DCP Admits to "LDS Academic Embarrassment"

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:56 pm

Dr. Shades wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Ah, I see. Thank you, Shades. The other part of my question is this: Was Infymus doing this "sign-off" thing back during the time when DCP and the SHIELDS crew would have excerpted that email of his?

No. I'm quite certain that Infymus's e-mail exchanges were posted to SHIELDS quite a while before he began participating here.

Hmm. Is the reason you asked that question because his real name was posted at SHIELDS? I don't know if they posted it or not, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down--did they?

Yes, they did post it. Ray tried to berate me on the basis of my posting of DCP's emails, but he (i.e., DCP) did the same thing at SHIELDS:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... ymus01.htm

I have wondered whether they "outed" him or not. Ray is convinced that Infymus "outed" himself, but, of course, Ray hasn't offered up any real evidence.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:16 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
I have wondered whether they "outed" him or not. Ray is convinced that Infymus "outed" himself, but, of course, Ray hasn't offered up any real evidence.

I'd have to look into this, Infymus' name is on his website also, but I don't know how long he's been using his real name there. Maybe he would like to clarify.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:21 am

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
I have wondered whether they "outed" him or not. Ray is convinced that Infymus "outed" himself, but, of course, Ray hasn't offered up any real evidence.

I'd have to look into this, Infymus' name is on his website also, but I don't know how long he's been using his real name there. Maybe he would like to clarify.

Gee, thanks for finally caving on this one, Ray. Having integrity suits you well.

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:21 am

I found Daniel's posting of his emails with Susie Q. He originally had her name in the email too and removed it when she pitched a fit about it.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... on_a01.htm

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:27 am

beastie wrote:I found Daniel's posting of his emails with Susie Q. He originally had her name in the email too and removed it when she pitched a fit about it.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... on_a01.htm

Yes, I believe that Ray's attempts at attacking me on the basis of my posting of DCP's emails was seriously misguided. The whole of SHIELDS, as I have discussed elsewhere, is really a nasty, juvenile, utterly humorless and disgusting piece of work.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:20 am

Mister Scratch wrote:
Yes, I believe that Ray's attempts at attacking me on the basis of my posting of DCP's emails was seriously misguided. The whole of SHIELDS, as I have discussed elsewhere, is really a nasty, juvenile, utterly humorless and disgusting piece of work.

Now you talk about my hyperbole. I think SHIELDS would have a similar opinion of your writing, so you're square, but as far as I'm aware, they don't take you seriously. You're yet to rank among significant anti-Mormons they pay attention to, so I guess in that sense finding out who you are isn't important to them, as yet.

Infymus obviously emailed DCP with his real name on the email. We know a lot about Infymus's background and experiences in Mormonism, as it's all on his site. When you emailed DCP, was your real name on the emails?

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:53 pm

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Yes, I believe that Ray's attempts at attacking me on the basis of my posting of DCP's emails was seriously misguided. The whole of SHIELDS, as I have discussed elsewhere, is really a nasty, juvenile, utterly humorless and disgusting piece of work.

Now you talk about my hyperbole. I think SHIELDS would have a similar opinion of your writing, so you're square, but as far as I'm aware, they don't take you seriously. You're yet to rank among significant anti-Mormons they pay attention to, so I guess in that sense finding out who you are isn't important to them, as yet.

Ray---

Are you really this ignorant? SHIELDS has practically been defunct for months now. Get with it, man.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:03 pm

Mister Scratch wrote: SHIELDS has practically been defunct for months now. Get with it, man.

Then why does it say "updated 14 Nov. 2007". That's less than two weeks ago.

http://www.shields-research.org/

You can even apply for "update notification". Of course, I could be imagining all this.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:08 pm

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: SHIELDS has practically been defunct for months now. Get with it, man.

Then why does it say "updated 14 Nov. 2007". That's less than two weeks ago.

http://www.shields-research.org/

You can even apply for "update notification". Of course, I could be imagining all this.

Wow! What a stunning counter!

Give me a break, Ray. One tiny update on 11/14/2007 hardly counts as "major activity." They update the site very seldom. It is practically defunct.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:15 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:Give me a break, Ray. One tiny update on 11/14/2007 hardly counts as "major activity." They update the site very seldom. It is practically defunct.

You could say the same for Infymus' site, but I doubt he'd say his site was "defunct". My real blog (not the one here) is now also "practically defunct" (to use your term), but it is going to be revived, albeit in a different form. Defunct sites don't offer updates - at all.