While I doubt very much that Dr. Peterson's current
difficulties have anything to do with national politics,
I also suppose that there will soon develop a significant
convergence of interests -- in Salt Lake City, and down at the Y.

Whether or not Romney is successful in his campaign,
there are voices within the Church saying "Now is our
time -- to be seen (and to operate) internationally as
something more than an obscure cultish sect."

The natural opponents of the more traditionalist MI
figures will generally also be the natural proponents of
a more modern, less problematic LDS Church's public image.

If progress stalls and sputters out, maybe we won't
see much on the surface -- from our outsiders' vantage
point -- but below the visible surface, currents are
swirling, and they are saying "Now is our time!"

UD

Now that is scary. I had better get back to work.

Kish is not to blame one whit for Dan's recent demise. Dan's own (and by his choice) public missteps are to blame. The Brethren have made the conscious decision that members who defend the Church do so in a civil manner, particularly online, and Dan simply chose not to go along. Thus, "hit pieces" in the Review were no longer wanted. I sincerely doubt that Bradford made the decision to remove Dan without approval from higher up (I'm guessing GA-level), so blame them, not Kish.

Hey, Rollo-

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf here.

I have no delusions of grandeur regarding this situation. I can take no credit nor blame for these developments, and I am sublimely happy about that one fact. Like you, I take no pleasure in Dr. Peterson's suffering, and I would be very surprised and disappointed if he did not rebound from this situation.

Unfortunately, what this reflects is internal distrust of the people who made these decisions. Rather than criticize those people openly, which would be risky, they unleash on me as a convenient target with no institutional cover. Of course, it could also be that Bot, like the author of that angry email, just wants me to take stock of myself.

I do. And believe me, I do not see a perfect person here. I never did, but it is sobering to be reminded of that imperfection by gentlemen who are experts in making the most of it.

This is a typical response to anyone perceived a "critic" of the Church. Joseph Smith perfected this tactic into an art form, and modern-day apologists follow his lead.


Bot cares nothing for you, me, or anyone else on this bb. He only cares about himself and feeding his ego by using his (perceived) legal wiles to attack anyone he sees as a "critic." Ignore him and his obsession with online anonymity.


They're just bullies who are not worth a bucket of s[p]it. Simply writing here what you believe to be true, regardless of whether others agree, deflates any control or influence these bullies think they have over us.

If I were trying to figure out where a leak was in my organization and if I could limit my suspicions to a few people, I might be tempted to send out 18 or so bogus emails that appeared the same but had small differences, so that when one showed up in public I could tell who started the leak.

Just a thought.

Point taken. Regardless of his motivations, I am sure he wants me to feel badly.



In this activity, I think there is bullying. I have written what I think is true, and neither "side" has been perfectly happy with it--something that suggests to me the value in at least some of it. It never ceases to amaze me how this message board run by a few private individuals with normal day jobs is spuriously, but reflexively, equated with a multi-billion-dollar corporation that solicits big money from the wealthy members to crush all criticism of the LDS Church and its apologists.

Silly me, what am I saying?

And now, pursuant to my original goals, this whole DCP thread is about me.

You mean, thanks to your persistent obsessions and fantasies, you believe it is all about you.

It shouldn't be, of course, but you go out of your way to be such a dick that a thread often becomes about you. Cease with your standard attack on the messenger (and his/her anonymity) and just respond to the substance of the thread, and we can have an intelligent conversation. Isn't that the whole point of a "discussion board"?

There simply is no courage in anonymity, especially when you're trashing the professional reputation of a real person. I'm not being a bully by simply pointing that out, nor do I think I can legitimately bully an anonymous poster.

I would call the email that was sent to me a form of bullying. It contained suggestions about contacting my bosses. Rollo is right on the money on that account.

Well, I didn't do that and have never done anything like that, no matter what the bozos on this board have said about me. (For those who said I have, post the proof.)

But, as I pointed out to The Dude a little while back, I question internet addiction and what it drives respectable people like you to do on the public dime. He took that as a threat; I just point it out.

Sigh ... it's not an issue of "courage" -- it's simply an issue of prudence and common sense when it comes to cyberspace.


No one has "trashed" DCP's professional reputation -- he's done that all by himself.

Well, your observation on that has all the validity of the accusations against Peterson for posting in these fora. Unlike you, I don't do billable hours. If you understood academics as well as you love to bluster about it, you wouldn't say stupid things like that.

But no, you did not send the email.

Is that even possible? How could he cc different emails?

I don't know how you would do it with 'cc' but here is how it might be done.

He could send them separately. (For example he could just send it to a particular person with a note saying something to the effect that he had meant to include that person in the initial email) or he could blind copy someone who would not know they were really the only person copied. If Bradford were not part of the set up, he could just mistype Bradford's email address and bc only one person correctly, then rinse repeat for the others with slightly different versions. The fact that people know he sent it to 18 others makes this a bit more problematic. If one was willing to mistype, slightly, each email address, other than the intended recipient, it could be done.
There are probably more tech savy ways to do it.

Any confirmation yet that these emails are real?

Any confirmation yet that the truth claims of the LDS Church are real?

You know, given your sudden keen interest in critical thinking.

If I choose not to be anonymous, I have no choice but to reveal my identity. So your comment is nonsensical.