DCP "Busts" Me

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, it seems that the Good Professor has fully "recovered" from his brief hiatus from the MBs, since he is back on the warpath, firing up threads devoted to attacking, of all people, *me*!!! Gee whiz, Professor P., what did I ever do to you?

Anyways, here is his opening (and quite long) post. I will intersperse my remarks within:

This is more than a tad complex, and it's not really all that important. But I think it's a bit funny once the punchline becomes evident.

About nine months ago, I asked "Mister Scratch," who was then posting on this board but has since gone on to become the principal ornament of a different message board -- one that appears substantially dedicated to deriding this one -- regarding a comment posted on the so-called "Recovery" board in which "Mister Scratch" explained why it was fitting, appropriate, and even imperative to call me names:

DCP is alive and ticking. Slippery Joe and Briggy are long gone, and so it's not quite the same to pick on them. There's something that is more satisfying---in a nebulous but reaffirming sort of way---about calling Peterson a lard ass and a douche bag, as opposed to talking trash about Polygamy Joe. -- "Mister Scratch," The "Recovery" Board (7 March 2006)

"Mister Scratch" responded (quite indignantly) that there was another "Mister Scratch," entirely distinct from himself, who posted on the so-called "Recovery" board, and that, therefore, he should not be held accountable for the insulting things said there by that putatively other "Mister Scratch." He plainly did not want to forfeit his posting privilege here.

I found the notion of a second anti-Mormon "Mister Scratch" unlikely, but, since "Mister Scratch" vehemently insisted that it was entirely unreasonable and unjust (despite the identity of names and attitudes) to suspect him of being the "Recovery" board's "Mister Scratch," I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt:

(Daniel Peterson @ Jul 26 2006, 03:59 PM)
I've just been informed that Mister Scratch vigorously denies being the author of some grossly insulting lines, directed against me on the so-called "Recovery" board, that I quoted here the other day.

If he denies it, I'm happy to take him at his word.

It never entered my mind, frankly, that there might be two people, both critical of Mormonism, actively posting under the (to my mind, slightly uncommon) name of "Mister Scratch."

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

See, I always felt that this "apology" was disingenuous. He plainly (in my opinion) wanted me to be banned.

Very soon, though, I came to feel that I had been played for a sucker:

(Daniel Peterson @ Jul 26 2006, 10:58 PM) *
It's really difficult to tell the players without a scorecard. Here's part of an exchange that was posted just two days ago over on the so-called "Recovery" board, on a thread begun by our own "Mister Scratch" to discuss a "sordid tale" of "perversion" at the MTC for which he was "looking for some confirmational anecdotal evidence"

:

Re: Sexual Perversion, the MTC, and the "Tree of Life"
Date: Jul 24 10:43
Author: Lost Soul
Mail Address:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mister Scratch!
Are you the same Mister Scratch from FAIR?
Good to see you here!
smile.gif

Subject: Re: Sexual Perversion, the MTC, and the "Tree of Life"
Date: Jul 24 16:43
Author: Mister Scratch
Mail Address:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. I'm the same old Scratch from FAIR. Nomos put me on the queue after I proved that there is (unfortunately) no doctrinal or scriptural support for interracial marriage. Basically, BY's order that anyone participating in miscegenation deserved "death on the spot" is still in effect, at least given what the Brethren have said on the matter. The ban on interracial marriage has never been officially rescinded.
I pointed this out at length on my last thread over there, even showing that DCP was relying on the logical fallacy of the Bandwagon Appeal, and I got queued for my troubles. I would really like to go back and participate in the debate, but no dice.
Nomos accused me of playing "word games." But, of course, nobody was willing to offer up any solid evidence of that. They punished me because they didn't like what I had to say. Plain and simple.

It would never have entered my mind that there might be two different critics of Mormonism actively posting on the so-called "Recovery" board under the (somewhat unusual) name of "Mister Scratch." (Along with seeking anecdotal confirmation of perversions in the MTC, our Mister Scratch -- or, perhaps, the other "Recovery" board poster of the same name -- also used the Pioneer Day weekend to accuse the Church of falsifying its history.)

[/quote]

I think it is funny that DCP rejects the idea of there being posters who lift other people's names on RfM. Has he not seen the posts authored by "Daniel Peterson" speaking of all sorts of vulgarity and sexual shenanigans?

Moderator: My apologies for getting caught up in Mister Scratch's game. Messing with the moderators is not nice, Mister Scratch. Nor is it a good idea.

Nor is it nice to abuse one's power, Dadof7!!!

It appears that a "Mister Scratch" has (recently?) begun posting on the quaintly-named "Recovery" board again. But, this time, it seems that RfM's "Mister Scratch" really isn't the "Mister Scratch" who was booted from this board about nine months ago.

That is correct. I have not posted anything to RfM in months.

Is the "Mister Scratch" who once posted here and now stars elsewhere serenely unconcerned about this?

I *will* say that it seems awfully convenient, my dear Professor.

Is he aware (as he once claimed to be) that the "Mister Scratch" of the so-called "Recovery" board is another person, wholly unrelated to him, whom it would be ridiculous and unjust to confuse with him?

Yes, I am aware that it is another person. However, I can see how someone might get confused. Which is why I am available to answer any questions and clear up any confusion.

No. Not at all. Nine months have passed, and it seems that "Mister Scratch" has forgotten his one-time cover story.

What "cover story"? And no, I have not forgotten how I was unfairly booted off of the ironically named FAIRboards thanks to DCP's smear campaign.

Now, he's upset that someone is "impersonating" him.

Probably not anymore upset than when others "impersonate" DCP on RfM.

"I see that . . . somebody on RfM is using my name," he says. (Note that it's his name now.)

???? What is this supposed to mean?

He doesn't appear to recall even slightly that, according to his earlier story, there's supposed to be somebody else over there who's been using it for a long time.

This isn't exactly true. Given that somebody is impersonating now, I think it makes the "earlier story" more likely, but I also think it is possible that DCP either flat out lied, or else made a mistake in his reading of the old RfM post. (Which, as it is transcribed above, appears to have been doctored somewhat. I.e., it does not look the same as a "cut-and-paste" post from RfM.)

He suspects that the perpetrator of this supposed identity theft may be smac.

Well, if it's not, then okay. Sorry, smac.

He thinks (somehow) that it makes me (!) look "dishonest." It seems to him to be part of yet another "smear campaign."

Well, isn't it?

(Falsely accusing me of "smearing" people -- and, even, falsely claiming that I've admitted smearing other people -- seems to be a hobby of his.)

He has. Cf. the "Quinn Affair."

He is obviously very displeased at this turn of affairs.

I wouldn't say "very displeased."

But he let his mask slip. (Whoops!) And he reminds us of the lines that our mothers used to quote from Sir Walter Scott:

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

When one makes up a story, one has to remember it and keep it straight, or the truth will finally come out. That's why, apart from the ethics of the matter, honesty is the best policy.

Of course, I've never believed that there really was a Deutero-Scratch. I've always suspected that there's just one, albeit one with two faces. And now I'm even more confident of that.

Okay, DCP said there was a punchline.... But what was it? Am I the only one who missed it? I can quote lines, too: "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold."

Anyway, his posts continue:

I couldn't care less whether this latest "Mister Scratch" is an imposter or not. What intrigues me is the former FAIR-Board "Mister Scratch's" absolute certainty that the recent posts by "Mister Scratch" on the so-called "Recovery" board represent attempts to "impersonate" and "smear" him by using a name that, he thinks, belongs to him. Rather odd sentiments from someone who, just a short while ago, was insisting that only a malicious fool (like me) could possibly imagine that the anti-Mormon "Mister Scratch" on RfM might have any connection at all with the anti-Mormon "Mister Scratch" then posting on FAIR.

Unfortunately, the so-called "Recovery" board maintains no systematic archive. Anything more than a week or two old typically disappears.

In other words, the post he used to smear me is basically at the same level of evidence as the so-called "2nd Michael Watson Letter." How about that? And you know what---hey, no problem Professor Peterson, I get it. You made an honest mistake. Time to get over it.

Another thing I found intriguing about the thread is how few of the MADites seem supportive of DCP....

Ultimately, what it boils down to for me is this:

Of course, I've never claimed that "Mister Scratch's" duplicity has been definitively proven. It hasn't. And, barring a confession from him (which I don't anticipate in any event), it won't be.

(emphasis added)

Then why make the accusations (repeatedly, at that)? This was a charge that got me booted off the board, after all! Not very nice, DCP---not very nice at all.

Finally, we get the icing on the cake (er, make that doughnut):

After nearly a year of "Mister Scratch's" wild and ever-negative misreadings of me, of his apparently obsessive hatred, and of his pretty much ceaseless accusations of incompetence and dishonesty on my part, after a year of his false accusations that I participated in a "smear campaign" against D. Michael Quinn (and that I even publicly admitted to doing so), I'll admit that I'm not a real fan of his. I also happily admit that I get a kick out of the fact that, through seeming carelessness and a lapse of memory, he's just inadvertently supplied another piece of evidence supporting my suspicion that he was lying nine months ago.

First, it was his own words which damned him in the Quinn Affair. Read the old posts for yourself and see! He was guilty of gossipmongering, and he has repeatedly labeled Quinn's work "embarrassing" and "tendentious." Where have I ever done anything worse than that to the Good Professor?

Also, I'm not sure what it is that he thinks is "evidence".... Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that he's grasping at straws.

don't know (or care) whether "Mister Scratch" is a coward. (I'm not convinced, though, that it requires much courage to post under a pseudonym.)

Right. And I'm not convinced that it requires much courage to sit on a heavily guarded board and lob grenades.

I do, however, think that he's mendacious. I find it extremely unlikely that there were two distinct "Mister Scratches" posting here and on RfM nine months ago, just as "Mister Scratch" clearly doesn't believe that there are two true "Mister Scratches" posting now. He only knows of one genuine "Mister Scratch," and, for once, we tend to agree.

Yes... We do. *I* am the genuine Mister Scratch! If you want to know which posts are mine, and which aren't all you gotta do is ask, Your Highness!

Anyways, more fun and games from the fittingly named MADboard. Carry on! ; )

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Well, it seems that the Good Professor has fully "recovered" from his brief hiatus from the MBs, since he is back on the warpath, firing up threads devoted to attacking, of all people, *me*!!! Gee whiz, Professor P., what did I ever do to you?

Well, so much for DCP's short-lived hiatus; I knew he couldn't stay away long -- he needs the attention too much.

Oh, and Scratch, you're spot on about two things:

1. DCP participated in a smear campaign against Mike Quinn (along with his "circle"); and

2. DCP admitted it (even if he now won't admit that he admitted ....). ;)

[_The Dude]

I saw Dan's thread and thought... "yeah, so where's the punchline you speak of Dr. P?"

There's no smoking gun, no admission by Mr. Scratch, no foot-in-the-mouth to speak of. DCP is just insinuating things and raising his eyebrows to his groupies, who nod along and provide a laugh-track for Dan's "no-punchline" joke.

Totally lame.

[_asbestosman]

Scratch, could it be that the "douche bag" Mister Scratch wasn't trying to impersonate you at all if indeed he made that comment before you registered at FAIR and RfM? If so, it seems to me that it would explain the problems. Mister Scratch isn't exactly too uncommon a name thanks to "Old Scratch" and the like. That would explain why you wouldn't have thought much of going after that Mister Scratch as there was no harm intended from the "douche bag" guy.

However, one thing puzzles me. Why didn't you offer an clear explanation of events as I tried to do on the other thread? Instead you just go into attack mode on Dr. Peterson's accusations. I can understand the frustration, but why not add clarification as well? Without trying to clarify, it is understandable that Dr. Peterson would retain his opinion about you.

Is Dr. Peterson going to change his mind now? No, it's unlikely. I mean if you were lying, what difference would one expect between that and events as they have transpired?

Here is what I suspect Dr. Peterson will assume happened.

1) You started posting at RfM albeit unregistered.
2) Dr. Peterson finds the "douche bag" comment and archives it.
3) You register at RfM and FAIR.
4) You do your rant on racism at FAIR
5) Dr. Peterson shares the quote from his archive.
6) You deny saying it.
7) Dr. Peterson (or someone) finds the RfM thread where you admit to posting on FAIR too.
8) Nomos bans you.


But things are even trickier. You claim that you were banned for the racism comments, not for being falsely accused of calling Dr. Peterson a douche bag. Why is that? Why didn't you clarify that you have posted at RfM, but that the douchebag quote wasn't your comment--the implication from Dr. Peterson was that you never posted at RfM and thus finding an admission over there (and here) was an admission of guilt.

Scratch, I'm not accusing you. I'm just trying to lay the evidence as it might be interpreted so you can try to clarify things if you wish to do so.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, could it be that the "douche bag" Mister Scratch wasn't trying to impersonate you at all if indeed he made that comment before you registered at FAIR and RfM?

Yes, it could be.

If so, it seems to me that it would explain the problems. Mister Scratch isn't exactly too uncommon a name thanks to "Old Scratch" and the like. That would explain why you wouldn't have thought much of going after that Mister Scratch as there was no harm intended from the "douche bag" guy.

However, one thing puzzles me. Why didn't you offer an clear explanation of events as I tried to do on the other thread?

I was never given any opportunity. At the time that DCP made the accusation, I was on the queue, meaning that my posts had to be reviewed by a moderator before they could appear. I complained after DCP posted the accusation, but to no avail.

Instead you just go into attack mode on Dr. Peterson's accusations. I can understand the frustration, but why not add clarification as well? Without trying to clarify, it is understandable that Dr. Peterson would retain his opinion about you.

Is Dr. Peterson going to change his mind now? No, it's unlikely. I mean if you were lying, what difference would one expect between that and events as they have transpired?

Here is what I suspect Dr. Peterson will assume happened.

1) You started posting at RfM albeit unregistered.
2) Dr. Peterson finds the "douche bag" comment and archives it.
3) You register at RfM and FAIR.
4) You do your rant on racism at FAIR

It was not a "rant." Another poster had begun a thread asking the Church's attitude on interracial marriage. I merely pointed out that the Brethren have never officially rescinded the ban. DCP did not like this, and tried to use an argumentum ad populorum to counter me. When I pointed out the logical fallacy, Nomos put me on the queue.

5) Dr. Peterson shares the quote from his archive.
6) You deny saying it.
7) Dr. Peterson (or someone) finds the RfM thread where you admit to posting on FAIR too.
8) Nomos bans you.

But things are even trickier. You claim that you were banned for the racism comments,

No---I was *queued* for the racism remarks.

not for being falsely accused of calling Dr. Peterson a douche bag. Why is that? Why didn't you clarify that you have posted at RfM, but that the douchebag quote wasn't your comment--the implication from Dr. Peterson was that you never posted at RfM and thus finding an admission over there (and here) was an admission of guilt.

Again, I have a series of emails from DCP in which all this stuff was discussed. He refused to believe me, ABman. He continued to insist that I was lying (either that or that I was somehow accusing him of lying), and that was that. The bottom line is that he does not have the evidence, and that I am not guilty.

However, there are some other events which have been left out of the story. Leading up to my banning, I had scored a number of points on DCP, including:
---the Jeffrey Nielson thread, in which I pointed out that BYU's hasty firing of him left open the possibility that registered students would be without a teacher
---the "Anti-Mormon Myths" thread (started by Pahoran) in which I demonstrated (despite DCP's lame counters) that women do indeed depend on their husbands for salvation /entrance into the Celestial Kingdom (at least according to *some* doctrine)
---the interracial marriage thread.

Also, I should point out that the thread on which DCP quoted the "douche bag" post was about Peer Review at FARMS. It should be very obvious by now that Prof. Peterson is extremely sensitive about and protective of this journal, and has devoted lengthy posts (and even an intro in FARMS Review!) in an effort to counter my and others' criticism of it. In fact, I would argue that his recent hiatus is partially a result of the our nitpicking of this intro. You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think). Then he boated that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose? Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review? It seems awfully coincidental that his most vicious posts come after criticism of it.... (Just a couple of days ago he lifted a quote from me in which I said that FARMS Review is "rank with ad hominem attack.")

Scratch, I'm not accusing you. I'm just trying to lay the evidence as it might be interpreted so you can try to clarify things if you wish to do so.

I am pretty clear on how DCP is "interpreting" the "evidence."

[_asbestosman]

You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think).

As I recall, Dawkins did a similar thing in his Delusion book when referring to comments by laypeople on various websites which he did not name. I think Dr. Peterson knows what he's doing in that regard.

Then he boated that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose?

A sense of futility about trying to have a meaningful conversation between you and him?

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

It seems awfully coincidental that his most vicious posts come after criticism of it.... (Just a couple of days ago he lifted a quote from me in which I said that FARMS Review is "rank with ad hominem attack.")

That's an example of his most vicious posts?

[_wenglund]

In spite of some of the circumstantial evidence that seems to counter Scratch's denial about calling DCP a "douche bag", I agree with DCP in thinking that until incontrovertable evidence can be produced, Scratch should be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at his word--even though it is unlikely that Scratch would extend the same leniancy towards the leaders and defenders of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[_Runtu]

In spite of some of the circumstantial evidence that seems to counter Scratch's denial about calling DCP a "douche bag", I agree with DCP in thinking that until incontrovertable evidence can be produced, Scratch should be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at his word--even though it is unlikely that Scratch would extend the same leniancy towards the leaders and defenders of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Why would you suppose that? Seems more than a tad uncharitable.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think).

As I recall, Dawkins did a similar thing in his Delusion book when referring to comments by laypeople on various websites which he did not name. I think Dr. Peterson knows what he's doing in that regard.

You give DCP far too much credit.

Then he boated that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose?

A sense of futility about trying to have a meaningful conversation between you and him?

That's never stopped DCP before; if his M.O. is any guide, DCP only stays silent when he realizes he got his arse kicked.

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

I recall DCP once leaving ZLMB and claiming I was the cause; MS's posts drive him to the edge better than mine ever did, so I bet MS is the chief reason for DCP's latest (albeit short-lived) bolt from FAIR/MAD.

[_wenglund]

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

If Dr. Peterson's recent FAIR article ("Apologetics by the Numbers") is any indicator, I would think that Scratch's criticsim was of little significance in that regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-