Daniel C. Peterson: well-respected scholar? or not?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.

Not only is that not the case, I fail to see how you can plausibly claim to believe that it is so. I am here in the same user name as I usually use. How does that "avoid being made accountable?"

Mister Scratch wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!

Mister Scratch wrote:I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?

Mister Scratch wrote:You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.

Mister Scratch wrote:Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.

Mister Scratch wrote:
2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.

I've already done so. How many times do I have to post the same supporting data before you realise you cannot claim not to have seen it?

Here it is again:

On your obsessive hate blog, your "dossier" on me includes the following lie:

Ironically, Pahoran himself has reportedly engaged in what can only be described as a form on online minstrelsy, when he posed, via a sockpuppet, as a Maori woman named Kemara.

I posted a reply in the which I pointed out that I am not Kemara, and added:

I also think you will find Kemara is male.

In response, you smarmily sneered:

Finally, I have little doubt that "Kemara" is actually male, but thank you very much for clearing that up for us!

In other words, reiterating your baseless accusation that I am Kemara.

However, on the FAIRBoards, in the thread "Are you more than 'just a Utah Mormon?'" Kemara, on Apr 11 2006 at 12:04 pm wrote:

Sure do, I have got myself, my wife and my children - all Maori.

Thus, not only is the claim that I am Kemara false, but the claim that Kemara claims to be a woman is proven to be false.

Scratchy, you should probably check your sources before trusting them with idiotic rumours. No-one with an IQ above room temperature actually believes I am Kemara, and only the most brazen liars claim that I am.

Now, thank me for helping you get your blog right.

And so much for the reliability of your "sources."

Mister Scratch wrote:
3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.

Just as nobody was ever "up for four hours in an interrogation on account of" the SCMC. That is a consciously counterfactual spin.

Mister Scratch wrote:Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?

I am perfectly happy with the Church's justification for what the committee actually does.

Mister Scratch wrote:
But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, imo.

Great. In this instance, the joke is on you.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.

No.

Yes.

Mister Scratch wrote:It also conducts surveillance of speeches,

"Surveillance?" Pure rubbish. You should keep the black helicopter slides yourself, along with your foil helmet.

Mister Scratch wrote:and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet.

Just like all of the SCMC's material has been drawn from publicly available sources. Your distinction is...?

Mister Scratch wrote:Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.

But then, you have always been immensely proud of your double standards, haven't you?

Mister Scratch wrote:
4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?

I wasn't there; no doubt because of the number of issues discussed. Dan's report--which is your only source for this story anyway--concluded with:

Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

Since he didn't think he'd been "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation," your claim that he was is a pure fabrication in the finest anti-Mormon tradition.

Mister Scratch wrote:Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).

Not really. It was purely a casual off-board discussion with a friend, who happens to be a lawyer about another subject; some time before your obsessive hate blog had come into being, in fact. It just so happens that his expert advice pertained to your blog, not that it was about it.

Mister Scratch wrote:
But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.

Take a pat on the back then. You are a skilful manipulator who got what you wanted.

Mister Scratch wrote:So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it.

So, once again, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon arrogance, you decree that you will flout the rules of engagement based upon your own personal warmth of feeling.

I understand completely.

Mister Scratch wrote:Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.

No, you ought to keep it private because that is the understanding upon which PM's--i.e. Private Messages--are sent.

You refuse to agree to behave like a civilised person, so no, I won't be sending it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.

Not only is that not the case, I fail to see how you can plausibly claim to believe that it is so. I am here in the same user name as I usually use. How does that "avoid being made accountable?"

Mister Scratch wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.

What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.

I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.

Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.

But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Mister Scratch wrote:
I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?


The Dude, among others. Also, it's worth pointing out that most of the posters here who were canned from FAIR were not permitted to "confront their accusers." How's that for a double standard?

Mister Scratch wrote:
You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.


I don't consider you to be a reliable source on this. Sorry.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.


Actually, unless I'm mistaken, you got caught in a lie some time ago that involved, I believe, the BYU basketball team.

Mister Scratch wrote:
2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.

Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.

I've already done so. How many times do I have to post the same supporting data before you realise you cannot claim not to have seen it?

Here it is again:

On your obsessive hate blog, your "dossier" on me includes the following lie:

Ironically, Pahoran himself has reportedly engaged in what can only be described as a form on online minstrelsy, when he posed, via a sockpuppet, as a Maori woman named Kemara.

I posted a reply in the which I pointed out that I am not Kemara, and added:

I also think you will find Kemara is male.

In response, you smarmily sneered:

Finally, I have little doubt that "Kemara" is actually male, but thank you very much for clearing that up for us!

In other words, reiterating your baseless accusation that I am Kemara.

However, on the FAIRBoards, in the thread "Are you more than 'just a Utah Mormon?'" Kemara, on Apr 11 2006 at 12:04 pm wrote:

Sure do, I have got myself, my wife and my children - all Maori.

Thus, not only is the claim that I am Kemara false, but the claim that Kemara claims to be a woman is proven to be false.


Okay, no problem---I will remove the bit about Kemara being female.

Now, thank me for helping you get your blog right.

And so much for the reliability of your "sources."


Thanks, and I work with what I've got.

Mister Scratch wrote:
3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.

Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.

I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.

The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.

Just as nobody was ever "up for four hours in an interrogation on account of" the SCMC. That is a consciously counterfactual spin.


The person in DCP's anecdote was in the meeting for four hours. Also, Quinn reports of a non-Mormon female who was detained by the SCMC for several hours, too.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?

I am perfectly happy with the Church's justification for what the committee actually does.


Okay.... (???)

Mister Scratch wrote:
But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.

And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.

I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, imo.

Great. In this instance, the joke is on you.


And what's the punchline?

Mister Scratch wrote:
Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.

No.

Yes.


No, it manifestly does not "merely" collect clippings. It does other things, too.

Mister Scratch wrote:
It also conducts surveillance of speeches,

"Surveillance?" Pure rubbish. You should keep the black helicopter slides yourself, along with your foil helmet.


Gee, is Wade's problem spreading? I said "side."

Mister Scratch wrote:
and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.


Not just published, but spoken, too. There's good reason to believe that the SCMC maintains files on BYU students---i.e., material gathered by BYU's spying rings.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.

Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet.

Just like all of the SCMC's material has been drawn from publicly available sources. Your distinction is...?


I don't think this is the case. And what do you mean by "publicly available"? Your IRL name is "publically available," but you don't exactly want it going on my blog, now do you? Likewise, do you really think that innocent members want the SCMC creating files on them? (And in secret, no less. At least you can view my blog.)

Mister Scratch wrote:
Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.


Well, I definitely think it has the power to do that. I think the two stories---DCP's acquaintance and the women discussed by Quinn---are perfect examples.

But then, you have always been immensely proud of your double standards, haven't you?


What, you mean like calling yourself "FAIR" and then giving special priveleges to certain posters?

Mister Scratch wrote:
4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.

It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?

I wasn't there; no doubt because of the number of issues discussed. Dan's report--which is your only source for this story anyway--concluded with:

Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

Since he didn't think he'd been "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation," your claim that he was is a pure fabrication in the finest anti-Mormon tradition.


What you've cited proves nothing, especially nothing vis-à-vis the SCMC. All this demonstrates is that the man thought DCP was a nice guy. That there was a certain degree of subterfuge going on (i.e., DCP was acting like a sort of "secret agent", operating for the same agence that the man had issues with) certainly doesn't help to efface the label of "Orwellian."

Mister Scratch wrote:
Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).

Not really. It was purely a casual off-board discussion with a friend, who happens to be a lawyer about another subject; some time before your obsessive hate blog had come into being, in fact. It just so happens that his expert advice pertained to your blog, not that it was about it.


Well, Pahoran, I'm glad to know that you hadn't planned to sue me.

Mister Scratch wrote:
But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.

Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.

Take a pat on the back then. You are a skilful manipulator who got what you wanted.


And so what is it that you want?

Mister Scratch wrote:
So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.


I never asked you anything. You and smac and your pals at ZLMB were the ones who started complaining in the first place. And I have made multiple revisions to your dossier, such as the removal of the word "homophobe."

Mister Scratch wrote:
Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.

Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?

Regards,
Pahoran

Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it.

So, once again, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon arrogance, you decree that you will flout the rules of engagement based upon your own personal warmth of feeling.

I understand completely.


What rules? And who put you in charge?

Mister Scratch wrote:
Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.

No, you ought to keep it private because that is the understanding upon which PM's--i.e. Private Messages--are sent.

You refuse to agree to behave like a civilised person, so no, I won't be sending it.

Regards,
Pahoran
[/quote]

Is it worth pointing out that the FAIRmods read people's "Private Messages"? Since you are obviously a self-appointed defender of FAIR, you ought to be aware that "Private Messages" aren't really "private" on your home turf.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.


Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

harmony wrote:
Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.


Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).


In other words, Big Brother is watching. That should shift the conspiracy theories into high gear--that is, were there some semblance of consistency among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

wenglund wrote:
harmony wrote:
Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.


Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).


In other words, Big Brother is watching. That should shift the conspiracy theories into high gear--that is, were there some semblance of consistency among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


If Kemara posted here, and the IP matched Pahoran, that would irreparably harm Pahoran's denial, so no way is Kemara ever going to post here. And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother. At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

Not to further de-rail this already derailed thread, but just for the record....having different IP addresses does not rule out the possibility of two sign-ons being the same person.

This is just a little "Computer 101".

It is possible to access the same site on the same computer with two different IP addresses. It's called IP tunneling.

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

harmony wrote: And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother.


You said it.

At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.


Oh, you suppose his hiding behind a single blind screen makes all the difference to the conspiracy theorists? NOT!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

wenglund wrote:
harmony wrote: And this is Shades' site, so he's Big Brother.


You said it.


Of course I said it. Anyone who is here posts because Shades' gives them permission. He owns the site, both literally and figuretively.

At least he doesn't hide behind a double blind screen.


Oh, you suppose his hiding behind a single blind screen makes all the difference to the conspiracy theorists? NOT!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
[/quote]

Of course not. That does not change his status though. Those who live in fear (folks like DCP, Hamblin, Juliann, etc) are only cutting off their noses in spite of themselves, since everyone else is participating with enthusiasm here.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Scratch,

just a couple of comments, since I am obviously never going to wean you away from your paranoid delusions about the SCMC.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Yeah, like you'd believe either of them. You would, of course, simply accuse them of lying.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?


The Dude, among others.

Oh, well. Need I say more?

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.

I don't consider you to be a reliable source on this. Sorry.

That's all right; no need to apologise. Habitual liars invariably expect others to habitually lie.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, you got caught in a lie some time ago that involved, I believe, the BYU basketball team.

I think you're mistaken. But only because I can't for the life of me imagine why you would make that up.

You see, not only have I never told such a falsehood, I have no recollection of ever posting anything about the BYU basketball team. I have practically no knowledge of them so as to post anything about them anyway. But just in case you had made an honest mistake, I did a search to see what if anything I might have said about them that someone might possibly have misunderstood. I got one (1) hit in which I actually said anything at all about basketball. Here it is:

Basketball's okay. If you like to watch ten tall millionaires in their underwear jumping up and down regularly every 55 seconds.

There it is; my one and only basketball statement. Where's the lie?

Okay, no problem---I will remove the bit about Kemara being female.

Good.

And let us take a moment to reflect that the same highly reliable sources who think Kemara is female also think he's me.

Mister Scratch wrote:
and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.

Not just published, but spoken, too. There's good reason to believe that the SCMC maintains files on BYU students---i.e., material gathered by BYU's spying rings.

Your delusions are becoming increasingly entertaining. Wilkinson has been dead for some considerable time.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.

Well, I definitely think it has the power to do that. I think the two stories---DCP's acquaintance and the women discussed by Quinn---are perfect examples.

You're right: the way you manipulate these tales are indeed perfect examples of your technique.

What you've cited proves nothing, especially nothing vis-à-vis the SCMC. All this demonstrates is that the man thought DCP was a nice guy. That there was a certain degree of subterfuge going on (i.e., DCP was acting like a sort of "secret agent", operating for the same agence that the man had issues with) certainly doesn't help to efface the label of "Orwellian."

The only "subterfuge" consisted in not using a phrase that had gained a lot of unfair negative associations, by dint of the same kind of dishonest propaganda you are here propagating.

Since Professor Peterson was not actually employed by the SCMC in any capacity, that doesn't seem very much like "subterfuge" to me. It isn't as if he--just for instance--falsely pretended to be sympathetic with the person's views so as to blindside him, like certain parties habitually did on the FAIRBoards.

Mister Scratch wrote:
So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.

I never asked you anything.

Do I have to dredge up all the quotes where you keep saying things like "tell me what's wrong with my blog and I'll fix it?"

Yes, you asked.

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, IIRC). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Runtu wrote:I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, IIRC). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.

Nor do I see any problem with it.

The Church--in fact any church, because that's what "church" means whenever it isn't talking about a building--is a community of shared belief. To what extent should people be permitted to not share that belief and still demand to be included? Since when did "freedom of association" only go one way? Must those who actively oppose the Church and its mission be "free" to "associate" with us whether we want them or not, thus depriving us of the freedom to associate with believing Latter-day Saints in preference to them?

Why is it "orwellian" to expose the deceptions of those two-faced individuals who pose as believers, but oppose the Church behind our backs?

I find that in every regard a righteous work.

Regards,
Pahoran

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

Pahoran wrote:Nor do I see any problem with it.

The Church--in fact any church, because that's what "church" means whenever it isn't talking about a building--is a community of shared belief. To what extent should people be permitted to not share that belief and still demand to be included? Since when did "freedom of association" only go one way? Must those who actively oppose the Church and its mission be "free" to "associate" with us whether we want them or not, thus depriving us of the freedom to associate with believing Latter-day Saints in preference to them?

Why is it "orwellian" to expose the deceptions of those two-faced individuals who pose as believers, but oppose the Church behind our backs?

I find that in every regard a righteous work.

Regards,
Pahoran

Regards,
Pahoran


There's the rub, Pahoran. I don't think it's that black and white. Where do you draw the line between those who have a disagreement with the church but still believe and those who are, as you put it, two-faced poseurs? Are you suspect if you don't subscribe to every last detail that comes out of Salt Lake? Can you be a believer and think the Book of Mormon is fictional? How do you determine who stays and who goes?

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Runtu wrote:There's the rub, Pahoran. I don't think it's that black and white. Where do you draw the line between those who have a disagreement with the church but still believe and those who are, as you put it, two-faced poseurs? Are you suspect if you don't subscribe to every last detail that comes out of Salt Lake? Can you be a believer and think the Book of Mormon is fictional? How do you determine who stays and who goes?

Fortunately (and I know you'll agree, but probably for different reasons) it's not my responsibility to make that decision. Neither is it the responsibility of the SCMC. But there are those whose responsibility it is, and I support them having as much relevant data as possible with which to make that decision.

Including, but not limited to, those things that some would rather conceal from them.

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by wenglund »

Runtu wrote:I know a little about the SCMC, so I'll add my two cents. I met the head of the SCMC and several employees several years ago (at that time it was Bill Nelson, IIRC). Anyway, I was told when I was down there that the SCMC was indeed a clipping service and information gathering service. And I was told that the information gathered was passed on to the various church departments for further action.

I'm not sure how paranoid we should be about this, but it's not some benign organization that gathers information and files it away. The information is used for various purposes, and it seems clear that one of those purposes in the past has been church discipline. I'm not sure why this is so shocking. It just is.


I am not sure there is any cause to be "paranoid" except to the extent that one may fear being rightly held accountable and responsible for one's public actions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:Scratch,

just a couple of comments, since I am obviously never going to wean you away from your paranoid delusions about the SCMC.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:

1) I am not Kemara.

I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.

Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?

Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.

Yeah, like you'd believe either of them. You would, of course, simply accuse them of lying.


I've named my terms. If you want to "test" my ability to keep my word a second time, go ahead.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.

Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?


The Dude, among others.

Oh, well. Need I say more?


Knock yourself out.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:You're the only one claiming otherwise.

I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.

I don't consider you to be a reliable source on this. Sorry.

That's all right; no need to apologise. Habitual liars invariably expect others to habitually lie.


So... I guess that explains why you think I'm a liar?

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.

Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, you got caught in a lie some time ago that involved, I believe, the BYU basketball team.

I think you're mistaken. But only because I can't for the life of me imagine why you would make that up.

You see, not only have I never told such a falsehood, I have no recollection of ever posting anything about the BYU basketball team. I have practically no knowledge of them so as to post anything about them anyway. But just in case you had made an honest mistake, I did a search to see what if anything I might have said about them that someone might possibly have misunderstood. I got one (1) hit in which I actually said anything at all about basketball. Here it is:

Basketball's okay. If you like to watch ten tall millionaires in their underwear jumping up and down regularly every 55 seconds.

There it is; my one and only basketball statement. Where's the lie?


Again, my memory on this matter is somewhat fuzzy. I will have to confer with my sources.

Okay, no problem---I will remove the bit about Kemara being female.

Good.

And let us take a moment to reflect that the same highly reliable sources who think Kemara is female also think he's me.


Sure, no problem.

Mister Scratch wrote:
and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.

Consisting of what, precisely?

Clippings of what people have published. That's what.

Not just published, but spoken, too. There's good reason to believe that the SCMC maintains files on BYU students---i.e., material gathered by BYU's spying rings.

Your delusions are becoming increasingly entertaining. Wilkinson has been dead for some considerable time.


No, the chain of command at the SCMC clearly flows downward from the ETB/Wilkinson era.

And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.

Well, I definitely think it has the power to do that. I think the two stories---DCP's acquaintance and the women discussed by Quinn---are perfect examples.

You're right: the way you manipulate these tales are indeed perfect examples of your technique.


Not sure what you're referring to here.

What you've cited proves nothing, especially nothing vis-à-vis the SCMC. All this demonstrates is that the man thought DCP was a nice guy. That there was a certain degree of subterfuge going on (i.e., DCP was acting like a sort of "secret agent", operating for the same agence that the man had issues with) certainly doesn't help to efface the label of "Orwellian."

The only "subterfuge" consisted in not using a phrase that had gained a lot of unfair negative associations, by dint of the same kind of dishonest propaganda you are here propagating.

Since Professor Peterson was not actually employed by the SCMC in any capacity, that doesn't seem very much like "subterfuge" to me. It isn't as if he--just for instance--falsely pretended to be sympathetic with the person's views so as to blindside him, like certain parties habitually did on the FAIRBoards.


I think that folks can read for themselves and decide whether or not what he was doing was fully honest, and in whose best interests he was operating.

Mister Scratch wrote:
So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.

As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.

But I have done my part, as you asked.

I never asked you anything.

Do I have to dredge up all the quotes where you keep saying things like "tell me what's wrong with my blog and I'll fix it?"

Yes, you asked.

Regards,
Pahoran


Go ahead and dredge. All you find is a bunch of your own complainst and whines, and my replies of, "Hey, if you're so bent out of shape, just tell me what you want change and we can talk." I'd be perfectly happy to leave in the bit about you being a homophobe. You are the one who took issue, Pah.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
wenglund wrote:
harmony wrote:
Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!


A message from a FAIR moderator indicating that you and Kemara have separate IP addresses would do it. Or a statement on this board from Kemara.


Oh yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Kemara is never going to show up where Pahoran is, as long as Shades holds the keys to the admin section (checking IP addresses is done all too often).


In other words, Big Brother is watching. That should shift the conspiracy theories into high gear--that is, were there some semblance of consistency among them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If Kemara posted here, and the IP matched Pahoran, that would irreparably harm Pahoran's denial, so no way is Kemara ever going to post here.

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. Kemara does not have the same IP as me.

I haven't discussed this joint with him; he probably doesn't even know it exists, or care enough about it to check it out. This thread might give him a good laugh, though.

"Harmony," you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I have to prove something to you, or any of you.

I do not.

I have told you. Therefore, you have been told. My duty is done. I will not be asking anyone for help; I don't need any.

If you continue to choose to believe a lie because it suits you, then that merely reflects upon you.

Regards,
Pahoran

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

If you continue to choose to believe a lie because it suits you, then that merely reflects upon you.

Regards,
Pahoran


Oh my. I am trying to very hard to not laugh. Laughing would be so rude, so crass, so utterly without class, because this poor man obviously has no idea what he just said. :-D

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
If you continue to choose to believe a lie because it suits you, then that merely reflects upon you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Oh my. I am trying to very hard to not laugh. Laughing would be so rude, so crass, so utterly without class, because this poor man obviously has no idea what he just said. :-D

Your unconvincing attempt to sound detached, amused and oh so superior is noted.

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
If you continue to choose to believe a lie because it suits you, then that merely reflects upon you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Oh my. I am trying to very hard to not laugh. Laughing would be so rude, so crass, so utterly without class, because this poor man obviously has no idea what he just said. :-D

Your unconvincing attempt to sound detached, amused and oh so superior is noted.

Regards,
Pahoran


As is yours. :-)

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by moksha »

Pahoran wrote:I haven't discussed this joint with him; he probably doesn't even know it exists, or care enough about it to check it out. This thread might give him a good laugh, though.

"Regards,
Pahoran

Kemara deserves a good laugh. Is there a key word or phrase that is capable of letting him appear? It would be nice to hear from him again.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

moksha wrote:
Pahoran wrote:I haven't discussed this joint with him; he probably doesn't even know it exists, or care enough about it to check it out. This thread might give him a good laugh, though.

"Regards,
Pahoran

Kemara deserves a good laugh. Is there a key word or phrase that is capable of letting him appear? It would be nice to hear from him again.

You could ask someone on FAIR to PM him. I'm not interested, for obvious reasons, in extending that invitation.

Regards,
Pahoran

Post Reply