The Nehor wrote:I decided to try out the search feature today. CFR granted Scratch:
Nehor---
I have to say, you have done a remarkably good job of defending your position, and I really have to tip my hat to you. You are without question one of "The Good Ones."
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the CFR, Nehor. Unfortunately, this only supports my basic thesis, which is that you are starved for compliments and friendship, hence your silly gambit on the aptly named MADboard.
Jersey Girl wrote:I see. You simply refuse to address anything but carefully selected portions of his post to construct your script.
Well done!
Thanks, Jersey! I was just about to compliment your substantial and thoughtful response (or "sermon"?) to Gaz on the other thread. To be honest, I can't remember the last time you actually did a post like that.
My assessment of Mister Scratch (for what it's worth):
I think Scratch is still a mysterious person, but dealing with him online has nevertheless made me aware of many things.
I believe Scratch is a very tolerant and forgiving person (yea, I know this will cause some howls), but like all of us he likes people "onside" with his views. Can any of us deny that? As I've said before, I believe he's a skilled debater, and skilled in the art of persuasion and rhetoric, when it's necessary (which led me to think that in real life he's a lawyer). DCP is no different. Both Scratch and Gad have sharp insights into human nature, and what may have seemed, at first, to be "superficial" observations of apologetics have, in my opinion, turned out to be quite insightful. It has turned out to be my personal revision of some 20 years of studying apologetics.
Scratch in some ways is naïve, like Joseph Smith was in thinking he could trust people he shouldn't have trusted. But this indicates to me that behind the skilled rhetorician is a simple person who believes that good will eventually triumpt over evil, notwithstanding his and DCP's perception of what "evil" is.
So why have I suddenly given Scratch so much leeway? Because he strikes me as someone who has a single-minded cause, is not interested in praise, is not vain, holds to high moral standards, who will not let his soul be known to all just for the sake of "interaction", doesn't care for honours of other posters, though he would, like most of us, willingly accept some kind of respect or attention, but doesn't crave it.
I was, of course Scratch's former opponent. But over time, I've seen something in his posts that convinces me that he is sincere, even when I was fiercely debating him. He never once, even flippantly, suggested violence, and this tells me something about his character. That DCP has taken him so seriously, for so long, also indicates that he's not a passing phenomenon. DCP has had more critics than you can count on a calculator, including Bob Mc Cue, but he has only chosen to take Scratch seriously, and I doubt it's because Scratch's arguments are "superficial", but very poignant.
DCP's "standard post" disregarding Scratch, and calling him "Scartch" only told me one thing, that Scratch had him hung by the balls. It would have been better for DCP to completely ignore him, if he didn't feel there was any substance to Scratch's posts. His continual disclaimers only pointed to the fact that he just couldn't ignore Scratch.
Maybe it is legitimate to question why apologists seem to live the high life, why they jet around the world, and why they seem to have so much time to spend on the Internet. Certainly more than I have! It almost seems like they're defending a modern form priestcraft, and one which will never be questioned by the faithful.
Mister Scratch wrote:Thank you for taking the time to respond to the CFR, Nehor. Unfortunately, this only supports my basic thesis, which is that you are starved for compliments and friendship, hence your silly gambit on the aptly named MADboard.
Sad, unhappy little man. Tune in tomorrow where the gambit will take a turn for the worse/better.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Ray A wrote:My assessment of Mister Scratch (for what it's worth):
I think Scratch is still a mysterious person, but dealing with him online has nevertheless made me aware of many things.
I believe Scratch is a very tolerant and forgiving person (yea, I know this will cause some howls), but like all of us he likes people "onside" with his views. Can any of us deny that? As I've said before, I believe he's a skilled debater, and skilled in the art of persuasion and rhetoric, when it's necessary (which led me to think that in real life he's a lawyer). DCP is no different. Both Scratch and Gad have sharp insights into human nature, and what may have seemed, at first, to be "superficial" observations of apologetics have, in my opinion, turned out to be quite insightful. It has turned out to be my personal revision of some 20 years of studying apologetics.
Scratch in some ways is naïve, like Joseph Smith was in thinking he could trust people he shouldn't have trusted. But this indicates to me that behind the skilled rhetorician is a simple person who believes that good will eventually triumpt over evil, notwithstanding his and DCP's perception of what "evil" is.
So why have I suddenly given Scratch so much leeway? Because he strikes me as someone who has a single-minded cause, is not interested in praise, is not vain, holds to high moral standards, who will not let his soul be known to all just for the sake of "interaction", doesn't care for honours of other posters, though he would, like most of us, willingly accept some kind of respect or attention, but doesn't crave it.
I was, of course Scratch's former opponent. But over time, I've seen something in his posts that convinces me that he is sincere, even when I was fiercely debating him. He never once, even flippantly, suggested violence, and this tells me something about his character. That DCP has taken him so seriously, for so long, also indicates that he's not a passing phenomenon. DCP has had more critics than you can count on a calculator, including Bob Mc Cue, but he has only chosen to take Scratch seriously, and I doubt it's because Scratch's arguments are "superficial", but very poignant.
DCP's "standard post" disregarding Scratch, and calling him "Scartch" only told me one thing, that Scratch had him hung by the balls. It would have been better for DCP to completely ignore him, if he didn't feel there was any substance to Scratch's posts. His continual disclaimers only pointed to the fact that he just couldn't ignore Scratch.
Maybe it is legitimate to question why apologists seem to live the high life, why they jet around the world, and why they seem to have so much time to spend on the Internet. Certainly more than I have! It almost seems like they're defending a modern form priestcraft, and one which will never be questioned by the faithful.
Tolerant and forgiving? Repeatedly brings back up slights he thinks he's found in other people months or even years later. He continually demands private details about LDS people. He's stalkerish.
DCP combats Scratch because so many morons listen to him. He had a gang of people trying to hang DCP over a tax document Scratch didn't understand. He then used a complex tax form to cast a slight on DCP's character and PEOPLE HERE actually bought into it. I think Dr. Peterson is operating under the idea that if a lie is repeated enough people might believe it so he simply denies it. I'd do the same.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: I think Dr. Peterson is operating under the idea that if a lie is repeated enough people might believe it so he simply denies it. I'd do the same.
That's true, Nehor, and if one bears testimony enough, one might actually believe it.
The Nehor wrote: I think Dr. Peterson is operating under the idea that if a lie is repeated enough people might believe it so he simply denies it. I'd do the same.
That's true, Nehor, and if one bears testimony enough, one might actually believe it.
Hey Ray, I saw that coming as soon as I got to the bottom of Nehor's post. ;-)
--------------------
Generally, I am having a hard time understanding why Nehor would be pounced upon here for a harmless and funny thread he started at MAD.
I have to admit I agree with a lot of what Ray has said about Mister Scratch.
I believe Scratch is a very tolerant and forgiving person
I agree with this. I'm not going to say some of the reasons why, but I believe it to be true.
So why have I suddenly given Scratch so much leeway? Because he strikes me as someone who has a single-minded cause, is not interested in praise
This is actually a very important point. He stands by his positions no matter what the reception. Many of the apologists don't seem to realize that Scratch has been disagreed with very often by LDS critics.
is not vain, holds to high moral standards, who will not let his soul be known to all just for the
I agree. Scratch gets a lot of anonymous tips, and he keeps them that way. He does not reveal his sources.
...that he's not a passing phenomenon.
I think that he's very relevant, and I've found what he's had to say refreshing. It's not always a matter of win or lose, but how you play the game. Not that I agree with every case he's made.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
The Nehor wrote:Tolerant and forgiving? Repeatedly brings back up slights he thinks he's found in other people months or even years later.
Gee, Nehor, it sounds like you've been genuinely wounded. And to think: you always yuk it up, claiming that you are "grabbing popcorn" in order to rather sadistically watch "the blood flow." What shall we make of that? Are you actually a hurt human, whose pride has taken a blow? Or, are you just puffing smoke?
Or, is the reality that you are guilty of the sin that Christ condemned above all others: hypocrisy?