A New Book from the Maxwell Institute

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you really not know?

The leading candidate, of course, is your malignant and obsessively hostile imagination.

But I can't confirm it.

"Chef" is the wrong word, Dr. Peterson. A skilled maker of BBQ is called a "pit master," and I have no doubt that David is a top-notch BBQ cook.

I think I knew that. And he is.

I'm also unimpressed with your dancing around the real issues here, though I'm not surprised.

Impressing you is pretty low on my list of priorities.

You've raised no real issue. You've merely invented yet another silly bogey man. You're free to scare yourself with it, or whatever you prefer to do, but you have no claim on anything from me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm also unimpressed with your dancing around the real issues here, though I'm not surprised.

Impressing you is pretty low on my list of priorities.

You've raised no real issue. You've merely invented yet another silly bogey man. You're free to scare yourself with it, or whatever you prefer to do, but you have no claim on anything from me.

Do you not know how to read, Dan? It wasn't I who painted this picture of Welch. It was Will Bagley. You've now gone, what? four, five posts now without confronting this devastating picture that Bagley paints? Normally, you'd come right out and deny everything. You did this when I did those posts on the budget cuts to the MI. Funny that you're going with a different tactic in this instance.

[_Yoda]

No Bokovoy?

Of course not. Bokovoy is on their "watch carefully" list. He's basically on probation w/ the likes of Welch.

Where are you getting this from, and why would that be?

[_consiglieri]

In it, Will Bagley describes Welch as a "dark, menacing presence," and Bagley was left with the distinct impression that Welch is really calling the shots as far as apologetics are concerned---or, at least, Welch wields a stunning amount of power.

I feel I should weigh in on this discussion of Jack Welch. Though I haven't known him as long or as well as Dr. Peterson, my interactions with him have been on the other end of the spectrum from a "dark, menacing presence."

I am essentially a nobody to Professor Welch. I have never met him personally, never taken a class from him. I am not in academia.

But in spite of all this, Jack has been very kind and responsive to ideas I have shipped him by e-mail over the years. He tells me kindly, but straight up, when he thinks I have things wrong. And he is also excited when he thinks I may be onto something.

I have never detected an iota of self-aggrandizement in his attitude. And certainly nothing either dark or menacing in his presence.

Perhaps most significantly to me, Jack was open to a somewhat controversial piece I had submitted to BYU-Studies, and ended up shepherding it through a protracted and volatile three-year vetting process until it was finally published some years back.

Jack Welch is a kind and gentle man. I have nothing but good things to say about him.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where are you getting this from, and why would that be?

He's getting it from nowhere, as usual. Or, perhaps better expressed, he's getting it from his malignant imagination. He makes this stuff up.

Do you not know how to read, Dan?

Fi al-haqiqa, aqdir an aqra’a fi lughaat mukhtalifa.

It wasn't I who painted this picture of Welch. It was Will Bagley.

It was you who brought Bagley's comment here.

You've now gone, what? four, five posts now without confronting this devastating [LOL] picture that Bagley paints? Normally, you'd come right out and deny everything. You did this when I did those posts on the budget cuts to the MI. Funny that you're going with a different tactic in this instance.

Bagley's comment reflects his subjective reminiscence about the mood or atmosphere at a meeting quite a while ago that included Jack Welch, a person about whom he has often made extraordinarily harsh statements over the years and who represents a position that Bagley, not exactly known for his rhetorical moderation, despises on every level. There are few if any hard facts in your presentation of Bagley's depiction of the feeling at that meeting, except in the sense that we now have a few apparent facts about Bagley's memory and perception. And I can't think of a single issue of any substance, off hand, where Bagley and I have ever seen the world the same way.

By contrast, your "intel" on the alleged finances of the Maxwell Institute involved actual specific numbers and supposedly real actions in the empirical world of testable facts -- and your "intel" was completely, laughably, flatly, ridiculously wrong, both in detail and in the overall picture.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You've now gone, what? four, five posts now without confronting this devastating [LOL] picture that Bagley paints? Normally, you'd come right out and deny everything. You did this when I did those posts on the budget cuts to the MI. Funny that you're going with a different tactic in this instance.

Bagley's comment reflects his subjective reminiscence about the mood or atmosphere at a meeting quite a while ago that included Jack Welch, a person about whom he has often made extraordinarily harsh statements over the years and who represents a position that Bagley, not exactly known for his rhetorical moderation, despises on every level.

Wow, is this true? Surely you've got a link or some such that will substantiate what you're saying here. His position, in the podcast, was that Welch was "extremely belligerent." I've seen you make insinuations about Bagley in the past, but that's neither here nor there, given your penchant for making all sorts of vague and shadowy insinuations about all kinds of people.

There are few if any hard facts in your presentation of Bagley's depiction of the feeling at that meeting, except in the sense that we now have a few apparent facts about Bagley's memory and perception.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. Or, are you saying that Bagley's "perception" is somehow wrong in terms of the way he interpreted the JSFI people's treatment of Welch? Or are you saying that Welch, in fact, is not as powerful as he appeared to Bagley in the meeting?

By contrast, your "intel" on the alleged finances of the Maxwell Institute involved actual specific numbers and supposedly real actions in the empirical world of testable facts -- and your "intel" was completely, laughably, flatly, ridiculously wrong, both in detail and in the overall picture.

Was the 'intel' wrong? You've said in the past that it was. But you also said the 2nd Watson Letter was no big deal, and that you'd never been paid for apologetics, and so on and so forth. So I'm afraid that I can't take your word on this. You say this involves "testable facts," but none of those facts, as far as I can tell, has ever been presented.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wow, is this true? Surely you've got a link or some such that will substantiate what you're saying here.

Nope. I've got ears.

Bagley's propensity for extremely nasty comments about Mormon scholars and historians is notorious, and scarcely an invention of mine.

But if you don't wish to believe it, don't. I don't care what you think.

your penchant for making all sorts of vague and shadowy insinuations about all kinds of people.

ROTFL!

Do you write your own material?

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that.

So what?

Am I supposed to care?

Was the 'intel' wrong?

Yup.

You've said in the past that it was.

And for good reason.

But since you always assume, or pretend to assume, that I'm lying, there's really no point in discussing such things with you.

But you also said the 2nd Watson Letter was no big deal

I never said that. I think it's important.

and that you'd never been paid for apologetics

I said that no portion of my salary comes from apologetics. As is your wont, you're distorting what I've said. (I've called you on this before, and you continue to do it.)

I readily acknowledge that I once (to my surprise, at the time), received fifty or a hundred dollars for an apologetics-related Ensign article, and, over the past couple of decades, have been paid a couple of article-honoraria in the same range for things that I would consider apologetic.

So I'm afraid that I can't take your word on this.

LOL. That's a shocker!

You say this involves "testable facts," but none of those facts, as far as I can tell, has ever been presented.

And, as you well know, given BYU and Church policy, they won't be. So you regard yourself as possessed of a carte blanche to continue peddling your inventions.

I understand.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, is this true? Surely you've got a link or some such that will substantiate what you're saying here.

Nope. I've got ears.

Bagley's propensity for extremely nasty comments about Mormon scholars and historians is notorious, and scarcely an invention of mine.

But if you don't wish to believe it, don't. I don't care what you think.

You care enough to keep posting on this thread. And for what it's worth, you're not the only person who has said that Bagley has a temper. Based on his podcast interview, however, I was left with the impression that he's quite balanced in his assessment of Mormon historians and scholars. He may have a temper, but it's not without justification. Besides, I don't see how that has any real bearing on the way he described the meeting with the JFSI people and Welch. (And why was Welch even there, if he didn't hold a position w/ the Institute? That's extraordinarily strange, in my opinion.) The critical detail, in my view, is the deference--if not outright cowering obeisance--that was paid to Welch.

your penchant for making all sorts of vague and shadowy insinuations about all kinds of people.

ROTFL!

Do you write your own material?

I don't have to. All I have to do is reference your various comments about Ritner, Quinn, Eric, etc., etc., etc.

You say this involves "testable facts," but none of those facts, as far as I can tell, has ever been presented.

And, as you well know, given BYU and Church policy, they won't be. So you regard yourself as possessed of a carte blanche to continue peddling your inventions.

I understand.

I didn't "invent" anything, Dan. It's what I was told. You say it's wrong, but won't put up any "testable facts." I say I'm not sure, but this is what I was told, and that I think in makes sense in light of your reaction to the "intel." And that's that.

[_Buffalo]

Are these those same people who are persecuting our beloved brother Will? Why would I want anything to do with them?

Indeed, I'm withdrawing my patronage of the MI until they apologize to William and make good on their promises to publish his articles.

ATTICA!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You care enough to keep posting on this thread.

I'm avoiding more important but more difficult things.

he's quite balanced in his assessment of Mormon historians and scholars.

Sure he is.

The critical detail, in my view, is the deference--if not outright cowering obeisance--that was paid to Welch.

It's required that we all salaam to him prior to, during, and after every meeting.

And, unlike me, you've provided actual photographic evidence of that somewhere, I assume? Not just your selection of reminiscences from Will Bagley of a meeting several years ago?

All I have to do is reference your various comments about Ritner, Quinn, Eric, etc., etc., etc.

Your twisted, malevolent spin on those comments, in most cases.

I didn't "invent" anything, Dan. It's what I was told.

Then, if that's true, you were played for a credulous, over-eager fool.

You say it's wrong, but won't put up any "testable facts."

You know full well that I don't post Maxwell Institute budget figures because it would be a gross violation of BYU policy were I to do so. (I wouldn't do it anyway just to satisfy your prurient curiosity, of course, but that's another matter, and, given the actual situation, a purely theoretical one.)