Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is kind of funny, because I prophesied the other day that this exact scenario would play out. I'll have to dig up this post. Like I said, though, if Ray isn't telling the truth, his best bet is to pursue it hotly anyway. And that's because, the apologists will see this as a "anti-mormon" board and won't believe that the mods will unearth the evidence if Scratch is lying. So it's worth it to call for justice loudly. And in the event they do go for it, and Scratch is vindicated, the accusation will be made that the mods are "in on it" and tampering with the evidence. and already we're seeing those accusations that the mods are covering for him.

I haven't the vaguest acquaintance with "Keene," whoever he is. But, although I obviously disagree with him profoundly, and although I think his "chapel Mormon versus internet Mormon" dichotomy is ludicrous -- he knows these things already -- I don't believe that Shades is a liar. He's been in my home a couple of times, and I think he would be fair.

So, I say, if there is a way that this can be laid to rest in a definitive manner beyond the possibility of falsification, that ought to be done.

I'm pretty confident how it will turn out, but, if I'm proven wrong, I'll live with it. (It won't change my overall assessment of Scratch, though. I don't need any external evidence or arguments to prove to my satisfaction that his litany of accusations against me is false in general and in virtually all of its particulars. I have a privileged vantage point on those issues.)

[_Gadianton]

This is kind of funny, because I prophesied the other day that this exact scenario would play out. I'll have to dig up this post. Like I said, though, if Ray isn't telling the truth, his best bet is to pursue it hotly anyway. And that's because, the apologists will see this as a "anti-mormon" board and won't believe that the mods will unearth the evidence if Scratch is lying. So it's worth it to call for justice loudly. And in the event they do go for it, and Scratch is vindicated, the accusation will be made that the mods are "in on it" and tampering with the evidence. and already we're seeing those accusations that the mods are covering for him.

I haven't the vaguest acquaintance with "Keene," whoever he is. But, although I obviously disagree with him profoundly, and although I think his "chapel Mormon versus internet Mormon" dichotomy is ludicrous -- he knows these things already -- I don't believe that Shades is a liar. He's been in my home a couple of times, and I think he would be fair.

So, I say, if there is a way that this can be laid to rest in a definitive manner beyond the possibility of falsification, that ought to be done.

I'm pretty confident how it will turn out, but, if I'm proven wrong, I'll live with it. (It won't change my overall assessment of Scratch, though. I don't need any external evidence or arguments to prove to my satisfaction that his litany of accusations against me is false in general and in virtually all of its particulars. I have a privileged vantage point on those issues.)

Will it change your assessment of Ray? With all due respect, as I don't have any bones to pick with you, if you can forgive Ray's actions due to mitigating circumstances of life trauma and so on, and yet will not forgive Scratch, even though as you suggested his actions may well be explained by previous bed-wetting our other childhood traumas, then what is the point of this exercise? If you find Ray's behavior entirely uninteresting and you are unwilling to find any interest in it whatsoever while yet having great interest in the behavior of an opponent, then doesn't this just suggest that we're all in the end going to side with our teams?

If this is your attitude, and you are certainly one of the most intelligent contributors to LDS forums, is there any reason to believe that Scratch will lose all credibility with the critics, as Ray suggests, if he's proven wrong? Won't the critics just cease to be interested in the matter, as you find no interest in Ray's antics and violent humor?

[_Ray A]

as you find no interest in Ray's antics and violent humor?

Now this is a laugh. "Violent humour". Do you PC-ites have any thing else to complain about? Is wanting all the General Authorities dead, "violent humour"? Good grief. Which number drink are you on, Gad - 26?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Will it change your assessment of Ray?

If I were to discover that Ray is a deliberate and brazen liar, yes, it would change my assessment of him.

However, I have connections with him beyond message boards, so it wouldn't totally change my view.

That being said, though, I have considerable confidence, from my knowledge of Ray, that he is not a liar. His honesty is one of his most striking qualities.

With all due respect, as I don't have any bones to pick with you, if you can forgive Ray's actions due to mitigating circumstances of life trauma and so on, and yet will not forgive Scratch, even though as you suggested his actions may well be explained by previous bed-wetting our other childhood traumas, then what is the point of this exercise?

I've never said that I won't forgive Scratch. (Truth be told, I don't hate him even now. I simply hold his internet behavior -- which is all of him that I'm permitted to know -- in utter contempt.)

I genuinely have no idea why he hates me so implacably.

As contrasted with Ray, though, I know nothing of Scratch -- not even his name or gender -- beyond his persona on the message board. If he is proven to be a liar (as, because of previous experiences with him, I've long believed him to be), that will color the totality of what I know about him, which is only his internet persona. Perhaps, in his off-line life, he's a saint of kindness, charity, and compassion. About that, I know nothing and, under the circumstances, can know nothing.

[_beastie]

If I were to discover that Ray is a deliberate and brazen liar, yes, it would change my assessment of him.

So if Ray is a liar, that would change your assessment of him. But it doesn't change your assessment of him to know that he threatened to kill missionaries.

[_The Nehor]

This is kind of funny, because I prophesied the other day that this exact scenario would play out. I'll have to dig up this post. Like I said, though, if Ray isn't telling the truth, his best bet is to pursue it hotly anyway. And that's because, the apologists will see this as a "anti-mormon" board and won't believe that the mods will unearth the evidence if Scratch is lying. So it's worth it to call for justice loudly. And in the event they do go for it, and Scratch is vindicated, the accusation will be made that the mods are "in on it" and tampering with the evidence. and already we're seeing those accusations that the mods are covering for him.

Sometimes that boring course in game theory I took at BYU pays off...Hinckley ought to take it.

I can see Scratch is letting this get to him a bit and willing to lay down the cards. I just think it will be unfortunate if vindicating himself on this will cause his "informants" to fear their PM's might be read in the future.

I trust Keene enough to believe he would be fair.

[_Dr. Shades]

I haven't the vaguest acquaintance with "Keene," whoever he is.

He's the legal owner and chief administrator of this board. (Incidentally, you and he share the same zip code.)

[_Bond...James Bond]

I haven't the vaguest acquaintance with "Keene," whoever he is.

He's the legal owner and chief administrator of this board. (Incidentally, you and he share the same zip code.)

The Seventh Circle of Hell has a zip code?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow, what an imaginative cheapshot, Prof. P. by the way: Have you noticed that you've responded to my inquiries into "LDS academic embarrassment" with nothing but ad hominem attacks?

You're wrong. I've responded to your claims of an "LDS academic embarrassment" by dismissing them as baseless and you as not worthy of serious conversation.

A "dismissal" is not a "response," my dear Professor P.

It's your campaign of malevolent and mendacious character assassination against me to which I've responded by branding you malevolent and mendacious. Which, incidentally, is not, strictly speaking, a specimen of the ad hominem logical fallacy -- and would not be even if you were not mendacious and malevolent (which, plainly, you are).

Actually, it is. Shifting the topic of discussion away from the topic and onto the character of your opponent is textbook ad hominem. Perhaps you can hoof it over to the Remedial Debate course over at BYU.

You know, this is pretty foolish. There are a number of TBMs from the MADboard who lurk here, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them saw your endless taunting of Yme. How do you suppose they are reacting to your repeated dodges of my questions? What if struggling members are watching right now, Prof. P.?

They're free to express any concerns about any issue raised here with me, either by private e-mail

Yep. Since you are afraid to deal with the issue in the light of day. These "troublesome" points must be dealt with in a secretive, subterranean way.

-- no pseudonyms, though; Scratch is a low but cunning sort, and he lusts to use anything I say against me, however hard he has struggle to twist it -- or on the MAD&D board.

You are protected on the MADboard. Virtually any critic capable of really dealing a damaging blow to either you as a reliable scholar/apologist, or to Mopologetics in general, gets thrown out. This is a well-documented fact.

I'm not "dodging your questions," Scratch. I'm refusing to respond to them.

A distinction without a difference.

You and I both know that they're not asked in good faith, I don't grant that they concern a genuine issue, and, as we both know, you're just looking for more ammunition to use against me in your bizarre crusade.

So you acknowledge that, yes, there is "academic embarrassment," and, in effect, I am right?

I'll be here a bit longer for my periodic denial of your various slanders against me (it's rather like the Sixth Fleet's practice of regularly sailing through disputed waters in order to make a point) and, on this particular occasion, to point to your attempt to deceive readers of the board by tampering with the personal message that you sent to Ray. (You won't admit it publicly, of course, but you and I both know full well what you did.)

(You and I both know you engaged in rank gossip about Mike Quinn's sexual orientation.)

Of course you have little "interest" in it, since that would entail your having to take responsibility for the part you played in it.

Now you're going to claim that I'm the one who traumatized you? You're still seeking revenge for the fact that the moderators at MAD&D gave you the boot -- not at my instigation, by the way -- over a previous case of dishonesty that is strikingly similar to the stunt that Ray has identified here.

"O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Right, Scratch?

Oh, was I really dishonest? You have admitted that you have no proof, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to level the allegation.

[_Mister Scratch]

as you find no interest in Ray's antics and violent humor?

Now this is a laugh. "Violent humour". Do you PC-ites have any thing else to complain about? Is wanting all the General Authorities dead, "violent humour"? Good grief. Which number drink are you on, Gad - 26?

Still waiting, Ray. My "version" of the message is in Dr. Shades's InBox right now. You gonna send yours, or are you going to apologize to me for making a false accusation?