My Malevolent Stalker

[Daniel Peterson]

It has often been suggested to me that, if I would simply cease engaging him, my Malevolent Stalker would drop his anonymous on-line crusade (now fully half a decade old) to criticize, malign, and defame me.

I have never believed this to be true.

In the past, I've sometimes been altogether gone from message boards (because I was traveling in distant and frequently obscure places, without much access to the Internet and very busy) for as long as six or seven weeks. But when I've returned from such expeditions, he's still been at it, without any slackening of his malignant and obsessive zeal.

Well, I've now been utterly gone from his home message board for a full week. I've deleted my account there.

This should be a good test of the notion that, if I stop responding to him, he'll stop slandering me.

So far, the results are not positive.

He's posted about me several times since I quietly left his board, and, just minutes ago, he launched an entirely new thread devoted to criticizing me.

(He once promised never to start another such thread. That was, needless to say, many such threads ago.)

[Nofear]

It has often been suggested to me that, if I would simply cease engaging him, my Malevolent Stalker would drop his anonymous on-line crusade (now fully half a decade old) to criticize, malign, and defame me.

I have never believed this to be true.

In the past, I've sometimes been altogether gone from message boards (because I was traveling in distant and frequently obscure places, without much access to the Internet and very busy) for as long as six or seven weeks. But when I've returned from such expeditions, he's still been at it, without any slackening of his malignant and obsessive zeal.

Well, I've now been utterly gone from his home message board for a full week. I've deleted my account there.

This should be a good test of the notion that, if I stop responding to him, he'll stop slandering me.

So far, the results are not positive.

He's posted about me several times since I quietly left his board, and, just minutes ago, he launched an entirely new thread devoted to criticizing me.

(He once promised never to start another such thread. That was, needless to say, many such threads ago.)

I thought you had sworn of the site something like a year or two ago? I never read anything from there so only know what is said here. I vaguely recall some fairly lengthy exposition about your leaving that board here.

[Calm]

You need some behavioural training. Some of the strongest enduring behavioural patterns come from intermittent reinforcement. One can lengthen the interval to quite long depending on the subject's susceptibility.

http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch05_conditioning/intermittent_reinforcement.html

One of the useful principles discovered by behavioral psychologists is that intermittent reinforcement increases resistance to extinction....During an extinction period, a behavior is never reinforced. If the response has been continually reinforced in the past, the animal will quickly notice this; it will discriminate the extinction period. It will stop responding soon. By contrast, if a response is intermittently reinforced, then the animal grows accustomed to periods of no reinforcement. If an experimenter tries to extinguish the behavior by cutting off all reinforcement, the animal is less likely to notice that extinction is taking place, or more likely to persist with the behavior in the expectation that reinforcement may resume again as it has in the past. The result is that animals with a history of intermittent reinforcement do not stop a behavior as quickly as animals with a history of continuous reinforcement. Instead, they show resistance to extinction.

The fact that intermittent reinforcement produces persistence or resistance to extinction is an important insight for parents. Parents try to discourage a child from throwing tantrums, but some parents tire under the onslaught of the child's rage and "cave in" by reinforcing the child. In effect, they are putting the child on an intermittent reinforcement schedule. This makes the tantrums harder to stop in the future. The child will show resistance to extinction, having learned in the past that persistence pays off. Experts on parenting advise parents never to reinforce a tantrum. For example, if a child misbehaves in a store, yelling and screaming in an attempt to get a piece of candy or other desired item, the parent should simply remove the child from the store. To resist the tantrum for a while, then break down and reinforce the child, makes the behavior more persistent in the future.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought you had sworn of the site something like a year or two ago? I never read anything from there so only know what is said here. I vaguely recall some fairly lengthy exposition about your leaving that board here.

I've left it before for fairly lengthy periods, both because of travel and because I was sick of the place. But I've continued, more or less, to post announcements of publications, conferences, and etc., there, and that has allowed me to be drawn back in several times.

This time, I had the account deleted. There's no going back. But I predict that the Stalker will continue to post about me as if I were still there. The only real difference will be that his flat-out falsehoods and distortions will go uncontradicted. I regret that, but clear-headed cost-benefit analysis has always shown that the ratio of value added to time wasted was far too low. Hope triumphed over experience time and again, and kept me there. But no longer.

[Zakuska]

Dr. Petersen... Perhaps your "Malevolant Stalker" is a by product of a beautiful mind?

Checking your browser logs might confirm that.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

But I predict that the Stalker will continue to post about me as if I were still there. The only real difference will be that his flat-out falsehoods and distortions will go uncontradicted. I regret that, but clear-headed cost-benefit analysis has always shown that the ratio of value added to time wasted was far too low. Hope triumphed over experience time and again, and kept me there. But no longer.

Stalkers are notorious for finding 'recognition' in the most unconnected forms allowing any action to be reinterpreted as a reaction. If he truly is a stalker, nothing you do is likely to have the effect of decreasing his behaviour. Hopefully he only acts like one.

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

I think you need to charitably give him a year of non-response to test the theory completely.

Seriously though, your leaving over there has stirred up far more than his vindictive assaults. Its quite amazing people behave as so many of them do and when called on it they seem to genuinely think they are doing just fine. Its an astounding view of some pretty sad behavior. its doubly sad it somehow has something to do with the subject of mormonism. Man, they are, overall, hurting.

[Chris Smith]

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the experiment, but I think the OP counts as a response to him.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Zakuska]

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the experiment, but I think the OP counts as a response to him.

Double pun intended Im sure.

[Daniel Peterson]

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the experiment, but I think the OP counts as a response to him.

Yes. Technically it does.

But I thought it worthwhile to call attention to the experiment that is now underway.

I have no plan of continuing to reply to him here, or anything of that sort.

I simply put it out there for those who might be interested enough to watch: Will his interest flag? Will his malignant and obsessive zeal wane? Will it continue, but be directed at some other target or group of targets?

Possibly. But, in the past, absences of six to eight weeks have had no impact. At one point, I was, if I'm not mistaken, gone from his board for over a year. That too had no apparent effect on his behavior.

I hope not to disturb the experiment much further. I'll just sit back and watch it unfold.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It has often been suggested to me that, if I would simply cease engaging him, my Malevolent Stalker would drop his anonymous on-line crusade (now fully half a decade old) to criticize, malign, and defame me.

I have never believed this to be true.

In the past, I've sometimes been altogether gone from message boards (because I was traveling in distant and frequently obscure places, without much access to the Internet and very busy) for as long as six or seven weeks. But when I've returned from such expeditions, he's still been at it, without any slackening of his malignant and obsessive zeal.

Well, I've now been utterly gone from his home message board for a full week. I've deleted my account there.

This should be a good test of the notion that, if I stop responding to him, he'll stop slandering me.

So far, the results are not positive.

He's posted about me several times since I quietly left his board, and, just minutes ago, he launched an entirely new thread devoted to criticizing me.

(He once promised never to start another such thread. That was, needless to say, many such threads ago.)

Dan,

I enjoyed your article on not being insulting or rude in Apologetics, but what he does is not Apologetics. Sometimes you have to “reprove with sharpness”. I am a crusty old Electrician working construction all my life (except for an 8 year stent in the Army) I know would I would do…sometimes you just have to be blunt (tell him to stuff it). You have suffered his abuse long enough…it may not be Christlike, so blame it on human frailty. Sometimes a “Come to Jesus meeting” is all that is left. You show greater poise than do I. Repent later.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dr. Petersen... Perhaps your "Malevolant Stalker" is a by product of a beautiful mind?

Checking your browser logs might confirm that.

Wish I could give more rep points.

[Zakuska]

Wish I could give more rep points.

Well with all the self insulting Dr. Petersen does it might just be a symptom.

[Zakuska]

PS. Dr. Petersen... You currently are being stalked elseware by a pack of hungry wolves. You and Daniel McClellan are being maligned over on CARM by the Red Queen, on account of a recent Blog post by one poster here going under the name Ron Bowman acussing you of getting an 8th Century Midrash reference wrong.

Mack is currently suspended/banned so he cant answer so perhaps if you don't mind wasting your time over there.

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Do not tempt him.

[LDSToronto]

It has often been suggested to me that, if I would simply cease engaging him, my Malevolent Stalker would drop his anonymous on-line crusade (now fully half a decade old) to criticize, malign, and defame me.

I have never believed this to be true.

In the past, I've sometimes been altogether gone from message boards (because I was traveling in distant and frequently obscure places, without much access to the Internet and very busy) for as long as six or seven weeks. But when I've returned from such expeditions, he's still been at it, without any slackening of his malignant and obsessive zeal.

Well, I've now been utterly gone from his home message board for a full week. I've deleted my account there.

This should be a good test of the notion that, if I stop responding to him, he'll stop slandering me.

So far, the results are not positive.

He's posted about me several times since I quietly left his board, and, just minutes ago, he launched an entirely new thread devoted to criticizing me.

(He once promised never to start another such thread. That was, needless to say, many such threads ago.)

And yet, here you are starting threads about Dr. Scratch in a forum where he can not respond....

H.

[Nemesis]

And yet, here you are starting threads about Dr. Scratch in a forum where he can not respond....

H.

DCP don't mess with the tribe

Nemesis

[stemelbow]

And yet, here you are starting threads about Dr. Scratch in a forum where he can not respond....

H.

Well he has plenty of helpers, it seems, LDST. Do you think he'll give up the vindictive attacks on Dr. Peterson? Or do you think he'll continue them? I dont' know him all that well but I'm inclined to think he'll continue, louder and louder.

[Pahoran]

Yes. Technically it does.

But I thought it worthwhile to call attention to the experiment that is now underway.

I have no plan of continuing to reply to him here, or anything of that sort.

I simply put it out there for those who might be interested enough to watch: Will his interest flag? Will his malignant and obsessive zeal wane? Will it continue, but be directed at some other target or group of targets?

Possibly. But, in the past, absences of six to eight weeks have had no impact. At one point, I was, if I'm not mistaken, gone from his board for over a year. That too had no apparent effect on his behavior.

I hope not to disturb the experiment much further. I'll just sit back and watch it unfold.

My prediction? It won't work.

Not only does the Stalker have an irrational obsession with you, he is surrounded by a gang of toadies who cheer lustily and give him high-fives and back-slaps for everything he says about you, however absurd. This feeds his ego and gives him all the reinforcement he could possibly want.

The Stalker will abuse you until he11 freezes over, and then he will stand on the ice and abuse you some more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

It has often been suggested to me that, if I would simply cease engaging him, my Malevolent Stalker would drop his anonymous on-line crusade (now fully half a decade old) to criticize, malign, and defame me.

I have a somewhat different take. I think human nature is such that it is near impossible not to pay at least some attention to the public heckles of a deranged mind (like trying unsuccessfully not to look at a train wreck), particularly if the heckles are personal and directed at you, and this even knowing the attention will likely engender further public harangues. For this reason I marvel somewhat at the remarkable restraint you have exhibited over the years.

I have never believed this to be true.

I agree. Even were you to have never paid him any mind, there are enough bystanders here and there feeding him attention (both by way of positive and negative reinforcement for his sick behavior) to keep his harangues in perpetual motion.

In short, the village will not be denied its idiot.

And, while I haven't deleted my account over there, and have periodically left in disgust for lengthy stints, what may keep me from going back again is my having recently picked up several noxious computer viruses (how apropos) presumably from that website (I am not sure if they were or weren't embedded in some of the racey ads or not), which cost me several days to repair, and I would just as soon avoid that happening again. So, I now have double the disincentive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

And yet, here you are starting threads about Dr. Scratch in a forum where he can not respond....

And you think the two things are symmetrical, do you?

The Malevolent Stalker obsessively, gratuitously and with malice aforethought, launches a new Daniel Peterson hate-fest approximately every second day, accompanied by the gleeful grunts and oinks of his herd; Dan comments upon this fact; and you don't see a distinction between what Dan does and what the Stalker does?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

And you think the two things are symmetrical, do you?

The Malevolent Stalker obsessively, gratuitously and with malice aforethought, launches a new Daniel Peterson hate-fest approximately every second day, accompanied by the gleeful grunts and oinks of his herd; Dan comments upon this fact; and you don't see a distinction between what Dan does and what the Stalker does?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

I see Dan gratuitously posting complaints about Dr.Scratch on this board, time and time again, with the usual cronies showing up to hold court with Dan.

It is symmetrical. In the old days, we used to face our foes, not run and hide and tell tales.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Well he has plenty of helpers, it seems, LDST. Do you think he'll give up the vindictive attacks on Dr. Peterson? Or do you think he'll continue them? I dont' know him all that well but I'm inclined to think he'll continue, louder and louder.

I really couldn't give a rat's rear-end if the two docs battled it out like Godzilla and Mothra over New York City. I've seen Dan dish it and take it, and truthfully, posts like the OP continue to fan the flames. I guess for Dan, Scratch is like the LDS Church - "you can leave it, but you can't leave it alone".

H.

[Nemesis]

I see Dan gratuitously posting complaints about Dr.Scratch on this board, time and time again, with the usual cronies showing up to hold court with Dan.

It is symmetrical. In the old days, we used to face our foes, not run and hide and tell tales.

H.

I find these statements rather ironic.

7. Between the time she posted this message on her private board, ...

8. Liz, after starting this little board skirmish, made demands in this thread for us to leave her board alone.

wonder when we can expect the other usual suspects from mdb to chime in. This thread just doesn't feel complete yet.

Nemesis

[William Schryver]

For those want to put a face with the names, here's a shot of the Scratch Collective busy plotting their next move in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park:

L to R: Doctor Scratch, Gadianton, Kishkumen, Dr. Shades (photo courtesy of Kevin Graham)