The way I see it, the solution to this is to begin sending links to the people who host DCP's various speaking engagements. On the "Baloney Detector" thread, I wrote:
Someone needs to email Shermer a link to DCP's postings on SHIELDS, so that Shermer will know what he's in for.
DCP has affirmed repeatedly that his emailing of the link to Eric's stepdad was completely ethical, on the grounds that DCP himself would have wanted to be emailed a link. Well, don't you think that Shermer would like to know what kind of debate opponent he'll be up against? Likewise, DCP plans to present on Islam in Orlando soon. Do you think the people there would be interested in looking over some links where DCP says that Muslims will "kill" Mormons if they learn about proxy baptisms? Do you think they'd be interested in a link to his "Jews have few friends in the world" comment, or his noting that Calvinism is "disgusting"? Would the hosts like to know that their invited speaker subscribes to attitudes like this?
Now, we'd have to be completely scrupulous and fair here. Dan said that his email to GoodK's father was only a few lines. Thus, I think the emails to Shermer & et al. should say something like:
Dear Professor Shermer,
I understand that you're due to debate Prof. Daniel C. Peterson quite soon. Since I know that I personally like to know a bit about the people I'll be debating, I thought that you'd be interested in reading over these polemical exchanges of Daniel's:
You'll have to scroll down a bit, but the Peterson section features quite a few polemical correspondences that will give you some insight into his debate style.
Now, Jersey Girl has stated on the "Eric" thread that Eric's writings and identity are a public matter, so Ray's and others' complaints on his behalf are therefore bunko. Would she thus feel comfortable emailing Shermer and the Orlando people with links to DCP's public comments?
The more I think about all of this, the more I find that I am experiencing a kind of darkness, like this is wrong on some level..... And yet, a lot of knowledgeable and seemingly ethical/moral posters have advocated and defended precisely this behavior. Personally, I will not be emailing Shermer (not without DCP's explicit permission, anyhow), but I am nonetheless interested in hearing why some people (Mopologists especially) would view the "sending of an email" as problematic (or not). Recall, too, that John Tvedtnes once emailed a Dean/Dept. Chair in an effort to block a critic's bid for tenure. My question is: Is this sort of behavior fair game? On what grounds do the apologists justify their actions in this respect?