I'm willing to say that this information--if correct--is coming from a network of sources. It's not just one person.
Incidentally, I see that Dr. Peterson has rather predictably surfaced to kick up smoke and dust:
I suppose that I ought to deny the latest hallucinatory fiction emanating from [Dr. Scratch].
Why? If it is so demonstrably false, then why bother replying at all? I would guess that nearly two dozen people have advised you to simply ignore this material. So why don't you? Merely for the sake of "revenge"?
There is either a tag team that's playing [Dr. Scratch] for a fool, or he's lying, or he's nuts. If there's a fourth potential explanation for this idiocy, I hope somebody will share it with me.
Sure, I'll share it with you: it's that Karma has at last come around for the apologists. You know as well as I do that you and your pals have created a ton of enemies over the years, both in and out of the Church. My question for you is this: if I am be "played for a fool" (which I readily admit is a possibility), what would be the point of it? What would be the payoff? Merely that I received information and passed it along? This is supposed to embarrass me somehow? I'm genuinely curious to know what you think the "payoff" would be for someone who is making all this up. Maybe they think it's amusing that you and all the others at MAD will so predictably flip out?
The fact is that you and the apologists at MAD have been thrown far more out of whack that I have (or will, if you ever provide clear evidence that this "intel" is false). Your and Scott Gordon's obfuscation in the wake of his meeting with Elder Oaks serves, imo, as pretty clear evidence that the "intel" is far more problematic for you and your "team" than it ever will be for me. I continue to regard the "intel" with skepticism, but watching the reactions of you, Scott Lloyd, Scott Gordon, WonkaOnaPlate, and others makes me think that there is some truth to it.
Utterly false. The budget figure is ridiculous, and no budget proposal was rejected, "summarily" or otherwise.
As I've said, my "source" believes you are lying. I was told that you guys were trying to establish an endowment or something of that nature. (Though I personally wondered if this alleged large request had something to do with the Middle East project you've mentioned in the past.)
Laughably, grotesquely inaccurate.
That remains to be seen. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think that the MI has a budget of 20 million. You guys had a budget of almost 10 million back in the mid 1990s when you were just FARMS. It makes perfect sense that the budget would have grown since that time. You guys are doing a lot more things now---including financing fancy documentaries about Christ.
Completely false. And, again, hilariously so.
Actually, this particular bit of intel arose precisely because one of my "sources" found it funny that the apologists were being "kicked to the soup line." So, yes: at least one person finds it "hilarious."
No such question has ever been posed to me.
In any case, though, I'm happy to answer it: No Maxwell Institute policy obliged me to lie about such a donation, or about any other donation. I didn't lie about such a donation. There has been no such donation.
This is all absolutely bogus.
The Maxwell Institute has in place a policy which ensures that donations will be kept strictly confidential. This *was* brought to your attention, Dr. Peterson. The assumption was that, if the Cannons had made a large donation, you would, per policy, be required to lie about it---or to find some way of keeping it quiet.
Since we've always been obliged to raise a substantial portion of our annual operating expenses through fundraising, we will continue to attempt to raise funds as we always have. Which will allow my Malevolent Stalker, if he's still blathering about these fantasies of his two long years from now, to pretend that his claims have been proven true. Or, at least, that they haven't been proven false.
I'm glad you brought this up. See: my impression all along has been that you guys *do* get a lot of your money via fundraising, but that this money has to be approved by the powers-that-be at BYU. So, when my "source" claimed that your request for the 37 million was denied, I assumed that one possibility is that you had found this money in the form of a large donation, but the moneychangers at BYU, per the "Packer Factino," refused to sign off on it.
If his "informants" have any real existence outside of the Stalker's neural network, they seem to have perfected the art of what anglers call "baiting the hook." And the Stalker has swallowed it whole -- hook, line, and sinker.
That's not true. I've treated this material with skepticism from the outset. It may very well turn out that all of this "intel" is false. But you yourself are unwilling to post any definitive evidence demonstrating such.
What I don't understand, Dr. Peterson, is why you would think your silly "Maxwell Institute Death Watch" threads are in any way a contradiction of this "intel." It seems to me that you'd be better off posting a list of the MI's proposed projects for the next three years. But we both know that you won't do that. And we both know why.