Getting "Comped," Mopologetic Style?

[_Mister Scratch]

Dear Blair: I'm terribly sorry about that old mistake. I misread what was, to me, a rather confusing blog format and incorrectly attributed a criticism of the Brethren to you. You have my sincere apologies.

Much appreciated, Mister Scratch. I didn't, however, need the "Dear Blair," which can give the appearance of insincerity, since you are not writing a letter you are conversing on a message board.

Huh. That's interesting. You first demand an apology, and then get one, and you proceed to offer up corrections, and to make accusations of insincerity. What a classy, humble guy you are.

[_Mister Scratch]

Objectivity is a myth. But it appears you don't know what I intend by saying that. I have described it before and won't do it again now. However, he asked what sort of evidence you would prefer; you gave no examples.

Sure I did. I told him he could use his skill as a forger to create some "evidence." You don't read very carefully, do you, LoaP?

Then you accused him of not providing evidence.

No; he didn't provide objective evidence, which I found quite hypocritical, all things considered.

He explicitly DID provide it, as you admit here, only now you say it is not sufficient, and still refuse to fully explain why, other than trying to misdirect with a comment about objectivity. Do the Scratch Shuffle!

Feel free to actually read the posts, Blair. Do the LoaP shuffle!

[Guest]

Sure I did. I told him he could use his skill as a forger to create some "evidence." You don't read very carefully, do you, LoaP?

No, you issued a pithy insult. Par for the scratchian course.

Then you accused him of not providing evidence.

No; he didn't provide objective evidence, which I found quite hypocritical, all things considered.

No, you simply said he would not provide evidence, even after he asked what sort of evidence you would accept. (And you have yet to really show why his evidence is faulty in any way.)

He explicitly DID provide it, as you admit here, only now you say it is not sufficient, and still refuse to fully explain why, other than trying to misdirect with a comment about objectivity. Do the Scratch Shuffle!

Feel free to actually read the posts, Blair. Do the LoaP shuffle!

[/quote]

Please show where I have misread. I certainly disagree with that accusation. And contra maklelan's "subjective" evidence, you haven't even provided that in regards to my not understanding the thread. Let's see something "objective." It is demonstrably false to anyone who simply reads the thread. But instead you and your smoke and mirrors will continue to deflect. This thread is an utter joke.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Huh. That's interesting. You first demand an apology, and then get one, and you proceed to offer up corrections, and to make accusations of insincerity. What a classy, humble guy you are.

Yes, "interesting." And done only in fine Scratchian tradition.

And again, I accept your apology, but noted that you might take better care in your words not to sound insincere.

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure I did. I told him he could use his skill as a forger to create some "evidence." You don't read very carefully, do you, LoaP?

No, you issued a pithy insult. Par for the scratchian course.

"Pithy" or not, I did name the type of evidence I'd "accept." Will you concede this basic point? No, of course not. Because you don't believe in fairness. You believe in tyranny.

No, you simply said he would not provide evidence, even after he asked what sort of evidence you would accept. (And you have yet to really show why his evidence is faulty in any way.)

Yes: where exactly is the evidence that Maklelan knows the thoughts of both DCP and the book vendors? Where is it, LoaP?

This thread is an utter joke.

I know that I sure am laughing.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Yes: where exactly is the evidence that Maklelan knows the thoughts of both DCP and the book vendors? Where is it, LoaP?

He never claimed to know these things. He discussed how things generally work and then hoped that occam's razor would come in handy. Of course, it apparently doesn't for you because it doesn't fit your stated agenda of discrediting Peterson.

[_maklelan]

It seems to me, objectively speaking, that you are the one doing the "whining," my dear Maklelan. And let's face facts here: the Mopologists, such as Hamblin and DCP, *do* have "elitist connections." They boast about them constantly. Surely you'll be able to concede a simple, objective point such as that.

I never said they don't have connections, but this particular accusation is not only completely unfounded, but absolutely asinine. It doesn't that big a man to simply let such an irrelevant point go, but you show over and over again that you're not willing to concede anything to people for whom you have such disdain and resentment. That's become absolutely transparent in this thread.

I'm a Mormon too, Mak. As for the evidence, why don't you put your skills as a forger to work for you? ; ) I hope you've repented, my dear friend.

Well, that's a rather infantile way to respond to my query regarding what kind of evidence would suffice. If nothing else it shows you never had any intention of accepting evidence.

That fact is this, Scratch: You know your little suspicion is wrong, just as well as I and everyone else here knows it's wrong. Your worldview precludes you from conceding that to me, though, since you obviously can't give an inch to Mormonism and since you evidently have something against me. Everyone is watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into this hole from which there is a simple and easy solution: admit your suspicions are misplaced. That would prove to me I've underestimated your maturity and your objectivity. I would love for you to prove that to me, but I don't think you will. Despite your avatar and your best efforts, you're not a particularly powerful or intimidating debater, and you're certainly not good enough at this to pretend to condescend to me about any of it, irrespective of your religious affiliation. I'm drawing the line. Prove to me you're a bigger man than I thought or prove to me that it's your pride that's in the driver's seat. I have no reason to continue to hang out at this board with you if you cannot prove the former.

PS - I have repented of all the bad stuff I did before I joined the church, and I continue to repent every day for the mistakes I continue to make.

[_Droopy]

As a kind of belated Christmas gift, I received the following bit of information from a very reliable informant.

Yes, Boris Badanov. When not chasing Moose and Squirrel he's funneling information to Scratch on numerous issues Mormon.

When will Scratch realize he's nothing but an exaggerated curiosity in what is already a museum of the odd and unusual?

[_Mister Scratch]

I never said they don't have connections, but this particular accusation is not only completely unfounded, but absolutely asinine. It doesn't that big a man to simply let such an irrelevant point go, but you show over and over again that you're not willing to concede anything to people for whom you have such disdain and resentment.

Maklelan, I hate to point this out to you, but this last sentence of yours doesn't quite make sense. This needs to be pointed out to you because you rather condescendingly ordered Gadianton to "learn to spell."

That's become absolutely transparent in this thread.

Really? LoaP asked for an apology for a past offense and I happily offered one up. Of course, he proceeded to spit in my face after wards, but you can't accuse me of not trying. In any event, you're flat out wrong here, Mak. I *do* concede sometimes. Will you now therefore concede that it was *you* who were wrong? I'd love to see it. I'd love to see that, in actuality, Mopologists are "humble" after all.

I'm a Mormon too, Mak. As for the evidence, why don't you put your skills as a forger to work for you? ; ) I hope you've repented, my dear friend.

Well, that's a rather infantile way to respond to my query regarding what kind of evidence would suffice. If nothing else it shows you never had any intention of accepting evidence.

Infants understand forgery?

Anyways, sure I would have, Mak. You didn't present any evidence beyond your very subjective personal testimony, though. I found that hypocritical, given how often you have harped on the notion of "objectivity" in this thread. Will you concede that you have behaved hypocritically? I rather doubt it.

That fact is this, Scratch: You know your little suspicion is wrong, just as well as I and everyone else here knows it's wrong.

What "suspicion"? That DCP was "comped" this book due to being a Mopologist? Well, Maklelan, I never "suspected" that that was the case! I *wondered* if it might be, but, thanks to you, I think we can now lay that "wonderment" to rest.

Your worldview precludes you from conceding that to me, though, since you obviously can't give an inch to Mormonism and since you evidently have something against me.

Really? What do you want me to concede? I'm a humble chap---I'll gladly do it. You're wrong about me, by the way: I don't have anything against you. Will you concede that you're wrong about it?

Everyone is watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into this hole from which there is a simple and easy solution: admit your suspicions are misplaced. That would prove to me I've underestimated your maturity and your objectivity. I would love for you to prove that to me, but I don't think you will. Despite your avatar and your best efforts, you're not a particularly powerful or intimidating debater, and you're certainly not good enough at this to pretend to condescend to me about any of it, irrespective of your religious affiliation. I'm drawing the line. Prove to me you're a bigger man than I thought or prove to me that it's your pride that's in the driver's seat. I have no reason to continue to hang out at this board with you if you cannot prove the former.

Sure, Mak. I'd be glad to. What is it that you want me to concede? That DCP's status as a Mopologist played no role whatsoever in his receiving a discount on the book? Well...okay. I don't know that that is 100% the case, but if it will help you to view me in a less hateful light, then sure: I happily concede.

PS - I have repented of all the bad stuff I did before I joined the church, and I continue to repent every day for the mistakes I continue to make.

Kudos to you.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, I hate to point this out to you, but this last sentence of yours doesn't quite make sense. This needs to be pointed out to you because you rather condescendingly ordered Gadianton to "learn to spell."

I knew you'd make my decision that much easier. You guys never fail. Later.