To Mr Scratch

[_Yong Xi]

I usually find them entertaining.

That's regrettable.

Obsessive character-assassination doesn't seem to me a very respectable spectator sport.

I have never understood your rationale for allowing this to continue. As has been noted before, you could you bring an end to this (over time) if you wanted to. Why do you play?

[_Yoda]

I have never understood your rationale for allowing this to continue. As has been noted before, you could you bring an end to this (over time) if you wanted to. Why do you play?

It's like most forms of reality entertainment (i.e. reality TV, etc.). It is a guilty pleasure.

It's the same reason I am fascinated by Rock of Love Bus and Celebrity Rehab Sober House.

[_Chap]

I usually find them entertaining.

That's regrettable.

Obsessive character-assassination doesn't seem to me a very respectable spectator sport.

I have never understood your rationale for allowing this to continue. As has been noted before, you could you bring an end to this (over time) if you wanted to. Why do you play?

With respect, may suggest that you turn the question round the other way?

Given that the person in question is clearly very much interested in "playing" in this way, how about asking yourself what this interest reveals about the person who chosen has this particular way of enjoying himself?

[_Some Schmo]

Yep, that's all it takes, Scratchopolis. Pucker up and kiss his butt, feed his undernourished ego, and he'll respect you. Make an honest assessment of how he comes off, and you're just a troll with whom he can't have a serious discussion.

It's a pretty straightforward system for danny boy.

I think you missed the hyperbole. I think this board is a trainwreck where the half-sane of both sides scream and throw poop at each other.

If you're referring to:

I appreciate your support. I shall now slavishly praise you.

it was hard to miss. I think we all know (or at least, suspect) where you're coming from.

The fact is (as pitiable as it is), li'l danny boy thrives on slavish praise. We've seen this for years now. He is who he is, and it’s funny to watch his denials about himself while demonstrating the very things he denies. And I’m just one of those guys who tends to provide color commentary on what I see.

As for your characterization of this board... yeah, you're probably right. You ever notice how a train wreck will attract rubberneckers? What is it about a disaster that we all find so fascinating, anyway?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have never understood your rationale for allowing this to continue. As has been noted before, you could you bring an end to this (over time) if you wanted to. Why do you play?

You may be right. But I'm not absolutely sure that it would come to an end. It was going on here before I showed up. That is, in fact, what initially impelled me to join this board: Scratch was posting plausible but flat-out falsehoods about me -- very serious ones that, if they had been true, would have shown me to be guilty of grossly unethical and even vicious acts -- and, of course, they were going unchallenged.

And there is also the interest factor. I'm genuinely intrigued by what I see as Scratch's pathologically obsessive hostility to me and all my works. I've never encountered anything quite like it before, and it fascinates me to see how far he's willing to push it. (And if Gadianton has really come to share at least part of Scratch's worldview -- that is, if he's not faking this new urge to see virtually everything I do as part of some disingenuous, Machiavellian conspiracy -- that's trebly fascinating.)

[_Mister Scratch]

I have never understood your rationale for allowing this to continue. As has been noted before, you could you bring an end to this (over time) if you wanted to. Why do you play?

You may be right. But I'm not absolutely sure that it would come to an end. It was going on here before I showed up. That is, in fact, what initially impelled me to join this board: Scratch was posting plausible but flat-out falsehoods about me

This isn't correct. I defy you to supply even one, specific example demonstrating that I posted "flat-out falsehoods" about you. Go ahead, Dan. Prove that all your whining has been merited.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This isn't correct. I defy you to supply even one, specific example demonstrating that I posted "flat-out falsehoods" about you. Go ahead, Dan. Prove that all your whining has been merited.

I've been supplying such examples for three years.

You're virtually always wrong.

[_Mister Scratch]

This isn't correct. I defy you to supply even one, specific example demonstrating that I posted "flat-out falsehoods" about you. Go ahead, Dan. Prove that all your whining has been merited.

I've been supplying such examples for three years.

You're virtually always wrong.

Gee, not even one single, specific example? Color me unimpressed.

See, Dan: you are the one who is full of crap. The real truth is that you just can't take this sort of criticism, despite the fact that you are constantly doling it out, and that you and your pet publication have been doling it out for some two decades now. You claim that you've been "supplying such examples for three years," but if that were the case, then, one would think you'd be able list one--one, single, very small, specific example--right off the top of your head. And yet you don't.

Who is the one peddling falsehoods? Come on, Dan. I'll give you another chance. Name one single "flat-out" falsehood. Prove that you're not just a drama queen.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Prove that you're not an obsessive and malevolent lunatic. Then we'll talk.

[_Mister Scratch]

Prove that you're not an obsessive and malevolent lunatic. Then we'll talk.

More excuse-making from you. How is anyone supposed to take your silly rants seriously? "Oh, no! Flat-out falsehoods! Boo hoo hoo! Poor me! What ever am I going to do?!?" Not a single example, instead, just more name-calling.

See: the reality is that you don't have a case, and thus you're just puffing fog here. Here, I'll toss you a bone. Let's take the Quinn gossiping accusation. Probably you'd file that under "flat-out falsehoods," right? I accused you of spreading malicious gossip about Quinn, and, in fact, that's exactly what you were doing. You were telling people, practically at every opportunity, that Quinn's books were "untrustworthy." Furthermore, you were the editor of "That Old Black Magic," and other attack pieces. Wow: what a "flat-out falsehood" Mr. Scratch is telling! Right? No. DCP is full of crap.

Shall we examine another example? How about the "flat-out falsehood" that you get paid for apologetics? Do you? Yes, it turns out that you once got compensated $20,000 for being the Chair of FARMS, and you admitted to collecting various sums for your editorial work. Is this a "flat-out falsehood", the claim that DCP gets paid for apologetics? No. Of course not. DCP is full of crap.

Honestly: what do you want out of all of this? Do you gain some kind of satisfaction from blubbering endlessly about how you feel so picked on? (Here's your cue for the psychoanalysis, about how this post offers up some kind of "insight" or "clarity" into the Mind of Mr. Scratch.)

I've told you before and I'll happily tell you again: I don't think you're a bad guy, and I agree with Silent Kid that you do often make good points. But, your arrogance, and your inability to admit when you've screwed up is positively astonishing. (Cue DCP: "I disagree with your characterization. I can't admit to doing things I never did, blah blah blah." How stupid to you have to be? How blinded can one be by one's own arrogance and vanity?)

In any event, my challenge still stands: Prove where I have ever told a "flat-out falsehood" about you. Here, let me up the ante: if you prove this, I'll permanently "retire." If you genuinely have such a big problem with me, if you honestly think I'm some kind of "malevolent loon," then put your money where your mouth is and man up. Prove that your whining isn't just yet another of your ridiculous, drama-queen acts. (Cue Peterson: "I don't have to prove anything to you"; or, cue alternate take: "You're a malevolent loon, Scratch.")

Or, hey, maybe you will actually get some original material this time. Or, better yet, maybe you'll actually present a persuasive case with specific evidence.

Here's a prediction for you (shall I place a bet?): I predict that you will supply no evidence. You'll do your best to cook up some kind of witty rejoinder that somehow "absolves" you of looking like a chicken and a classic LDS apologist BS-er (yet again), and then you'll try and find some way to check out of the thread (rather like you did on the Mormon art thread). In fact, I think that the *specific* way you'll check out is by calling me some name, claiming that I'm a loon, or otherwise trying to blame me for whatever horrible ill you think me guilty of. Will I be right? Or, will you shock everyone---especially me---by actually supply a real, evidence-based example? I think that I ought to go ahead and place that bet.