that it was your son. He is your son, isn't he, or is that information incorrect also?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Can you provide a link (or links) to the place(s) on the Internet where I boasted about my son's film review and promoted it?

It seems as if you did it at some point on Facebook. If you type into a Google search, "peterson deseret "specimen of genius"" you get a hit that contains the following text:

I might as well call the following specimen of genius to your attention, as well. 'Yogi Bear' lacks the charm of the original cartoon | Deseret News ...

It looks like this was cached at some point, though the link doesn't take you to the actual text. So, what I've quoted there appears to be gone from the Des. News Facebook page. (Maybe someone else can find it in context.)

But as I've said, I don't think that's the core issue here. The boy is your son, Dan, and you're friends with the Cannon family. And you've been attacking, harassing, and smearing people for something like 30 years. I personally have no interest in either reading or criticizing your boy's work. I feel bad for him, actually. If I were him, I don't think I'd ever forgive you for saddling me with such a burdensome reputation. This poor kid, if he continues on this path, is going to forever have to deal with crap from people all on account of his father's behavior.

That's just so depressing.....

[_Daniel Peterson]

My son needn't hide nor be ashamed of his name.

(Your valiant and continuous attempts notwithstanding, my name hasn't been rendered toxic.)

Nor can I protect him against attacks. As you well know, the Internet makes it especially easy for anonymous people to launch baseless assaults against others.

But I didn't set him up for attacks, either.

And I agree that it's possible that the "links" are phantoms. Which, if so, would explain why the person who claims to have them has been so markedly unwilling to provide them.