Of Jihad

[selek1]

Dr. Peterson is one of most maligned and misrepresented posters on this board, and has a large, vociferous and vicious coterie of personal enemies, and judging from the vociferocity and viciousness of some of them, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them are psychopaths. And I mean that quite literally.

And you think that just ignoring them while they spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do would do any good at all? For anyone?

You must be new here.

Now, now, now, Stargazer.

Despite the fact that treehugger's brand of insufferable and pretentious board nannying is specifically forbidden by the rules, we- as faithful Latter-day Saints- aren't allowed to comment on the bad behavior of others.

To do so- however truthfully or accurately- exposes us as "less-than-Christian" and "uncharitable"- or some other such manufactured nonsense from those in the Great and Spacious building.

The fact that treehugger is utterly, completely, woefully, and willfully ignorant of the history and personalities involved is all the excuse she really needs to justify lecturing others from her shining rameumptom in Peyton Place's town square.

That fact that the "tyt-for-tat" accusation is utterly baseless (Professor Peterson has never responded to his critics in kind) is of no real moment- her self-inflated sense of righteousness is all.

Edited May 19, 2012 by selek1

[The Nehor]

Despite the fact that treehugger's brand of insufferable and pretentious board nannying is specifically forbidden by the rules, we- as faithful Latter-day Saints- aren't allowed to comment on the bad behavior of others.

To do so- however truthfully or accurately- exposes us as "less-than-Christian" and "uncharitable"- or some other such manufactured nonsense from those in the Great and Spacious building.

Indeed, let us not forget that Jesus spoke softly and kindly about the liars trying to trap and do away with him:

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Oh.....never mind.

[treehugger]

Popcorn sales are up.

Well, you got me there, boasting the econmy does good for everyone one, sort of.

----------------------

Now, now, now, Stargazer.

Despite the fact that treehugger's brand of insufferable and pretentious board nannying is specifically forbidden by the rules, we- as faithful Latter-day Saints- aren't allowed to comment on the bad behavior of others. To do so- however truthfully or accurately- exposes us as "less-than-Christian" and "uncharitable"- or some other such manufactured nonsense from those in the Great and Spacious building.

How is asking someone their intent and nothing more "nannying", wouldn't pointing out that someone violatind rules be nanning?

The fact that treehugger is utterly, completely, woefully, and willfully ignorant of the history and personalities involved is all the excuse she really needs to justify lecturing others from her shining rameumptom in Peyton Place's town square.

It does not take much to discover the ancient grudges which bring forth new mutanies. That said, I have an adequate understanding of the histories the persons involved.

That fact that the "tyt-for-tat" accusation is utterly baseless (Professor Peterson has never responded to his critics in kind) is of no real moment- her self-inflated sense of righteousness is all.

Perhaps Peterson has not, perhaps he has, seems other threads/postings indicate what has occurred is all in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, I have edited the statement to remove tyt-for-tat and replaced it with:

"Do you think that this back-and-forth on issues unrelated to Doctrine/Teaching of the LDS Church, which back and forth relates solely to the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, do any good at all? For anyone?"

Hopefully this is satisfactory to you.

It is nannying. Stop it.

[zerinus]

Dr. Peterson,

I've heard many Christian Apologists ask the question:

"Was Osama bin Laden a faithful Muslim?"

It seems that their primary source is Sharia Law as a means to say that he was. What would your response to this apologetics tactic? I'm not a fan of misrepresenting Islam in such a way.

That is a question that should be put to an Islamic cleric, one who is well versed in Islamic jurisprudence. That is like asking if somebody was a faithful Mormon. Who knows? Perhaps his bishop knows; or perhaps he doesn't! Does holding a temple recommend make somebody a "faithful Mormon"? In theory it should; but who knows. Perhaps he is a secret sinner without telling anybody. Only God knows.

Does praying five times a day, paying your dues, observing the fast etc. make someone a faithful Muslim? Actually it doesn't, or is not enough. You also have to be "just" (which, by the way, is also a biblical requirement). So was Osama bin Laden just? That depends on who you ask. If you ask his followers and supporters, they would tell you that he was. If you ask those who disagree with him, they would tell you that he wasn't. So the problem is actually with the question. It is a trick question. Trick questions usually require trick answers. You know how the Jews asked Jesus a trick question, and He gave them a good trick reply? This is one of those kinds of questions.

Edited May 19, 2012 by zerinus

[selek1]

How is asking someone their intent and nothing more "nannying", wouldn't pointing out that someone violatind rules be nanning?

Were this the only instance in which you clucked at another poster over their alleged bad behavior, I would be more inclined to accept it as a mere question.

It is not.

You have demonstrated a pattern of demanding that the faithful adopt a stance of milque-toast, non-confrontational obesiance.

I took your attempt to twit Doctor Peterson as more of the same.

It does not take much to discover the ancient grudges which bring forth new mutanies.

Having a working knowledge of history and a background in matters naval, I am quite familiar with the consequences and causes of mutinies.

Of course, "a revolt against lawful military authority" is the farthest point from what we are dealing with here.

That said, I have an adequate understanding of the histories the persons involved.

I find the ease with which you arrogate that authority to your self to be offensive.

In point of fact, you have offered not the first criticism of those who shamelessly and ceaselessly foment falsehood and calumny against Professor Peterson.

Your indignation is reserved wholly for the faithful amongst us, rather than the faithless.

Such behavior unerringly confirms my worst suspicions about your behavior and motives.

Perhaps Peterson has not, perhaps he has,

If you were truly as knowledgeable about the matter as you pretend, you would know that this is not the case.

If you truly knew what you were talking about, these sorts of weasel words would not be necessary.

seems other threads/postings indicate what has occurred is all in the eye of the beholder.

Yes- I noticed that most of this nonsense boils down to whom one chooses to believe.

I also noticed that- despite all the screaming, crying, gnashing of teeth, and hand-wringing in three plus threads dedicated to that purpose- NO ONE, (least of all you), has provided ANY factual evidence of ad hominem on the part of Professor Peterson, FAIR, or MI.

Disagreements and differences of opinion aplenty- but not a single instance of actual ad hominem.

As such, the accusation that "both sides are equally guilty" is a wilfull exercise in fraud.

"Do you think that this back-and-forth on issues unrelated to Doctrine/Teaching of the LDS Church, which back and forth relates solely to the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, do any good at all? For anyone?"

Quite clearly, it does HIM some good- if only in providing him a reasonably safe place to vent his frustration and confirm his perceptions.

It also provides those who might otherwise be misled by fair faces and smoothe words with a glimpse behind the critics feigned piety.

Both strike me as palpable, if not necessarily laudible, rewards.

More to the point, however- as you yourself pointed out- the beauty of these posts lies in the eye of the beholder.

That YOU do not see them as productive does not mean that they are not. Your perceptions and opinions are strictly your own- and are in no way binding upon the rest of us.

For the record, I have come to regret my earlier harshness with you.

Before I responded above, I reviewed some of your other posts. As a result, I suspect that you have much to offer here, provided you can overcome the temptation to lecture others over matters about which you have little or no real clue.

In any event, I've said my piece, and have no interest in following this derail further off the tracks, down the gully, and into the ravine.

Edited May 19, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Dup

Edited May 19, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

A good and valued friend has just reminded me of a fine point of board etiquette and suggests that I may be going a bit too far.

Knowing that she is wise and thoughtful, I will take her advice and apologize in advance* for going down the rabbit hole.

*Okay- technically, I can't apologize "in advance" for something I've already done.

So I'll just say "Oops- my bad" and bow out of the thread unless/until something substantive comes up.

Good call.

[CASteinman]

Could someone help me with a link or something to explain what board nannying is? I don't really know this term and don't exactly know what it involves

[Log]

Could someone help me with a link or something to explain what board nannying is? I don't really know this term and don't exactly know what it involves

Board nannying is whenever you tell someone they're in violation of board rules/policies/ethics or whatnot.

[CASteinman]

Board nannying is whenever you tell someone they're in violation of board rules/policies/ethics or whatnot.

Hmmm.. Thanks.

Seems a wee bit counter productive as a rule -- but then I do not have experience. I would, for example, like to be informed when I am in violation or close to the edge, rather than to learn irrevocably by surprise.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

The mods here apply it more to telling other posters how they should be behaving, not just informing people about the rules....generally dealing with accusations about not being Christlike or as nice as one should be. OTOH, I have never been dinged for simply clarifying something about how the rules are enforced on the board and I don't know of any others who have either, such as telling someone a CFR needs to be answered or withdrawn or explaining what board nannying is. Think of nannying as taking on the role of moderating or judging behaviour publibly when one is not a moderator. Mods don't like that for a lot of reasons, they want us to use the report function and then be patient if necessary since there is not always a mod available to act immediately. Also never assume a mod has seen a post and that they therefore approve of it unless you've reported it as mods don't read all the posts.

[Pahoran]

That was a good TV show. I liked Mrs. Peel.

When I was younger (so much younger than today) I used to watch The Avengers on TV. I thought it was a way-cool spy show.

Then, years later, it came back on reruns, and I realised it was a spoof of spy shows; like Get Smart, but with class instead of slapstick. So it wasn't like watching reruns at all; it was like seeing it for the first time, since it was a different entertainment experience. I loved it both times, but for entirely different reasons.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

That is a question that should be put to an Islamic cleric, one who is well versed in Islamic jurisprudence. That is like asking if somebody was a faithful Mormon. Who knows? Perhaps his bishop knows; or perhaps he doesn't! Does holding a temple recommend make somebody a "faithful Mormon"? In theory it should; but who knows. Perhaps he is a secret sinner without telling anybody. Only God knows.

Does praying five times a day, paying your dues, observing the fast etc. make someone a faithful Muslim? Actually it doesn't, or is not enough. You also have to be "just" (which, by the way, is also a biblical requirement). So was Osama bin Laden just? That depends on who you ask. If you ask his followers and supporters, they would tell you that he was. If you ask those who disagree with him, they would tell you that he wasn't. So the problem is actually with the question. It is a trick question. Trick questions usually require trick answers. You know how the Jews asked Jesus a trick question, and He gave them a good trick reply? This is one of those kinds of questions.

I despise the question because it tactlessly sets the foundation for the person proposing the question to 'win' the argument.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson, what do you think would happen if you simple ignored him?

Essentially what's happening anyway.

People confidently predicted that my Stalker would lose his interest in me if I stopped interacting with him. I haven't posted on his board for roughly a year. I altogether ignored everything he said for most of that time. He starts threads about me as regularly now as he ever has. His obsessive hatred continues unabated.

Don't blame the victim.

.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[volgadon]

I despise the question because it tactlessly sets the foundation for the person proposing the question to 'win' the argument.

Most dialogues like that do, it is an inherent weaknesses of the style.

[zerinus]

Essentially what's happening anyway.

People confidently predicted that my Stalker would lose his interest in me if I stopped interacting with him. I haven't posted on his board for roughly a year. I altogether ignored everything he said for most of that time. He starts threads about me as regularly now as he ever has. His obsessive hatred continues unabated.

Don't blame the victim.

Then you haven't really been ignoring them, have you. If you had, you wouldn't know what they have been saying about you. To ignore them does not mean just not to "interact" with them; it means not to read what they say either. Let them say what they want, forever; who cares? If you really ignored them, they would only be hurting themselves, not you. They are hurting you because you are not really ignoring them--and they know it--which is why they keep doing it. Do you think Jesus is upset by what the devils are saying about Him in hell? I don't think so.

Edited May 22, 2012 by zerinus

[Pahoran]

Essentially what's happening anyway.

People confidently predicted that my Stalker would lose his interest in me if I stopped interacting with him. I haven't posted on his board for roughly a year. I altogether ignored everything he said for most of that time. He starts threads about me as regularly now as he ever has. His obsessive hatred continues unabated.

Don't blame the victim.

It seems that a popular method of establishing one's superioriteh around here is to look for a situation where an LDS defender is being set upon by one or more anti-Mormons and then chide the defender for not being as charitable, patient and longsuffering as the nanny has never had to be at any time in his or her life.

Perhaps the wannabe manners police should ask themselves how forbearing they would be if some anonymous gnashers were to continually defame them, in their IRL names, with serious accusations that may well come to the attention of their families, friends, colleagues, employers, associates, acquaintances, and others they have not yet met, but might one day wish to make friends with.

Unfortunately, lies that are not refuted come to be accepted as truth by default. There is merit in suggesting that you ignore some of what is said. I suggest you begin with those who demand that you give silent consent to the libels, since they are serving no purpose other than assisting your enemies.

The worthless Scratch and his mindless cheer squad, including a certain professor of Classics at Florida State University, have been carrying on their hate campaign, unabated, for years now. It's not likely that they intend to stop any time soon; but I personally think it's high time that those who chide you for not encouraging them with your silence realised that they are actually siding with the attackers by their interference.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ares]

Zerinus you are also getting very close to board nannying here. Dr. Peterson is a published LDS author and these types of attacks follow him no matter where he publishes. We have allowed some threads here to respond to multiple attacks in multiple venues. Even if Dr. Peterson does not visit them himself word invariably gets back to him.

Regarding Kevin/Xander - his banning was brought upon himself because he could not stop with the insulting language. The other moderators might have their own opinion of this but I do not know of another single poster who was given more second chances, more leniency and more leeway than Kevin. He just couldn't handle the freedoms like a grownup, even when allowed to post under a second identity.

We have reached our limit with those who feel this board is their personal venting opportunity. Those who feel they can question the righteousness or honesty of others (pro or anti-Mormon) will not be welcome to disrupt the dialogue the board was established to facilitate.

[Nemesis]

Zerinus you are also getting very close to board nannying here. Dr. Peterson is a published LDS author and these types of attacks follow him no matter where he publishes. We have allowed some threads here to respond to multiple attacks in multiple venues. Even if Dr. Peterson does not visit them himself word invariably gets back to him.

Regarding Kevin/Xander - his banning was brought upon himself because he could not stop with the insulting language. The other moderators might have their own opinion of this but I do not know of another single poster who was given more second chances, more leniency and more leeway than Kevin. He just couldn't handle the freedoms like a grownup, even when allowed to post under a second identity.

We have reached our limit with those who feel this board is their personal venting opportunity. Those who feel they can question the righteousness or honesty of others (pro or anti-Mormon) will not be welcome to disrupt the dialogue the board was established to facilitate.

+1

[zerinus]

Zerinus you are also getting very close to board nannying here. Dr. Peterson is a published LDS author and these types of attacks follow him no matter where he publishes. We have allowed some threads here to respond to multiple attacks in multiple venues. Even if Dr. Peterson does not visit them himself word invariably gets back to him.

Regarding Kevin/Xander - his banning was brought upon himself because he could not stop with the insulting language. The other moderators might have their own opinion of this but I do not know of another single poster who was given more second chances, more leniency and more leeway than Kevin. He just couldn't handle the freedoms like a grownup, even when allowed to post under a second identity.

We have reached our limit with those who feel this board is their personal venting opportunity. Those who feel they can question the righteousness or honesty of others (pro or anti-Mormon) will not be welcome to disrupt the dialogue the board was established to facilitate.

My post relates to Dr Peterson's interactions with another board, in response to a post which he himself has initiated. I can't fathom how that can be called "board nannying," by any kind of standard.

Edited May 22, 2012 by zerinus

[Maidservant]

The first Arab attacks on the Byzantines at the very end of Muhammad's life, for instance, cannot really be explained as "defensive"..

Did the Arabs of the time self-identify these actions as jihad?

[Scott Lloyd]

When I was younger (so much younger than today) I used to watch The Avengers on TV. I thought it was a way-cool spy show.

Then, years later, it came back on reruns, and I realised it was a spoof of spy shows; like Get Smart, but with class instead of slapstick. So it wasn't like watching reruns at all; it was like seeing it for the first time, since it was a different entertainment experience. I loved it both times, but for entirely different reasons.

Regards,

Pahoran

It was my first exposure to Patrick McNee.

Much later, I realized that he was in the cast of the 1951 movie "Scrooge," which continues to be my favorite cinematic retelling of A Christmas Carol by Charles D-i-c-kens. He played the part of the young Jacob Marley.

Add on:

To save this post from being absolutely off-topic, I will here express earnest agreement with those who champion the propriety of Dr. Peterson defending himself publicly against the bile that infests the internet and will add that I am not persuaded by the blame-the-victim mentality of the finger-waggers here.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

Do you think that this back-and-forth on issues unrelated to Doctrine/Teaching of the LDS Church, which back and forth relates solely to the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, do any good at all? For anyone?

It is not a good idea to leave unanswered accusations out there for the world to see and speculate about. Sigh.