I Am A Bottomless Sinkhole Of Corruption

[Daniel Peterson]

I've noted before that Xander/Kevin tends to brand those who disagree with him as unscrupulous, cowardly, incompetent, and/or lying, which is one of the reasons that I stopped interacting with him even back in the days when he was still a Latter-day Saint. Life is short, and I have no patience for such rhetoric or such treatment.

For some reason, though, perhaps not wholly to be accounted for, I think, by The Horrifying Recent Affair of the Essay That No Critic Has Seen, he's really been on the warpath against me for the past seventy-two hours or so.

That's not particularly interesting in itself, nor really worthy of much note.

But he's raised a couple of old accusations against me to which I feel I need to reply, if only cursorily, because of their seriousness. I take them in steeply ascending order:

1)

He's again accusing me of cowardice for not agreeing, many years ago, to a formal public debate with somebody named Bob McCue, and he's attributing to me a whole host of more or less lame excuses for my failure to engage Mr. McCue.

Some of them approach my actual reasoning; some of them ring absolutely no bell with me.

Here, though, in my very own words, are my two main reasons:

(a) I debated in high school, rather successfully, and, perhaps for that very reason, I have little faith in formal, timed debates as a way of getting at the truth. (As in our so-called presidential "debates," victory often goes to the weaker position, based more on glibness or on a crowd-pleasing one-liner than on solid evidence and rigorous reasoning.) I'm not scared of debates, and have engaged in them (against such genuinely able, high-stature, and experienced debaters as William Lane Craig and Robert Spencer and, albeit on a radio show, James White) with, to my mind, respectable results. I'm willing, on occasion, to engage in formal public debates. They're just not high on my list of priorities.

(b) I'm aware of no obligation on my part to debate X simply because X demands it or because Y and Z think that I should. That is to say that, from my perspective, the default answer, when I'm challenged to a debate, isn't "Yes!" unless and until I can scramble to come up with a reason not to do so that will satisfy X, Y, and Z. It's my life, and my time, and I'll choose to do what I think is most important for me to do.

2)

He's accusing me of callously endangering another man's life, roughly a decade or so back, via a book review that I published. (This is a depth of moral depravity to which even my implacably obsessive Malevolent Stalker rarely attempts to assign me; he's probably bitter with envy right now.)

Now, I'll readily concede that I only vaguely recall this episode. It doesn't loom anywhere near as large in my mind as it plainly does in Xander/Kevin's. But I'm pretty confident in saying that the Dan Peterson of a decade ago would have been no more inclined than is the Dan Peterson of today to casually expose another man to the risk of violent death.

I mean really.

Good grief.

As it happens, though, when Xander/Kevin raised this accusation two or three years ago elsewhere, it so surprised me that I actually wrote to the man involved, expressing my regret to him if anything I had done had inadvertently put him in danger. From his response -- which I may perhaps still have somewhere, despite the passage of time, a couple of major computer failures, and etc., if anybody absolutely must see the actual exchange in order to dissect and parse it for lingering traces of my blood-guilt -- it was pretty plain that he's no longer upset about the matter, if indeed he ever was, and that (or so it seemed to me) he scarcely remembers or thinks about it anymore.

Anyhow, I just wanted to put my responses to these two matters on record. At least some of the people on Xander/Kevin's home board seem inclined to take what he says at face value, as simply one more redundant illustration of my apparently boundless moral evil.

[blueadept]

There;s a few board members I wouldn't mind meeting even if I'm non-LDS and they have one thing in common. They are not 'morally evil.'

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You know Dr, You have a right to post what you do. Sometimes, though, I wonder what good it really does. People like me, stopped caring what Kevin said years ago. Anyway, if nothing else, I suppose there is some entertainment value in it, for at least me.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

2)

He's accusing me of callously endangering another man's life, roughly a decade or so back, via a book review that I published. (This is a depth of moral depravity to which even my implacably obsessive Malevolent Stalker rarely attempts to assign me; he's probably bitter with envy right now.)

Now, I'll readily concede that I only vaguely recall this episode. It doesn't loom anywhere near as large in my mind as it plainly does in Xander/Kevin's. But I'm pretty confident in saying that the Dan Peterson of a decade ago would have been no more inclined than is the Dan Peterson of today to casually expose another man to the risk of violent death.

I mean really.

Good grief.

As it happens, though, when Xander/Kevin raised this accusation two or three years ago elsewhere, it so surprised me that I actually wrote to the man involved, expressing my regret to him if anything I had done had inadvertently put him in danger. From his response -- which I may perhaps still have somewhere, despite the passage of time, a couple of major computer failures, and etc., if anybody absolutely must see the actual exchange in order to dissect and parse it for lingering traces of my blood-guilt -- it was pretty plain that he's no longer upset about the matter, if indeed he ever was, and that (or so it seemed to me) he scarcely remembers or thinks about it anymore.

.

Here is a thread discussing it: http://www.mormondia...23-j-p-holding/

PS: to readers, I would not read much beyond the first page, if that. It is not a pleasant thread. I posted it solely to provide a bit of context for Dr. Peterson's comment.

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

You know Dr, You have a right to post what you do. Sometimes, though, I wonder what good it really does. People like me, stopped caring what Kevin said years ago. Anyway, if nothing else, I suppose there is some entertainment value in it, for at least me.

It probably does little if any good.

But, really, when someone publicly suggests that I'm so indifferent to decency, so utterly depraved, that I would lightly and for essentially no reason expose an innocent man to the risk of violent death . . . well, I dunno. I just feel I have to say that it's not true.

Over where Xander/Kevin posted this noxious slander, by the way, it seems to have been received fairly credulously.

[Russell C McGregor]

Dan,

Everyone should try to excel at something. But blowing your own trumpet to that extent is somewhat over the top.

And besides, it isn't true. I know a number of people whose corruption excels yours, and by a considerable margin. Some have been mentioned in this very thread.

I find it ironic that Mr Graham would exploit this decade-old non-story for ad hominem purposes, given his expressed disdain for such things. But only when he can accuse a Mormon (ugh!) of using them.

As the writer of the review in question, I wish I could report on all the emails we exchanged, in which we chuckled fiendishly about the mortal danger to which that little footnote would submit Mr. XXXXXXX. Alas, not only is my email correspondence from that period no longer available -- a fact Mr Graham has exploited to the utmost -- but I'm more than confident that no such discussions ever took place.

Mr Graham might have a point (although not much of one after ten years) if he had confined himself to saying that my use of the author's real name wasn't very relevant (which it wasn't, although it's not unheard of in reviews) or that I should have taken notice of the fact that he had requested that it not be used (which had been brought to my attention, but which I had forgotten about.) However, if Mr Graham were to offer merely reasonable criticisms, he would not be the malefactor-in-chief we have all come to know and love.

As mentioned on the linked thread, I did offer an apology to Mr XXXXXXX at the time. However, I am no longer able to prove it, and that is sufficient for Mr Graham and his fellow-haters to label me a "liar!" So let me say this: if he did not see it at the time, I again unreservedly apologise to Mr XXXXXXX for mentioning his name in that review.

A review, incidentally, with which I otherwise am quite satisfied.

Russell C. McGregor

[rodheadlee]

Some people spend their life trying to build something good and some people spend their life trying to tear down that which is good. I always respect your posts Dan and I rarely make it past the first sentence of Kevin's posts.

[CASteinman]

Daniel, it is unfortunate that not only do you have to put up with this sort of silliness, but you have to take it at least seriously enough to put up this much of a detailed reply. I prefer to just wave that sort of stuff off with a brisk obloquy. It really does not deserve more. But you don't have that freedom given your position and reputation and I don't think you can really allow some things to fester -- because it discourages the weak and confirms in the wicked the idea that the lies might be true.

[Lightbearer]

Dr Peterson take comfort in the following scripture:

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (New Testament | Matthew 5:10 - 12)

[Storm Rider]

Rod's post comes closest to my feelings, Kevin's posts, thoughts, tone, and way-of-being are so far out in left field that I ignore them totally. Life is too short to spend time with people of his ilk. Maybe one day it will change and his posts will be of value, but for now he is just a very unhappy fellow that needs to marinate in the hell he has created for himself.

There are times when a response is needed and I respect your choice in doing so here at this time. I hope you are able to laugh at these shenanigans at some point; from my perspective watching these other people, it is hilarious. Alas, I am easily entertained.

[why me]

Anyhow, I just wanted to put my responses to these two matters on record. At least some of the people on Xander/Kevin's home board seem inclined to take what he says at face value, as simply one more redundant illustration of my apparently boundless moral evil.

I think that a few critics are not very happy with their own lives and they take out this unhappiness on someone else. In this case, you. Reading his posts, and his aggression in the posts, I can see a guy who is not at peace with himself. One part of me believes that he would love to believe again. But can't. So, he has this constant chip on his shoulder. I would imagine that he is a nice guy in the real world outside the internet. But as in many cases, the internet can bring out the worse in people.

It may be best not to take the bait and respond to him or to others who are attacking you. It can just add fuel to the fire. But i can also understand why the need to respond is so strong.

[Freedom]

For clarification, is this the same kevin who used to have a apologetic website and contributed to many FAIR articles?

[CASteinman]

For clarification, is this the same kevin who used to have a apologetic website and contributed to many FAIR articles?

I believe it is the same one. He lost his faith over the Book of Abraham.

I don't have an ability to lose my testimony over the Book of Abraham as far as I can tell (it just seems impossible to me that it is anything but the inspired Revelation of God) and so I do not understand those who fall because of the Book of Abraham, but I know it happens. But to me, its out and out weird for that to be an issue.

Incidentally, I read the Book of Abraham before I read the Book of Mormon. I think it is where I first got a hint that this stuff might be true.

[Russell C McGregor]

Incidentally Dan, the last time Mr Graham vented his spite about this non-incident, he demonstrated his personal integrity regarding the issue of privacy by putting my wife's personal details on his home board. Would you be so kind as to PM me with the details of his current outburst so that I can see if he has done so again?

Thanks,

Russell

[Storm Rider]

Incidentally Dan, the last time Mr Graham vented his spite about this non-incident, he demonstrated his personal integrity regarding the issue of privacy by putting my wife's personal details on his home board. Would you be so kind as to PM me with the details of his current outburst so that I can see if he has done so again?

Thanks,

Russell

Kevin is quite the fellow; a paragon of integrity and common decency. Yup, just gotta love a guy like that; just a peach of a guy.

[why me]

For clarification, is this the same kevin who used to have a apologetic website and contributed to many FAIR articles?

Yes, it is. And I think that this is one of his problems. He used to defend the lds church and had some of his articles on FAIR. But then he lost faith and became rather unkind in his posts. He was banned for awhile but the kindness of the moderators allowed him to post again. Kevin has been given much leeway here now but his posts still show a negative spleen.

[Calm]

Incidentally Dan, the last time Mr Graham vented his spite about this non-incident, he demonstrated his personal integrity regarding the issue of privacy by putting my wife's personal details on his home board. Would you be so kind as to PM me with the details of his current outburst so that I can see if he has done so again?

Thanks,

Russell

He also removed it as soon as you complained, I believe. I would agree it shouldn't have been put up in the first place. Edited May 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

Deleted.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Pahoran

[Russell C McGregor]

He also removed it as soon as you complained, I believe. I would agree it shouldn't have been put up in the first place.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that this is more important than the non-issue he has obsessed over for the past decade. Unlike him, I can grasp the possibility of an opponent making an honest mistake.

I simply mention it because I'm wondering if he's done it again.

But I suspect that it shows that his "principles" demonstrate nothing more than his partisan loyalties. To publicise the private information of one of Graham's buddies is a crime against humanity; to do the same to one of Graham's targets is just par for the course.

[Calm]

I simply mention it because I'm wondering if he's done it again.

I would be surprised, but understand the curiosity.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've noted before that Xander/Kevin tends to brand those who disagree with him as unscrupulous, cowardly, incompetent, and/or lying, .

We love you anyway. I know he hates us way to much. Still don't know why he is back.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally Dan, the last time Mr Graham vented his spite about this non-incident, he demonstrated his personal integrity regarding the issue of privacy by putting my wife's personal details on his home board. Would you be so kind as to PM me with the details of his current outburst so that I can see if he has done so again?

So far as I saw, he hasn't done that this time. Perhaps, if I get in the mood, I'll look again.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dan,

Everyone should try to excel at something. But blowing your own trumpet to that extent is somewhat over the top.

Daniel or Xander / Kevin? Dan is treated very badly on a number of sites...I have even done it and apologized. Kevin never will, he lives near me and i know him through a mutual friend. He is obsessed with his own views and never passes up a chance to criticize that which he once defended very well.

[CV75]

I've always like the phrase, "reach deep into that cesspool you call a soul."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've always like the phrase, "reach deep into that cesspool you call a soul."

You will love this...

There is a destiny that makes us brothers:

None goes his way alone:

All that we send into the lives of others

Comes back into our own.

I care not what his temples or his creeds,

One thing holds firm and fast

That into his fateful heap of days and deeds

The soul of man Is cast.

Edwin Markham