Could this happen? Airing of grievances & simple apologies?

[_Lemmie]

Wow, Dr. Peterson is insinuating that there was more to this than meets the eye:

First, Exiled takes Midgley and DCP to task for Midgley's really quite appalling gossiping about John Dehlin:

Dr. Peterson:

This type of gossipy rancor is why you lost out on Dr. Moore's challenge. I guess if it doesn't bother you, then let it be.

You don't actually know what happened between me and "Dr. Moore," Exiled.

So it would be prudent, in that light, to refrain from commenting or drawing conclusions.

Huh. So what is it that we don't know? My impression was that the whole thing was handled transparently: Dr. Moore made his offer; the Mopologists didn't hold up their end of the bargain; Dr. Moore canceled the deal and the apologists lost their shot at the $10,000, but Dr. Moore very generously offered to make a smaller donation nonetheless. What about that is inaccurate? What additional details are there that would merit his statement above?

That’s an exchange from the same post where moksha has commented:

−
Avatar
Moksha Louis Midgley • 12 hours ago • edited

Gossip sounds so pedestrian. Why not call it malicious hearsay?


−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Mod Moksha • 3 hours ago

Aren't you at least a little bit concerned by behavior on your home message board, Moksha?

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... art_seven/

Is Peterson equating Midgley’s posting to the horrors he assumes happen here?

In any case, Peterson’s comment about what transpired between him and Dr. Moore is indeed a little odd, as Doctor Scratch pointed out.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, at least he's dropped all pretense that he doesn't ban people or delete posts. So, that's progress in some sort of weird, dodgy way.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

Huh. So what is it that we don't know? My impression was that the whole thing was handled transparently: Dr. Moore made his offer; the Mopologists didn't hold up their end of the bargain; Dr. Moore canceled the deal and the apologists lost their shot at the $10,000, but Dr. Moore very generously offered to make a smaller donation nonetheless. What about that is inaccurate? What additional details are there that would merit his statement above?

That's about as precise and concise a summary as I could hope to muster. I would add that what Dan may be referring to, which no one but he and I knows, is that through the experience, Dan and I became congenially acquainted over private email conversations. For instance, recently we congratulated one another on making Doctor Scratch's top 10 list this year, and I wished him and his family happy holidays.

As to the reason for ultimately failing the $10k experiment, as I wrote before it was principally driven by my inability to draw clear pass/fail lines around the definition of "good faith" moderation efforts. Exiled is not wrong and in fact I would say he's spot on with his assessment -- it WAS the continuation of hostile messages by SeN regulars -- together with my failure to specify what constitutes good faith moderation thereof -- that prompted the referenced walk-away deal. We don't need to split hairs over that.

Dr. Midgley does post some nice things on good days. I'm sure that he is a wonderful person to his friends. But on his bad days, like we saw recently with his "miserable mission" post, there is simply no defense for allowing that on a moderated faith blog other than to humor a long time friend for whom the good outweighs the bad. In my words, attempting to read Dan's mind, let's not judge Dr. Midgley so harshly by looking only at his worst posts.

To that I say: let's shake on it, please go and do likewise with everyone on MDB.

I think it reasonable, for instance, to harshly judge what Dr. Midgley chooses to write, when it is inaccurate or inappropriate, without judging Dr. Midgley the person too harshly. Attack the argument without the ad hominem. Great idea. I'll try it out by editing my post from last night (already done) in which I had some unkind words directed at Dr. Midgley the person.

And I'd challenge Dr. Peterson to attempt the same charitable act with respect to regulars on MDB and occasional guests on his own board who honestly see the world differently. We all have good days and bad days. Personally I hold out hope for a Dr. Peterson - Doctor Scratch reconciliation dinner. If the two of them are ever inclined, I would be happy to help arrange a neutral location and lead up a small fund raiser to pay for the event.

M

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Midgley does post some nice things on good days. I'm sure that he is a wonderful person to his friends. But on his bad days, like we saw recently with his "miserable mission" post, there is simply no defense for allowing that on a moderated faith blog

What about this sentiment that he posted several times today to Dr. Shades, regarding Dr. Shades recently-admitted experience that brought him back to faith? Is this one of those "nice things"...or something else?

I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.

[_Philo Sofee]

Midgley wrote:
I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.

Why would Shades give a flying flip whether the mini Elohim can help him find the proper terminology to one of his beliefs? :rolleyes: