a five+ year crusade of character assassination

[_Darth J]

The underlined part is precisely Darth J's point, Simon. By your thinking, it does not exist because that is not its real name, but just an assumed one. Its real name is Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No. I didn't say there wasn't a real person behind the Scratch's façade. I said he hides behind a hyper-protected pseydonym, safely carrying out his personal vendetta against someone else's real name and real identity.

No, you said that criticizing a pseudonym cannot be personal.

Maybe it would be easier to understand your position if you decide on one and stick to it.

[_Darth J]

This is what you said:

I know what I said. When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints becomes a person, you might have a valid argument.

What is a corporation, Simon?

[_Darth J]

Simon, are you now conceding that criticizing the Church is not equivalent to persecuting its members?

[_Simon Belmont]

No, you said that criticizing a pseudonym cannot be personal.

Maybe it would be easier to understand your position if you decide on one and stick to it.

In the context of Scratch/DCP, which this thread was about until your off-topic tangent, my position has not changed. A corporation is a legal entity, it has nothing to do with this thread.

[_sock puppet]

I'm not a DCP fanboi. I think that Scratch has taken his anti-DCP stuff way too far. I don't even really care what examples people might trot out of DCP saying things back, or about others. If he's doing it, then he's taking it too far too.

The LDS Church isn't true. Its members are still people, however. They aren't my enemies, even if the idea of Joseph Smith is repugnant to me. I don't think we should be lashing out at people personally in our disagreements about whether the LDS Church is really the Creator of the Univers's liaison organization to planet Earth.

Dr Scratch and DCP are people, and both like to engage the other. One, and only one, however would have readers believe that the relationship is not reciprocal, and that he has been the 'victim' of a 5+ year crusade of character assassination. The recent episode that brought down thecafeteria showed just how much a participant DCP is to egging on the engagement between himself and Dr Scratch. And so, a number of partisans for DCP cry foul about Dr Scratch, when DCP himself delights in their tête à tête that both contribute in making very public.

[_Simon Belmont]

Dr Scratch and DCP are people, and both like to engage the other. One, and only one, however would have readers believe that the relationship is not reciprocal, and that he has been the 'victim' of a 5+ year crusade of character assassination. The recent episode that brought down thecafeteria showed just how much a participant DCP is to egging on the engagement between himself and Dr Scratch. And so, a number of partisans for DCP cry foul about Dr Scratch, when DCP himself delights in their tête à tête that both contribute in making very public.

Scratch's signature line, designed with the sole purpose of tormenting DCP, was the primary cause of the events that took place.

[_sock puppet]

Dr Scratch and DCP are people, and both like to engage the other. One, and only one, however would have readers believe that the relationship is not reciprocal, and that he has been the 'victim' of a 5+ year crusade of character assassination. The recent episode that brought down thecafeteria showed just how much a participant DCP is to egging on the engagement between himself and Dr Scratch. And so, a number of partisans for DCP cry foul about Dr Scratch, when DCP himself delights in their tête à tête that both contribute in making very public.

Scratch's signature line, designed with the sole purpose of tormenting DCP, was the primary cause of the events that took place.

Scratch quoted your buddy Schryver. DCP did not make a peep about Schryver having written and posted that. His "beef" was that Dr Scratch used a Schryver quote in Dr Scratch's signature line.

The primary cause of the events that took place, that set it in motion, was DCP's ego and needing a dark place (thecafeteria) to take a unprovoked poke at Dr Scratch.

[_Jersey Girl]

The underlined part is precisely Darth J's point, Simon. By your thinking, it does not exist because that is not its real name, but just an assumed one. Its real name is Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No. I didn't say there wasn't a real person behind the Scratch's façade. I said he hides behind a hyper-protected pseydonym, safely carrying out his personal vendetta against someone else's real name and real identity.

It's no secret that I find the Scratch vs DCP feud extremely tiresome. I don't fully understand why it exists, however, after observing it for years, I feel confident in saying that they each play a role in it. No question about it.

With regards to carrying out a vendetta against someone else's real name/identity, I can only say this. The vendetta (I see it more as some sort of campaign) is being carried out on these boards where DCP actively chooses to engage his own real name and real identity.

Were it not for his presence on these boards, I doubt very much that the vendetta would ever be actualized.

Please do not take that to mean that I think DCP should not participate in online forums. What I am attempting to forward is that if DCP is going to participate on these boards, he might try using a pseudonym.

There is no honor in using one's in real life identity on boards such as these and then later complain because someone used their access to you in what you believe are negative ways, when you yourself have permitted them access.

[Guest]

No, you said that criticizing a pseudonym cannot be personal.

Maybe it would be easier to understand your position if you decide on one and stick to it.

In the context of Scratch/DCP, which this thread was about until your off-topic tangent, my position has not changed. A corporation is a legal entity, it has nothing to do with this thread.

You made a specious argument in response to the OP. Examining the speciousness of that argument is not an off-topic tangent.

You have in fact stated that criticizing a pseudonym is not a criticism of the person behind that pseudonym (my underline below).

Also, if DCP starts a thread about "Doctor Scratch," who is he starting a thread about? A pseudonym, not a real person. Scratch's attacks are toward a real person, using his real name. That's a huge difference.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21190&start=105

A corporation is a legal fiction that is treated in many respects as if it is a person. If you really believe in your own reasoning---such as it is---then by the same token, you are only criticizing the LDS Church if you use its actual, legal name, instead of a pseudonym.

And if criticizing a pseudonym is not equivalent to criticizing the real person using that pseudonym, then how is criticizing an organization equivalent to persecuting its constituent members?

But maybe my request for a coherent, consistent position is asking too much from someone who simultaneously objects to Latter-day Saints being called "Mormons," labels those who voice their disbelief in the LDS Church as "anti-Mormons," and insists contrary to fact that the term "Mormons" can only be applied to members of the LDS Church.

Why are your panties in a knot over all this, anyway? Can you prove that Scratch, Daniel Peterson, or you even exist?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]