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
User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

Pahoran wrote:You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my IRL identity with you.


I hereby conclude that you are the former President of the United States who's son is currently the President.

By the way, you don't move your lips when you type, do you? ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

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

Post by Pahoran »

asbestosman wrote:
Pahoran wrote:You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my IRL identity with you.


I hereby conclude that you are the former President of the United States who's son is currently the President.

By the way, you don't move your lips when you type, do you? ;)

No, I speak what I'm typing out loud, as I press the keys with the only finger I can get to work. That's why I have to take my chewing gum out first; so I can talk without dropping it.

Mind you, I have to take it out before crossing the road too, but that's because crossing the road requires concentration.

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:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:What this demonstrates is that I am absolutely right about Pahoran in my characterization of him on the blog: he is kept around on FAIR primarily so that he can function as an "attack dog."

And you are here to function as what? A rabid hyena?

Regards,
Pahoran


No, my dear Pah! As I have said many times, I'm here to have fun!

Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed _____.


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my IRL identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran


Very well, then you are indeed _____, author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com, then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog. I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving. So: if you fear for your safety, or if you are threatening legal action, or something legitimate, then let me know, and I won't put the name back up. Otherwise, in the interest of making the blog more informative, it's going back up.

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

Post by Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed [Deleted].


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my IRL identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Very well, then you are indeed [Deleted], author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com,

That last is as truthful a statement as any you have ever made in any Internet forum: it is blatantly, flagrantly false. I have "admitted" no such thing.

Reporter: "Mister Scratch, is it true that you have twenty million bucks in the bank?"
Scratch: "I will not discuss my bank balance with you."
Reporter: "So you admit it!"

The transparency of that sophistry should be obvious even to you.

then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog.

Your obsessive hate blog is yours to do with as you please.

I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving.

You mean--almost, but not quite, as badly as you?

Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?

3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.

4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods. The legal adivice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.

5) _____ might not want his IRL information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

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:
Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Fourth time, kiddo: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?
Your silence is leading me to believe that you are.... If I don't hear anything back from you by the end of the day, that will answer the question for me, and I will take it as a tacit admission on your part that you are indeed [Deleted].


You may conclude anything you like. Read my lips: I will not discuss my IRL identity with you.

Regards,
Pahoran

Very well, then you are indeed [Deleted], author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers." Since you have admitted to this right here on Mormondiscussion.com,

That last is as truthful a statement as any you have ever made in any Internet forum: it is blatantly, flagrantly false. I have "admitted" no such thing.

Reporter: "Mister Scratch, is it true that you have twenty million bucks in the bank?"
Scratch: "I will not discuss my bank balance with you."
Reporter: "So you admit it!"

The transparency of that sophistry should be obvious even to you.


No. Since I said, "I will assume that you're the author if you remain silent," sort of like you did to me elsewhere, it's not really the sort of "sophistry" you're claimin.

then I see little reason why you would have any problem with me restoring this bit of information to the blog.

Your obsessive hate blog is yours to do with as you please.

I'll give you a bit of time to protest and/or respond, but be forewarned that I expect a legit reason. You simply "not wanting" it there isn't going to cut it, especially in light of the way you've been behaving.

You mean--almost, but not quite, as badly as you?

Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?


All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help a lot.

3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.


So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being? Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.

Another point: it is easy enough for people to track you down via the article at FARMS. Have you requested that that be removed, too? Maybe it's time to consider a new screen name.

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.

The legal adivice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.
Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.

5) _____ might not want his IRL information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

Regards,
Pahoran


The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

*PLEASE READ!*

Post by Dr. Shades »

Oh man, where to go with this?

This is a rather delicate issue, since an article posted somewhere under the author's real name ought to be legitimate grounds for discussion. So, for example, the FARMS article referenced earlier ought to be allowable, with the author's name posted for due credit and attribution.

ON THE OTHER HAND, should someone want his/her IRL information to remain private, I think we ought to respect that wish, whether with or without a good reason--or any reason--given by the person him/herself.

But what happens when these two goals conflict, as we've seen in this thread? I.e., what happens when the author of an article posted under his/her real name is also a participant here posting under a pseudonym?

I've never come across this conundrum before, since, for example, DCP's articles have come under scrutiny on other boards but yet he uses his own name with which to post.

So, how about we all make an ad-hoc rule? In order to keep as many people happy as humanly possible, let's say we can mention an author's name in connection with an article, but refrain from "outing" that author as an actual poster here. Let's also say we must delete a person's IRL information if the person requests it--even if it was in the course of authorial attribution--whether or not a reason is given.

How to handle the blogs, though? It's been my goal to not touch those, since they aren't in the message board part of this site, but I guess "responsibility" for them ultimately falls on me as founder (as it were) of MormonDiscussions. Yet it appears that even these have raised considerable ire.

So, how about this: Let's all observe the "outing" rule in the blogs just the same as we do the message boards, okay?

I hope this makes everyone happy. I REALLY hope I'm not accused of being as bad as the FAIR mods for this request. Rather than become a tyrant, I'm open to suggestions and opinions on either side of the equation.

So, can we all follow this procedure from now on, please?

(Mister Scratch: Perhaps you think I should've discussed this with you privately rather than here in front of everyone, but I think it's important for other people to see it so they, too, will know what to do--or not do, as the case may be--in the future. I apologize in advance if I've offended you in any way.)

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Absolutely no problem whatsoever, Dr. Shades. Pahoran's IRL name is not on the blog any longer, nor has it been for quite some time. While I do think that Pahoran's complaining on this matter is basically symptomatic of his attempts to avoid accountability for the way he treats others on the messageboards, I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.

Bottomline: there are no hard feelings on my part. : )

Ray A

Post by Ray A »

Mister Scratch wrote: I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.

Bottomline: there are no hard feelings on my part. : )


Scratch, did Pahoran actually make threats? Or did he say that was the advice he received?

User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

Mister Scratch wrote:I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.


On account of legal threats instead of on account of your word? Dosn't your word factor in at all--hopefully foremostly?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

asbestosman wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.


On account of legal threats instead of on account of your word? Dosn't your word factor in at all--hopefully foremostly?


I *have* kept my word, asbestosman! Did you see any IRL names on the blog since that date?

User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

Mister Scratch wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.


On account of legal threats instead of on account of your word? Dosn't your word factor in at all--hopefully foremostly?


I *have* kept my word, asbestosman! Did you see any IRL names on the blog since that date?


I never said you *didn't* keep your word. I asked whether keeping your word was the foremost reason (or even a reason) for leaving the name off.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

asbestosman wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.


On account of legal threats instead of on account of your word? Dosn't your word factor in at all--hopefully foremostly?


I *have* kept my word, asbestosman! Did you see any IRL names on the blog since that date?


I never said you *didn't* keep your word. I asked whether keeping your word was the foremost reason (or even a reason) for leaving the name off.


Ah, I see! Well, now, a poster of my devilish mien would never disclose such a thing! ; )

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: I have no problem kowtowing to his threats of legal retribution.

Bottomline: there are no hard feelings on my part. : )


Scratch, did Pahoran actually make threats? Or did he say that was the advice he received?


"Legally" speaking, it was implicit in what he said, imo. ; )

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

Post by Runtu »

Mister Scratch wrote:[

Ah, I see! Well, now, a poster of my devilish mien would never disclose such a thing! ; )


Sheesh. I don't even get called Satanic. Just ho-hum boring. Time for my prozac.

Ray A

Post by Ray A »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Scratch, did Pahoran actually make threats? Or did he say that was the advice he received?

"Legally" speaking, it was implicit in what he said, imo. ; )


And just to clarify, Scratch, I'm not taking sides in this. I think both you and Pahoran make some good points. I have no horse in this race. It's the most interesting debate I've seen in a long time.

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

Post by Runtu »

Ray A wrote:
And just to clarify, Scratch, I'm not taking sides in this. I think both you and Pahoran make some good points. I have no horse in this race. It's the most interesting debate I've seen in a long time.


I don't have any stake in it, either, though if I'm honest with myself, I'd probably lean toward taking Scratch's word for it, given my rather unfortunate dealings with Pahoran. But yeah, it is fascinating to see what I missed when I abandoned FAIR.

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Scratch, did Pahoran actually make threats? Or did he say that was the advice he received?

"Legally" speaking, it was implicit in what he said, imo. ; )


And just to clarify, Scratch, I'm not taking sides in this. I think both you and Pahoran make some good points. I have no horse in this race. It's the most interesting debate I've seen in a long time.


Terrific, and I really think that's the whole point, Ray. Good debate. Interesting (even if heated) conversation. My sense is that Pahoran just doesn't want to be held accountable for the way he has treated others on the MBs. But oh, well. I said I would keep IRL names off the blog, and I've done so.

User avatar
OUT OF MY MISERY
Savior (mortal ministry)
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:32 am

Post by OUT OF MY MISERY »

Mister Scratch

You are cool and no you are NOT like the MOD's on FAIR.

I am no lawyer and I hope I have never claimed that I was, but I do know that the privacy laws that are protecting you and your BLOG are still protecting you.

Legally Paharon would have a REALLY REALLY hard time suing you, but I am sure you already know that.

The privacy laws were written before the Internet and I doubt anyone will be writing new laws concerning privacy laws any time soon.

They have better things to do, and there is too much money that is being made by the lack of privacy laws.

You Mister Scratch have simply proven a point that FAIR has never allowed any of us to do, we can and do know how to act like adults.

I do not know what Paharon is trying to prove, nor do I care.
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........

User avatar
OUT OF MY MISERY
Savior (mortal ministry)
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:32 am

Post by OUT OF MY MISERY »

just checking
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........

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

Post by Pahoran »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?

All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help a lot.

So your word is only worth something as long as you still like the person to whom you have given it? Did you really want to say that?

Mister Scratch wrote:
3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.

So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being?

That's right. It's happened before in fact, but I'm just being paranoid when I suppose it could just as easily happen again.

Mister Scratch wrote:Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.

No, I'm not afraid of you or any of you. I'd just rather not have to wade through and delete a whole pile of obscene, vituperative, impotent threats from my inbox on a daily basis. Thanks just the same.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mister Scratch wrote:
The legal advice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.

Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.

That's not quite what I'm doing here, Scratch. As you know, I'd be without any legal recourse of any kind if your allegations were strictly accurate.

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.

Mister Scratch wrote:
5) _____ might not want his IRL information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

Regards,
Pahoran

The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!

Oh, don't do that, Scratchy. I'd feel left out if I wasn't featured in one of your orwellian "dossiers."

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

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.

1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:

As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.

I want you to.

So are you a man of your word, or not?

Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?

All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help a lot.

So your word is only worth something as long as you still like the person to whom you have given it? Did you really want to say that?

Mister Scratch wrote:
3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.

So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being?

That's right. It's happened before in fact, but I'm just being paranoid when I suppose it could just as easily happen again.


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.

Mister Scratch wrote:
Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.

No, I'm not afraid of you or any of you. I'd just rather not have to wade through and delete a whole pile of obscene, vituperative, impotent threats from my inbox on a daily basis. Thanks just the same.


So you are afraid then. Not of "any of us," but afraid that you might have to delete some messages.... I see. Especially since you find it necessary to utterly grind these apparently "impotent" threats out with lables like "obscene" and "vituperative." You could have just said, "I get a lot of spam." Or, "I get a lot of hate mail." Why the extra stuff?

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. I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara. You're the only one claiming otherwise. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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


No. It also conducts surveillance of speeches, 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.

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. 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.

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?

Mister Scratch wrote:
The legal advice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.

Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.

That's not quite what I'm doing here, Scratch. As you know, I'd be without any legal recourse of any kind if your allegations were strictly accurate.


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).

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.

Mister Scratch wrote:
5) _____ might not want his IRL information to be put up on this forum.

I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.

Regards,
Pahoran

The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!

Oh, don't do that, Scratchy. I'd feel left out if I wasn't featured in one of your orwellian "dossiers."


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.

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. 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.

Post Reply