To Mr Scratch

[_Mister Scratch]

Well said. I think it's remarkably telling that both DCP and The Nehor apparently thing that doing such a thing would be funny. . . . These guys thrive on trying to make others suffer.

This is the kind of nonsense that I came here to contradict.

While the Scratches and some of their epigones may actually believe it, I'm reasonably confident that normal people even here on this board probably don't. Still, I thought it important to show up to explicitly deny and contradict some of this outlandishness, lest a few here, worn down by Scratch's incessant campaign of wacked out malevolence, come to think it plausible.

Really? And what's your evidence for that? My impression is that people simply got tired of certain discussions, not that they were persuaded by your lame "defenses." And there is a lot of evidence that you are vindictive, and that you relish suffering in others. On the MAD Big Love thread you were practically drooling over the prospect of HBO taking a hit. You also seemed positively gleeful that your "apostate" neighbor was suffering, and that she'd (in your words) gone batty and "new age"-y.

It makes sense that DCP rather foolishly admitted to one of my "informants" that he did not want to know my off-line identity, presumably because he would not be able to rein-in his essentially vindictive nature.

LOL. Unbelievable. It would be almost impossible to invent a better illustration of Scratchist method.

Even my express lack of interest in figuring out Scratch's real-world identity, despite his three-year campaign of incessant defamation against me, is taken as evidence of my moral depravity.

You got your butt kicked on a separate thread over your mis-use (or abuse?) of the word "defamation." You characterization, as usual, is completely inaccurate and hostile. More evidence of your vindictiveness, I daresay.

As Karl Popper liked to point out, when a hypothesis is absolutely unfalsifiable, when each and every fact counts in its favor and nothing is ever permitted to count against it, it's worthless.

Well, then, I guess you are going to have to dispense with your belief in the Church.

[_Daniel Peterson]

even the tangential projects---the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance---wind up receiving a Mopologetic spin.

Scratchite nonsense.

If you can find even the slightest trace of "Mopologetic spin" in our Dead Sea Scrolls database, you need to fire off a note exposing it to Professor Emanuel Tov at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the international editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of their official publication series (Oxford's Discoveries in the Judaean Desert), who is also the editor-in-chief of our database. And copy it to our distributors, the venerable publishing house E. J. Brill, at their headquarters in Leiden, The Netherlands.

Stand up for your convictions!

As for the rest of your silly note -- how Scratchist, by the way, to compare FARMS with the Mafia! -- I don't see much point in responding.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And there is a lot of evidence that you are vindictive, and that you relish suffering in others. On the MAD Big Love thread you were practically drooling over the prospect of HBO taking a hit. You also seemed positively gleeful that your "apostate" neighbor was suffering, and that she'd (in your words) gone batty and "new age"-y.

You are, as I've said before, a viciously malevolent loon.

Nobody who actually knows me or who's ever even spoken with me could possibly recognize me in the way you've been laboring to depict me for the past three years.

Basta!

[Physics Guy]

even the tangential projects---the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance---wind up receiving a Mopologetic spin.

Scratchite nonsense.

If you can find even the slightest trace of "Mopologetic spin" in our Dead Sea Scrolls database, you need to fire off a note exposing it to Professor Emanuel Tov at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the international editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of their official publication series (Oxford's Discoveries in the Judaean Desert), who is also the editor-in-chief of our database. And copy it to our distributors, the venerable publishing house E. J. Brill, at their headquarters in Leiden, The Netherlands.

A) Why would Prof. Tov have a problem with a Mopologetic explanation for the Dead Sea Scrolls?
B) Why must we limit it strictly to the database? Frankly, if there was *anything* to come out of FARMS that treated the DSS in an apologetic fashion, then my point remains perfectly valid. It's a matter of killing two birds with one stone: you get to do legit academic work, while still fulfilling the Mission Statement. (And no: I did not overlook the plain fact that you deleted out all of my references to the mission statement.)
C) Thus, your comment here is kind of useless. Sure---obvious mentions of LDS apologetics probably would have been eliminated from the things you mentioned. That doesn't mean that FARMS never intended to give the DSS an apologetic spin. (Isn't there a FARMS website that explains to users how and why the DSS are of interest to LDS?)
D) Don't you, yourself, believe that the DSS can help to affirm the faith of Latter-day Saints?

As for the rest of your silly note -- how Scratchist, by the way, to compare FARMS with the Mafia! -- I don't see much point in responding.

Of course you don't "see much point." Your argument was completely demolished.

[_Mister Scratch]

And there is a lot of evidence that you are vindictive, and that you relish suffering in others. On the MAD Big Love thread you were practically drooling over the prospect of HBO taking a hit. You also seemed positively gleeful that your "apostate" neighbor was suffering, and that she'd (in your words) gone batty and "new age"-y.

You are, as I've said before, a viciously malevolent loon.

No I'm not. If I was (as I pointed out) don't you think that I would engage with in real life stuff? But, I don't. That's probably why you have amped up your taunting and mockery. You have realized that I'm pretty harmless, and just limit my criticism to your Mopologetics. My general decency, compassion, and gentlemanly behavior had emboldened you. You feel more confident in the fact that, unlike you, I don't do things to people in real life.

Nobody who actually knows me or who's ever even spoken with me could possibly recognize me in the way you've been laboring to depict me for the past three years.

Basta!

"Laboring to depict"? Usually I post your verbatim quotations. If you come out looking bad, then that is your own fault, Professor P. Probably the people who "actually know" you aren't familiar with your online and apologetic activities. If they were, what would they think? That was the gist of the series of questions I posed to you earlier. There are some posters---Jason B., for example---who do know you in real life, and who thus wind up thinking that "Scratchite" criticism of you is "character assassination." I suspect that he thinks that because the criticism is limited strictly to your Mopologetics and your online output. Because based strictly on that, you don't come out looking very well, I'm afraid. Jason has his in real life encounters with you to balance out his impressions, but many of us don't. Why don't you show us all your nicer side here online?

And, anyways: you always call me "malevolent" and whatever else, and you know even less about me than I do about you. Certainly, you have never caught me gloating about a potential loss of income and/or jobs at HBO, or picking on my "apostate" neighbor, or whatever else.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My general decency, compassion, and gentlemanly behavior

Couldn't you have waited for Gadianton Scratch to post that?

He's very attentive, and usually pretty quick.

Certainly, you have never caught me gloating about a potential loss of income and/or jobs at HBO, or picking on my "apostate" neighbor, or whatever else.

You've never caught me doing that, either.

You're a viciously malevolent loon who's devoted much of his life over the past three years to an attempt to publicly and anonymously blacken my character, and this is just a figment of your malignant imagination.

[_antishock8]

You're a viciously malevolent loon who's devoted much of his life over the past three years to an attempt to publicly and anonymously blacken my character, and this is just a figment of your malignant imagination.

Yes, but at least he was never part of destroying someone's reputation and employment.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, but at least he was never part of destroying someone's reputation and employment.

Nor was I.

I have neither the power nor the inclination to do such a thing.

[_Mister Scratch]

Certainly, you have never caught me gloating about a potential loss of income and/or jobs at HBO, or picking on my "apostate" neighbor, or whatever else.

You've never caught me doing that, either.

Do you deny saying that you hoped HBO would lose income due to LDS objections over the upcoming Big Love episode? Or do you deny that your commentary thereof was "gloating"? (And call it whatever you like; I still think it was rotten, and that you'd be hard pressed to find me engaging in that type of behavior.)

You're a viciously malevolent loon who's devoted much of his life over the past three years to an attempt to publicly and anonymously blacken my character, and this is just a figment of your malignant imagination.

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. It's just a "figment" of "my" imagination that your character is getting "blackened"? Your character is somehow "blackened" over the fact that I've pointed out that you got paid to administer over the LDS Church's chief apologetic organization? It seems that you are the one with the "malignant imagination."

Why don't you try owning up to some of your online mistakes, Bishop P.?

[_Mister Scratch]

at least he was never part of destroying someone's reputation and employment.

Yet another good and valid point, anti. Take a look at this:

There's not much that Mormons can do about this, and there's much that we should not do. But profits make Hollywood what it is, and, as I've said, I wouldn't mind HBO taking a measurable hit on this, even if it were small.

And this:

How many LDS households subscribe to HBO, do you suppose...???

I have no idea.

My household does.

Probably not for much longer, though.

Whether or not The Good Professor himself has "the power [or] the inclination" to do any major-league damage, it's clear that his feelings and motives are vindictive and vengeful in nature.