Death Threats

[Paloma]

Dan never called it a death threat. I did, because I misunderstood an email from him. Dan corrected my mistake shortly after I started this thread.

If e-mails from good friends can be quite significantly misunderstood, how much more can there be significant misunderstandings and consequent misrepresentations from those who aren't friends!

It seems there should be a great quote (Shakesperean perhaps?) that speaks to such a human foible!

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, again, because I actually do, contrary to the claims of my enemies, try to get things right:

Wayfarer was, in fact, able to come up with a message of his that I shared with (I think) three of my friends whom he had been publicly attacking along with me. It contained a "peace proposal" to the effect that, if I would publicly renounce and denounce certain statements of these friends (including a recent article in Interpreter), and if I would assent to everything Wayfarer had been saying, he would stop calling me nasty names. I thought it was a transparently unserious idea -- even, frankly, a contemptuous one. I declined the offer and forgot about it. Whether his message contained his IRL name or not, I don't recall -- I would have to look -- but, in any event, I couldn't, even under torture, come up with Wayfarer's IRL name at the moment. I don't remember ever having known it. I haven't sought to find it out. I truly, genuinely, don't care.

Since then, perhaps provoked by my failure to capitulate, Wayfarer has considerably ratcheted up the intensity of his insults and name-calling. And, of course, he's been joined by the usual chorus at Kishkumen's Hate Place -- and Kishkumen, incidentally, is being comforted and consoled for the vicious way in which we're all going after him here. (You really can't make this stuff up.) I had been puzzled, to be honest, as to why Wayfarer has seemed even more hostile lately than he was before, but now, having been reminded of his "peace offer," I think I understand the timing.

If someone were to send me a personal communication containing vitriol, direct or implied threats, absurd conditions for standing down from his nastiness, or anything of the sort, I would have absolutely no hesitancy about making that person's identity or the content of his message public.

I've said this before: The unilateral and advance expectation of automatic confidentiality for an unsolicited private communication is not morally or ethically defensible, wayfarer's sanctimonious indignation and outrage notwithstanding.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Gervin]

Dan never called it a death threat. I did, because I misunderstood an email from him. Dan corrected my mistake shortly after I started this thread.

that's quite a mis-understanding, imho.

[Daniel Peterson]

For that remark, if I were you, Garvin, I'd be watching my back.

Just saying.

(Ever heard of the Danites?)

[Scott Lloyd]

that's quite a mis-understanding, imho.

I'm not so sure. "Destroy" is a pretty ominous verb to use in any context.

[Calm]

If someone were to send me a personal communication containing vitriol, direct or implied threats, absurd conditions for standing down from his nastiness, or anything of the sort

It does come across as some sort of blackmail or 'protection racket'....as in 'pay up/dance to my tune or I'll make sure your reputation goes up in flames'.... Edited March 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

It does come across as some sort of blackmail or 'protection racket'....as in 'pay up/dance to my tune or I'll make sure your reputation goes up in flames'....

It does indeed -- transparently so.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One more interesting observation is that this thread has been down voted. I bet by those poeple that don't like the Dan and others like him.

"Oh look, this thread only has 1 star. It must be a horrible thread. I think I will avoid it".

[Calm]

I'm not so sure. "Destroy" is a pretty ominous verb to use in any context.

And if Bill was thinking about past emails that had threatened violence....

Having received a few threatening letters from a couple of individuals back in the days when I was a mod on ZLMB, they tended to be rather rambling and not that coherent. One could have been read as a death threat where the individual was thinking of being God's representative for the act or just him being a spectator of my ultimate horrible demise.

Edited March 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

One more interesting observation is that this thread has been down voted. I bet by those poeple that don't like the Dan and others like him.

"Oh look, this thread only has 1 star. It must be a horrible thread. I think I will avoid it".

I've often wondered about that. Most threads don't receive any stars at all. Is a thread with one star to be regarded as better than the vast majority of threads which receive no votes at all?

Or is giving a thread a vote of only one star the same as damning it with faint praise, as it were? Do we need to defend Dan's reputation by voting up the thread? If so, I just did my part.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I've often wondered about that. Most threads don't receive any stars at all. Is a thread with one star to be regarded as better than the vast majority of threads which receive no votes at all?

Or is giving a thread a vote of only one star the same as damning it with feint praise, as it were? Do we need to defend Dan's reputation by voting up the thread? If so, I just did my part.

Sounds like fun, I want to play.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've never paid any attention to the ratings, since I haven't really known what they mean or whether they're significant.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never paid any attention to the ratings, since I haven't really known what they mean or whether they're significant.

It's not like I'm obsessed with them. I've just wondered from time to time, that's all.

[Gervin]

I'm not so sure. "Destroy" is a pretty ominous verb to use in any context.

I suppose "destroy" is an ominous verb. But context is more important than your letting on.

"You're going to be socially destroyed" wouldn't be seen as a death threat.

"I'm going to destroy you academically" wouldn't either.

"I'm going to destroy you" might be getting into a grey area of personal harm.

"Bryce Harper destroyed that fast ball" is sweet music to my ears.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suppose "destroy" is an ominous verb. But context is more important than your letting on.

"You're going to be socially destroyed" wouldn't be seen as a death threat.

"I'm going to destroy you academically" wouldn't either.

"I'm going to destroy you" might be getting into a grey area of personal harm.

"Bryce Harper destroyed that fast ball" is sweet music to my ears.

Just to make it perfectly clear again: I never claimed that "lance peters" -- that wasn't actually the pseudonym that he used on the specific note in question; he uses several pseudonyms -- made a death threat against me.

He did, however, make a threat, and he's been making pretty much the same threat for some time. It wasn't, as he's now claiming over at Kishkumen's Hate Place, merely an outsider's "prediction."

[Calm]

I suppose "destroy" is an ominous verb. But context is more important than your letting on.

"You're going to be socially destroyed" wouldn't be seen as a death threat.

"I'm going to destroy you academically" wouldn't either.

"I'm going to destroy you" might be getting into a grey area of personal harm.

"Bryce Harper destroyed that fast ball" is sweet music to my ears.

From the way Bill posted in his first post, it sounds like Dan simply told him he had contacted the FBI and law enforcement to deal with a threat.

I would have jumped to the conclusion it was a death threat as well. It is unfortunately the state of the world that death threats aren't that uncommon, especially given the anonymous nature of the internet.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose "destroy" is an ominous verb. But context is more important than your letting on.

"You're going to be socially destroyed" wouldn't be seen as a death threat.

"I'm going to destroy you academically" wouldn't either.

"I'm going to destroy you" might be getting into a grey area of personal harm.

"Bryce Harper destroyed that fast ball" is sweet music to my ears.

I don't discount the importance of context. (In fact, I've harped on that very thing in the past.)

I'm just saying that some words more than others are fraught with potential for misunderstanding.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suspect that the comment from "Doom" on my blog entry "The Leadership of the Interpreter Foundation" is the latest veiled threat from the same guy:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

He uses multiple aliases and has posted them on my blog as well as sending them to me via personal emails.

He's typically clearer about his own role in bringing about the vengeance that I so richly deserve. What triggered my complaints to authorities the other day was the fact that, in one recent particular email note, he gave my financial and social ruin a specific time-frame, saying that it would occur in roughly three weeks.

[Calm]

I suspect that the comment from "Doom" on my blog entry "The Leadership of the Interpreter Foundation" is the latest veiled threat from the same guy:

http://www.patheos.c...gs/danpeterson/

He uses multiple aliases and has posted them on my blog as well as sending them to me via personal emails.

He's typically clearer about his own role in bringing about the vengeance that I so richly deserve. What triggered my complaints to authorities the other day was the fact that, in one recent particular email note, he gave my financial and social ruin a specific time-frame, saying that it would occur in roughly three weeks.

This was about a week ago....so that makes it two weeks. Let us hope he just has a really twisted sort of humour and it is his version of an April's Fool joke.

[Nathair/|\]

I suspect that the comment from "Doom" on my blog entry "The Leadership of the Interpreter Foundation" is the latest veiled threat from the same guy:

http://www.patheos.c...gs/danpeterson/

He uses multiple aliases and has posted them on my blog as well as sending them to me via personal emails.

He's typically clearer about his own role in bringing about the vengeance that I so richly deserve. What triggered my complaints to authorities the other day was the fact that, in one recent particular email note, he gave my financial and social ruin a specific time-frame, saying that it would occur in roughly three weeks.

Can you get me something associated with him that fulfills one of Frazer's Three Laws of Magic?

[CASteinman]

As everyone should already know Professor Peterson deserves all the abuse that he gets. Let me now describe one of his crimes. Professor Peterson visited New Zealand in 2000. ....

This is such a great story. Thanks for sharing it.