Radio Free Mormon's Take down of Peterson

[_Meadowchik]

I've interacted with him online several times and was never impressed. I feel like I've had much more thoughtful, genuine discussions with many other people. I guess that "defending the church" doesn't mean a person is forthright.

My first interaction with him on a personal issue..his first sentence was...NO! NO! NO! You are so wrong! It was in the beginning of my disaffection with the church and I cried for hours..thinking...no one will understand me.

I'm so sorry. That really sounds painful.

It sounds like he is still in a stage of intellectual adolescence. I think some people get stuck there for a long time. And I'd venture to guess that his dishonesty as shown by RFM is both a symptom and a catalyst for circling back into that limbo.

[_Lemmie]

DCP has given his stock response:

When and if I do pay serious attention, I’ll probably respond in some fashion or other.

and,

Is there more to be said?  Yes.  Of course.  And, sooner or later, I’m likely to say it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ision.html

How many times has he posted a variation on that excuse?

Re the Jenkins-Hamblin debate:

This is a very interesting conversation.  I’ll probably comment on it at some point.  For now, though, I’m inclined to wait until after it winds down.

Re Joseph as Seer issue:

w I probably will have something substantial to say about this specific matter. Perhaps on my blog, perhaps in one of my weekly columns, or perhaps elsewhere.
It will, however, be on my schedule.

But this one gives some insight into his avoidance:

But I didn't pretend to have refuted your stance. I ignored it. I scarcely have the time to READ your lengthy comments here, let alone to rebut them point by point.

When and if I take such time, it won't be down in the comments section of a blog.

I can't have committed a fallacy of irrelevance with regard to x if I never purported to have addressed x in the first place.

There it is. As long as he insists that he has never fully addressed an issue, then he can argue that he can't be found wrong, can't he?!

[_Philo Sofee]

Lemmie
As long as he insists that he has never fully addressed an issue, then he can argue that he can't be found wrong, can't he?!

A rhetorical trick if there ever was one. He is a clever little Nibley Jr.....