Slack Scratch Fever (Hey, its Friday Niiiiiiiiiiight!"

[_harmony]

All seriousness aside, The idea behind most of the altered lyrics to "Cat Scratch Fever" is precisely that I sincerly percieve Scratch to be, whatever else he may be, an intellectual poser with pretensions to serious intellectuality he does not possess. He poses here (and he's not the only one) as someone who knows and understands LDS doctrine and culture substantially, is well read in LDS doctrine, philosophy, and history as well as works critical of same, and is willing to engage in civil, critical debate if only the raving twit TBMs (and their sexual meat doll wives: hat tip for that classic to Vegas) would let him.

On all counts, I find his pose to be unconvincing, just as unconvincing as Harmony's pose as a faithful, Temple going LDS soccer mom. Scatch's entire textual basis for his animosity toward the church seems to be a single work by D. Michael Quinn and old, yellowing copies of The Watchman Expositor.

Hence "Slack Scratch Fever". Scratch is slack, period, and there's no better way to articulate that than in parodical verse or song. Its not twisting the knife. Its more like death by a thousand cuts, stanza by stanza.

Loran

I was never a soccer mom. I was a Little League mom. Baseball rules. Geez, Loran. Get it straight!

[_Gazelam]

1. Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

Person A: I think we should spend more money on environmental protection.
Person B: You just think that because you’re a stupid tree-hugger.

Person A: It is crucial that we facilitate adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project.
Person B: You think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up you loser; you don't know what you're talking about.





2. Ad hominem

Whilst in an arguement, to avoid the point (thus a cop-out) and to insult the person arguing. Often because the person who results to the insults has no logical/intelligent point, thus they break down to immaturity.

Jon: I've made my point five times and all you've done is call me 'gay', way to resort to ad hominem, dude.


Scratchs use of the term was well illustrated, well done Scratch ! Now if you could just use all these big words on a subject that matters !

[_Mister Scratch]

1. Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

Person A: I think we should spend more money on environmental protection.
Person B: You just think that because you’re a stupid tree-hugger.

Person A: It is crucial that we facilitate adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project.
Person B: You think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up you loser; you don't know what you're talking about.





2. Ad hominem

Whilst in an arguement, to avoid the point (thus a cop-out) and to insult the person arguing. Often because the person who results to the insults has no logical/intelligent point, thus they break down to immaturity.

Jon: I've made my point five times and all you've done is call me 'gay', way to resort to ad hominem, dude.


Scratchs use of the term was well illustrated, well done Scratch ! Now if you could just use all these big words on a subject that matters !

Thanks, Gaz! I actually wrote up a rather lengthy review of Professor Peterson's recent FARMS Review editorial and is has been almost completely ignored. The fact is that folks on this board prefer the gossipy kinds of threads that I start, and are mostly uninterested in dealing with much more than that. I recall starting to discuss some scriptural interpretations with you, actually, but you left the conversation before it could really get started. All you TBMs want to claim that I don't talk about anything "serious," but I could equally say the same about each of you.

[_harmony]

1. Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

Person A: I think we should spend more money on environmental protection.
Person B: You just think that because you’re a stupid tree-hugger.

Person A: It is crucial that we facilitate adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project.
Person B: You think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up you loser; you don't know what you're talking about.





2. Ad hominem

Whilst in an arguement, to avoid the point (thus a cop-out) and to insult the person arguing. Often because the person who results to the insults has no logical/intelligent point, thus they break down to immaturity.

Jon: I've made my point five times and all you've done is call me 'gay', way to resort to ad hominem, dude.


Scratchs use of the term was well illustrated, well done Scratch ! Now if you could just use all these big words on a subject that matters !

These sound more like Loran than Scratch. [edited to add] Actually that sounds more like Plutarch than Loran, even.

[_Gazelam]

My apologies Scratch, I do remember starting a discussion with you, and then leaving. If I remember right I was really angry about something. My bad. Maybe we can start again. I'll also check out your review.

[_Coggins7]

Although I'm very tempted to do the usual conservative/liberal comparison as is my tradition, for this, I'd just like to point out what happens when you back people like Scratch into a corner and turn on the hose.

Oh, what, and iyou do? Like you are more credible with your whopping two whole years of formal education? This stacked on top of your alcoholism and Tourettes? Face it Loran: you are a walking disaster and an embarrassment to the Church.

Here we see that Scratch expertise in the structure and function of the ad hominem is based on a personal mastery of the technique well nigh impossible to match.

What you will notice here is that Scratch has taken two personal and debilitating problems of mine, one being alcoholism, and the other a neurolgical defect over which I have no control (although it has been in remittance for some time and is only a very marginal problem on occasion at present) and used them against me in a viscious personal attack. Exactly the same thing happened to Wade upon his mentioning of a past church court. So I have two years of formal education, roughly 25 years of continual informal education, Tourette's, and have had problems with addiction, and because of this, I am an "embarrassment to the church" Interesting.

You are a useless hack and a "demogogue" yourself, which is why you're incapable of ever citing sources, dealing with legitimate criticism, or anything else of substance. The bulk of your posts are personal attacks, stupid rip-offs of popular songs, and so forth.

Quote:

I'll use sources if and when I believe it will do any good or futher serious debate. In many cases, when I've spent hours gathering sources and constructing a veritable essay in response to someone;s question or criticism, that work, done in good faith, is often met with rolling eyeballs, smarmy, patronizing dismissals, and on occasion, venom. Therefore, I only do it when I believe the person(s) with whome I am debating really care about the sourcing of statements or facts, or are just "calling for sources" to stall for time or to make it appear that the claims being made, many of which may be fairly common knowledge, are controversial (a nice tactic actually, if your into that kind of thing).

For example, Harmony and I were in a debate about the reintroduction of DDT. After making a series of standard evnironmentalist potboiler arguments on the subject, I preceded to post a series of essays on the issue (one by en eminant, abeit late, expert on he subject) and a substantial (just to get warmed up) series of links to websites dealing with this issue, inlcuding organizations actively involved in Malaria prevention and eradication and professional medical journal articles. You will now notice that that thread is still on page two and has been languishing there since the 6th. Harmony is still declairing victory on that thread even though my own arguments, as supported by the numerous essays and links I provided, made what I think could reasonably be considered a hash of her politicized junk science claims.

Yet victory she still declairs, and on it goes. I'm particularly amused when people call for sources on what are essentially theoretical arguements.

He poses here (and he's not the only one) as someone who knows and understands LDS doctrine and culture substantially, is well read in LDS doctrine, philosophy, and history as well as works critical of same, and is willing to engage in civil, critical debate if only the raving twit TBMs (and their sexual meat doll wives: hat tip for that classic to Vegas) would let him.

Wrong again. You are so bitter and upset that anyone would dare to criticize your precious, beloved LDS Church that you turn blue in the face everytime you post. The reality is that you love the Internet, and the fact that you can hide your embarrassing Tourettes (by the way, what kinds of stuff do you spout out? Profanities? Do you have to repent each time your disability kicks in?), your lack of any real education, and the fact that, at base, without the Church you would essentially be useless as a human being, incapable of making anything remotely resembling a contribution to the human race. You are a joke, a dung heap, a cast-off that even the Church barely wants. Your bishop probably keeps you on the membership rolls for no other reason than you continue to contribute tithing dollars. Or are you unemployed too, on top of all your other personal problems?Oh, what, and iyou do? Like you are more credible with your whopping two whole years of formal education? This stacked on top of your alcoholism and Tourettes? Face it Loran: you are a walking disaster and an embarrassment to the Church. You are a useless hack and a "demogogue" yourself, which is why you're incapable of ever citing sources, dealing with legitimate criticism, or anything else of substance. The bulk of your posts are personal attacks, stupid rip-offs of popular songs, and so forth.

I have never been bitter for one nanosecond that anyone criticizes the church. Angered, on some occsions, by the mendacity, guile, unfairness, and slanderous nature of much of that criticism, but never bitter. I don't ever turn blue in the face when I post. Indeed, what you and others of the most bitter and vindictine bigots here do not seem to understand it that, far from being bitter, if I can't have a really stimulating, productive debate with a worthy and serious philosophcal opponent, then the next best thing is to just have some fun. The sheer narcissistic humorlessnes of many here, especially the leftists for whome ideological purity and the need to debase and impugn everything traditional, old, venerable, or un-politically correct is of more importance than looking closely at fundamental assumptions and exploring what may lie at their base, makes for some very plump and juicy targets. But then, if we cannot laught at ourselves and all the conspicuous (even if we do not realize they are) psychologial ideosyncracies that make us who we are (and what we are), then in the end, we are all doomed anyway.

Then in one sentence, Scratch abases me again for my neurological defect, my lack of advanced "formal" education (and credentialism is another refuge for scoundrels like this), and then delivers the death blow:

.

..without the Church you would essentially be useless as a human being, incapable of making anything remotely resembling a contribution to the human race. You are a joke, a dung heap, a cast-off that even the Church barely wants. Your bishop probably keeps you on the membership rolls for no other reason than you continue to contribute tithing dollars. Or are you unemployed too, on top of all your other personal problems?

Let us continue with the man who knows and ad hominem when he sees one:
Quote:

Hilarious! And you are a racist and a misogynist. Didn't you mention that you are divorced? Gee... I wonder why? Anyways, your textual counter is... Oh, wait. That's right. You don't ever bother to use sources. How about that? Am I supposed to feel the Spirit coming from you? Is that how you expect to win arguments?

I appreciate it if you could provide some sources for this. A single shred of evidence; a sentence, and statement, a phrease, I have ever made that could be remotely characterized as mysogynist or racist in any way. And yes, I was divorced 23 years ago, and have been married to the same woman for the preceeding 21. Just as an aside, the only source Scratch has ever used here, at least with me, is Quinn's Extensions of Power, which is apparanty the only book on Mormonims he's ever read on the subject. He shows no evidence of having done any serious reading by competent LDS scholars and critics in a balanced manner. I have.

Quote:
Hence "Slack Scratch Fever". Scratch is slack, period, and there's no better way to articulate that than in parodical verse or song. Its not twisting the knife. Its more like death by a thousand cuts, stanza by stanza.

Loran

Yes, and the equivalent for me is death by laughter---laughter in the comfortable knowledge that, on the other side of the computer, sits a useless, uneducated, sputtering human cripple who has nothing in life to cling to beyond the LDS Church. Well done, Loran. I'm sure your Heavenly Father is proud.

Jesus Christ and his gospel are all any of us have to cling to in any case. Thanks for the reminder.

This is as pathetic as anything I've ever encountered in anti-Mormon literature or on the Web debating the real article in the entire eight years I've been on the Web. And yet, how very common such impotent bluster really is in the world of anti-Mormon Kulturkampf.

[_harmony]

Then in one sentence, Scratch abases me again for my neurological defect, my lack of advanced "formal" education (and credentialism is another refuge for scoundrels like this), and then delivers the death blow:

Now that made me laugh, remembering Juliann and Daniel holding forth about the importance of credentials.

[_Mister Scratch]

Although I'm very tempted to do the usual conservative/liberal comparison as is my tradition, for this, I'd just like to point out what happens when you back people like Scratch into a corner and turn on the hose.

What "corner", Loran? You mean your usual broken record Tourette's crap about "YOU ARE A LIBERAL DEMOGOGUE AND AN ANTIMORMON!!!" Get a new routine already.

Oh, what, and iyou do? Like you are more credible with your whopping two whole years of formal education? This stacked on top of your alcoholism and Tourettes? Face it Loran: you are a walking disaster and an embarrassment to the Church.

Here we see that Scratch expertise in the structure and function of the ad hominem is based on a personal mastery of the technique well nigh impossible to match.

So why even try, then, Loran?

What you will notice here is that Scratch has taken two personal and debilitating problems of mine, one being alcoholism, and the other a neurolgical defect over which I have no control (although it has been in remittance for some time and is only a very marginal problem on occasion at present) and used them against me in a viscious personal attack. Exactly the same thing happened to Wade upon his mentioning of a past church court. So I have two years of formal education, roughly 25 years of continual informal education, Tourette's, and have had problems with addiction, and because of this, I am an "embarrassment to the church" Interesting.

You are an embarrassment to yourself, too. Just too stupid to realize it, apparently. Also, what is this crying about a "vicious personal attack" (and allow me a small aside: do you have some other learning/neurological impediment that prevents your from hauling out a dictionary? Or using the spellchecker? Or learning how to write?) Basically, your snivelling is just evidence that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. It you can't take it, go back to placating yourself by sucking your thumb and listening to Bill O'Reilly, like the moron goose-stepping third rate intellectual hack that you are.

You are a useless hack and a "demogogue" yourself, which is why you're incapable of ever citing sources, dealing with legitimate criticism, or anything else of substance. The bulk of your posts are personal attacks, stupid rip-offs of popular songs, and so forth.

Quote:

I'll use sources if and when I believe it will do any good or futher serious debate. In many cases, when I've spent hours gathering sources and constructing a veritable essay in response to someone;s question or criticism, that work, done in good faith, is often met with rolling eyeballs, smarmy, patronizing dismissals, and on occasion, venom. Therefore, I only do it when I believe the person(s) with whome I am debating really care about the sourcing of statements or facts, or are just "calling for sources" to stall for time or to make it appear that the claims being made, many of which may be fairly common knowledge, are controversial (a nice tactic actually, if your into that kind of thing).

For example, Harmony and I were in a debate about the reintroduction of DDT. After making a series of standard evnironmentalist potboiler arguments on the subject, I preceded to post a series of essays on the issue (one by en eminant, abeit late, expert on he subject) and a substantial (just to get warmed up) series of links to websites dealing with this issue, inlcuding organizations actively involved in Malaria prevention and eradication and professional medical journal articles. You will now notice that that thread is still on page two and has been languishing there since the 6th. Harmony is still declairing victory on that thread even though my own arguments, as supported by the numerous essays and links I provided, made what I think could reasonably be considered a hash of her politicized junk science claims.

Yet victory she still declairs, and on it goes. I'm particularly amused when people call for sources on what are essentially theoretical arguements.

I don't know why she bothered engaging you at all. Your responses are so predictable anyways: "You are a fascist hiding behind the camouflage of liberal 'values'! You are a demagogue!" Typically riddled with a ton of misspellings, shouting, ranting, etc., etc. Then followed up by a third-grader-esque parody of some song. Way to go, Loran!

The bottom line, my dear Loran, is that you are a hack. You cannot spell. Your lack of formal education shows you to be a cretin---someone who doesn't understand the rudimentary etiquette underlining civil debate.

He poses here (and he's not the only one) as someone who knows and understands LDS doctrine and culture substantially, is well read in LDS doctrine, philosophy, and history as well as works critical of same, and is willing to engage in civil, critical debate if only the raving twit TBMs (and their sexual meat doll wives: hat tip for that classic to Vegas) would let him.

Wrong again. You are so bitter and upset that anyone would dare to criticize your precious, beloved LDS Church that you turn blue in the face everytime you post. The reality is that you love the Internet, and the fact that you can hide your embarrassing Tourettes (by the way, what kinds of stuff do you spout out? Profanities? Do you have to repent each time your disability kicks in?), your lack of any real education, and the fact that, at base, without the Church you would essentially be useless as a human being, incapable of making anything remotely resembling a contribution to the human race. You are a joke, a dung heap, a cast-off that even the Church barely wants. Your bishop probably keeps you on the membership rolls for no other reason than you continue to contribute tithing dollars. Or are you unemployed too, on top of all your other personal problems?Oh, what, and iyou do? Like you are more credible with your whopping two whole years of formal education? This stacked on top of your alcoholism and Tourettes? Face it Loran: you are a walking disaster and an embarrassment to the Church. You are a useless hack and a "demogogue" yourself, which is why you're incapable of ever citing sources, dealing with legitimate criticism, or anything else of substance. The bulk of your posts are personal attacks, stupid rip-offs of popular songs, and so forth.

I have never been bitter for one nanosecond that anyone criticizes the church.

Ah, so then you're a liar too.

Angered, on some occsions, by the mendacity, guile, unfairness, and slanderous nature of much of that criticism, but never bitter. I don't ever turn blue in the face when I post. Indeed, what you and others of the most bitter and vindictine bigots here do not seem to understand it that, far from being bitter, if I can't have a really stimulating, productive debate with a worthy and serious philosophcal opponent,

But YOU YOURSELF are not worthy, Loran! Don't you see that? Where are you getting this sense of entitlement? You are the bottom of the barrell. You are a racist, sexist cockroach. You behave like a jerk and then label the reactions you get as "liberal." Man, what a great tactic that is!

then the next best thing is to just have some fun. The sheer narcissistic humorlessnes of many here, especially the leftists for whome ideological purity and the need to debase and impugn everything traditional, old, venerable, or un-politically correct

Ho ho ho! Now that's the kind of stuff I find funny! Basically, you are such a Neanderthal that you think that the only stuff that can be funny is your dusty, hoary old conservative crap. "Oh, my dear, beloved values! My sweet tradition!"

is of more importance than looking closely at fundamental assumptions and exploring what may lie at their base, makes for some very plump and juicy targets. But then, if we cannot laught at ourselves and all the conspicuous (even if we do not realize they are) psychologial ideosyncracies that make us who we are (and what we are), then in the end, we are all doomed anyway.

Wow! What a stunning insight! I guess all of your self-administered book learning has amounted to...what?...one worthwhile insight after all those years?

Then in one sentence, Scratch abases me again for my neurological defect, my lack of advanced "formal" education (and credentialism is another refuge for scoundrels like this), and then delivers the death blow:

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

.

..without the Church you would essentially be useless as a human being, incapable of making anything remotely resembling a contribution to the human race. You are a joke, a dung heap, a cast-off that even the Church barely wants. Your bishop probably keeps you on the membership rolls for no other reason than you continue to contribute tithing dollars. Or are you unemployed too, on top of all your other personal problems?

Well, employed? Or unemployed? Care you answer?

Let us continue with the man who knows and ad hominem when he sees one:
Quote:

Hilarious! And you are a racist and a misogynist. Didn't you mention that you are divorced? Gee... I wonder why? Anyways, your textual counter is... Oh, wait. That's right. You don't ever bother to use sources. How about that? Am I supposed to feel the Spirit coming from you? Is that how you expect to win arguments?

I appreciate it if you could provide some sources for this. A single shred of evidence; a sentence, and statement, a phrease, I have ever made that could be remotely characterized as mysogynist or racist in any way.

Read the other thread, you bomb-throwing, jackbooted moron.

And yes, I was divorced 23 years ago, and have been married to the same woman for the preceeding 21. Just as an aside, the only source Scratch has ever used here, at least with me, is Quinn's Extensions of Power, which is apparanty the only book on Mormonims he's ever read on the subject. He shows no evidence of having done any serious reading by competent LDS scholars and critics in a balanced manner. I have.

The hell you show any "evidence" of anything other than being a red-in-the-face, fascist, dumb-assed, boot-licking, kneejerk, Conservative, Brethren-slobbering, hack of a blowhard.

Again: If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Quote:
Hence "Slack Scratch Fever". Scratch is slack, period, and there's no better way to articulate that than in parodical verse or song. Its not twisting the knife. Its more like death by a thousand cuts, stanza by stanza.

Loran

Yes, and the equivalent for me is death by laughter---laughter in the comfortable knowledge that, on the other side of the computer, sits a useless, uneducated, sputtering human cripple who has nothing in life to cling to beyond the LDS Church. Well done, Loran. I'm sure your Heavenly Father is proud.

Jesus Christ and his gospel are all any of us have to cling to in any case. Thanks for the reminder.

No, Loran: it's all you have. You're a useless and irrelevant hack. Stick to the Book of Mormon, and paying your tithing. That's all your good at. Beyond that you are worthless.

This is as pathetic as anything I've ever encountered in anti-Mormon literature or on the Web debating the real article in the entire eight years I've been on the Web. And yet, how very common such impotent bluster really is in the world of anti-Mormon Kulturkampf.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[_Coggins7]

Mr. Scratch has now outdone Polygamy Porter, Nortinski, GIMR, Cricket, LSD, and about 500,000 Red Guards as a mindless, frothing bigot whose pretensions to intellectual seriousness are only outdone by his vulgar, venomous personal hatred against the LDS church and anyone who dares defend it.

You see, it is quite clear to me that if we actually all lived in Scratch's world, anyone who belonged to the LDS church, and was exposed as so belonging, would be forced to wear a dunce cap and be paraded around the villiage for the scorn and mocking of the masses. Then would come the self criticism session and the renunciation of all politically incorret, reactionary, and counter-revolutionary views. Then would come re-education through hard labor.

He calls me a mysongynist. No evidence. He calls me a racist. No evidence. He calls me a Fascist (I doubt he even understands what this term means). No evidence. He tells me that I am a worthless, disgusting wretch without the slightest iota of human worth. And all this because he cannot defeat or even hold his own against me in a single debate on any subject he has ever brought to this forum and because I am a faithful member of the church and will defend it against people life him who can't criticize it with any sense of balance or intellectual integrity.

This SCMC thing is a real riot. Scratch has here mounted the dias with the likes of Tex Marrs, Ed Decker, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Scholars For 9/11 Truth (oh, and did I mention the CPUSA) as purveyors of the most hysterical and debased fantasizing about their perceived enemies North American culture has ever produced. He has to do this because his inability to mount any reallly intellctually serious and civil criticism of the church, and this combined with what al all events is a vast ignorance of LDS theology, philosophy, culture, and institutions.

Oh, and Scratch, a smart dealer doesn't use the stuff he sells. Get with it man!

[_Jersey Girl]

Mr. Scratch has now outdone Polygamy Porter, Nortinski, GIMR, Cricket, LSD, and about 500,000 Red Guards as a mindless, frothing bigot whose pretensions to intellectual seriousness are only outdone by his vulgar, venomous personal hatred against the LDS church and anyone who dares defend it.
!

Huh? LSD? You put LSD in the above category? Mindless? Frothing? Bigot? I'd like to see an explanation for that remark. No really.

Jersey Girl

Coggins, I'd like a reply here.