The Many Faces of "Mister Scratch".

[_Ray A]

Mister Scratch (or is it Mr.?),

Could you please clarify some of your comments? I'm juxtaposing some of your quotes, so you can have the opportunity to clarify where you really stand. All bold emphases are mine:

Comments to DCP:

Please do know that I like you a great deal, and would love to see you continue to participate on the board. You are one of the great ones, in terms of Mopologetic history. I really believe that.

MDB, Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:46 pm

But before this he commented on The Mormon Curtain:

Oh, really, DCP? Then why did BYU threaten to put the kibbosh on the whole thing if Mike Quinn was allowed to present? Instead, he was relegated to the relatively minor role of introducting somebody, just because you, juliann, and the other apologetic wankers have an axe to grind. Good grief, doughnut boy!!

The Mormon Curtain: http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_fair.html

Comment about DCP:

Yes, I agree. I think that Prof. P. is a smart, witty, eloquent, and basically decent guy. I think it is a pity that he is apparently incapable of seeing me as anything other than an "anti-Mormon liar." But, oh well. I do enjoy butting heads with him, even if it is from a distance. : )

Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:06 pm

But three months later:

Is this not yet another instance of what appears to be a very deep character flaw in our most favorite BYU Prof??? Let's face facts here: this is a deeply dishonest individual who strung along people for months at ZLMB, apparently thinking it was "funny." His whole behavior on this issue strikes me as being very, very sick indeed.


MDB, Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:11 am

And:

I think it is worthwhile to reiterate again that DCP is obviously a dishonest (and quite possibly pathologically sick) individual. I have hesitated at making these declarations in the past, but it has become clear now that he seems virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns. He can make sarcastic jokes about it all he wants, but the truth remains: he sits, comfortably and laughingly in his BYU sinecure, launching these various cruel and dishonest attacks on others. Was he involved in a BKP-headed conspiracy to destroy Mike Quinn's life? You be the judge.

MDB, Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:21 am

Bear in mind that the above comment was made on June 17, but this is what Scratch wrote on July 11 (again):

Please do know that I like you a great deal, and would love to see you continue to participate on the board. You are one of the great ones, in terms of Mopologetic history. I really believe that. Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:46 pm

And here is Scratch's final gem:

I have never been able to figure out why he (apparently) gets so upset about my posts....

Mar 15, 2007 2:54 pm

So where do you really stand, Scratch? Do you believe in truth in argumentation, or flattery? You say your blog is for "entertainment" and "fun", but some of these comments show that you are deadly serious about maligning the character of the "Good professor". Don't claim I took you "out of context", because that's a privilege you didn't allow me, when you wrote about my "many faces". It seems you have a few "faces" yourself. (Edit: Okay, you did allow me, but you know that no matter what I said, it would have made no difference, because you only allow yourself the benefit of "complexity", which I'm sure you can justify in yourself, but not others.)

If you'll admit that you're just here for "entertainment" and "fun", and to further your "revenge campaign", then we will all know that nothing you write can be taken seriously.

I await your clarifications. (PS: I have a lot more I would like clarifications about.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch says that I'm a "mean-spirited liar" but also says that he thinks very highly of me.

I think that's rather revealing.

[_Ray A]

More from Scratch:

But, I don't need this latest sockpuppet to tell me that the Good Professor is dishonest and deceptive and duplicitous. I have his prior sockpuppets, his gossipmongering, and his smear tactics to show me that.

Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:49 am

But:

Please do know that I like you a great deal, and would love to see you continue to participate on the board. You are one of the great ones, in terms of Mopologetic history. I really believe that.

[_James Clifford Miller]

To Ray:
I cannot help but notice, Ray, that if you were a critic over at MADB and had submitted a post like this attacking one of the apologists or mods, Juliann, or one of the other Julianns or administrators, would have banned you in anger. Here, however, you can submit such a critical post and still be allowed to continue as a participant. Here, you haven't even received a warning or caution from a mod.

I must also wonder if you consider such a show of evenhandedness a weakness on the part of critics or if you might not regret that LDS apologist discussion sites are incapable of such genuine evenhandedness. So much for Internet Mormons occupying the moral high grounds.

P.S. can you imagine the shelf-life of an adverse MADB thread entitled "The Many Faces of 'Juliann'"? It might even be measured in microseconds.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Ray A]

To Ray:
I cannot help but notice, Ray, that if you were a critic over at MADB and had submitted a post like this attacking one of the apologists or mods, Juliann, or one of the other Julianns or administrators, would have banned you in anger. Here, however, you can submit such a critical post and still be allowed to continue as a participant. Here, you haven't even received a warning or caution from a mod.

I must also wonder if you consider such a show of evenhandedness a weakness on the part of critics or if you might not regret that LDS apologist discussion sites are incapable of such genuine evenhandedness. So much for Internet Mormons occupying the moral high grounds.

P.S. can you imagine the shelf-life of an adverse MADB thread entitled "The Many Faces of 'Juliann'"? It might even be measured in microseconds.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

Thank you, Dr. Shades. Free speech is growing on me.

[Guest]

To Ray:
I cannot help but notice, Ray, that if you were a critic over at MADB and had submitted a post like this attacking one of the apologists or mods, Juliann, or one of the other Julianns or administrators, would have banned you in anger. Here, however, you can submit such a critical post and still be allowed to continue as a participant. Here, you haven't even received a warning or caution from a mod.

I must also wonder if you consider such a show of evenhandedness a weakness on the part of critics or if you might not regret that LDS apologist discussion sites are incapable of such genuine evenhandedness. So much for Internet Mormons occupying the moral high grounds.

P.S. can you imagine the shelf-life of an adverse MADB thread entitled "The Many Faces of 'Juliann'"? It might even be measured in microseconds.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

Thank you, Dr. Shades. Free speech is growing on me.

Your post may be psychologically satisfying to you, Ray, but I doubt it'll have the effect here you think it will. Here, everyone knows I'm not Dr. Shades. You should have noticed that from the markedly different writing styles. Heck, the IPPs for Dr. Shades and me aren't even in the same state. On this discussion board, your misidentification of me will allow those in the know to calibrate down their opinion of your perceptiveness.

At the same time, I find myself preening from being mistaken by you for the likes of Dr. Shades whom I admire here (and did in the old days at FAIR/MADB when I read his excellent, high-level posts there before he and I were banned).

This reminds me of the old joke about the elderly rabbi who was falsely accused of rape by an extremely attractive young female, but he was so proud she'd named such an unlikely candidate as him, he declined to deny it.

I also thank you for the opportunity to quote myself pointing out the differences between the evident evenhandedness here on a critical site on the one hand and on the other hand the one-sided moderation on LDS apologist sites (particularly MADB). It's an important point which cannot be made too often.

But back to my questions to you. Would you care to comment on the differences in moderation I pointed out? Do you wish the apologist sites' moderation were more evenhanded as they are here? Or do you find this critic's site's evenhandedness a weakness? If I had to guess, I'd suspect you find evenhandedness a weakness.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Ray A]

Your post may be psychologically satisfying to you, Ray, but I doubt it'll have the effect here you think it will. Here, everyone knows I'm not Dr. Shades.

Including Yours Truly.

You should have noticed that from the markedly different writing styles. At the same time, I find myself preening from being mistaken by you for the likes of Dr. Shades whom I admire here (and did in the old days at MADB when I read his excellent, high-level posts there before he and I were banned).

Mistaken? Do you not have sense of ironic humour?

This reminds me of the old joke about the elderly rabbi who was falsely accused of rape by an extremely attractive young female, but he was so proud she'd named such an unlikely candidate as him, he declined to deny it.

I think you are a teeny bit slow.

I also thank you for the opportunity to quote myself pointing out the differences between the evident evenhandedness here on a critical site on the one hand and on the other hand the one-sided moderation on LDS apologist sites (particularly MADB). It's an important point which cannot be made too often.

It's positively evil. Charles Manson pales in comparison.

But back to my questions to you. Would you care to comment on the differences in moderation I pointed out? And do you wish the apologist sites were more evenhanded as they are here? Or do you find this critic's site's evenhandedness a weakness?

It would not be evenhanded unless critical posters pointed out the absurdity of some exmo criticisms. I'm all for a good argument, not "revenge campaigns" or duplicity and insincere flattery. Again, thanks, Dr. Shades.

[_James Clifford Miller]

But back to my questions to you. Would you care to comment on the differences in moderation I pointed out? And do you wish the apologist sites were more evenhanded as they are here? Or do you find this critic's site's evenhandedness a weakness?

It would not be evenhanded unless critical posters pointed out the absurdity of some exmo criticisms. I'm all for a good argument, not "revenge campaigns" or duplicity and insincere flattery. Again, thanks, Dr. Shades.

Nevertheless, a critic's attack like this on an apologist would not have been possible at MADB.

I'm still curious if you find the evenhandedness here a weakness.

On a different subject, I confess admiration for your courage in continuing to post here in what must be a hostile environment for you. You don't exhibit the coolness under fire, measured responses, and ability to resist escalation under provocation like Dr. Peterson does (and I've submitted just such a post to him), but you both exhibit genuine courage and I commend you for it. I don't even care if you've both been "set apart" to sustain a defense of the Church in this forum, you're both still brave. I just hope you'll learn from Dr. Peterson how to keep your temper under control. It's certainly something I need to learn (and hope to do).

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Dr. Shades]

We're both here at the same time. I am not James Clifford Miller, although I'm flattered that you'd think so.

On this board, I've never used a sock-puppet. I used one a few times to get around the ban on the old FAIR boards as "Madrid," but I only made a few posts (less than 40?) to do so.

On ZLMB, I posted once as "Moon Quaker."

That's the extent of my sock-puppetry. I have never, ever posted as anyone other than "Dr. Shades" here. Why would I need to? Who would be the moderator I was trying to fool?

[_Ray A]

Nevertheless, a critic's attack like this on an apologist would not have been possible at MADB.

I differ in opinion. While not as crude, attacks on "apologists" happen very frequently.

I'm still curious if you find the evenhandedness here a weakness.

I find the evenhandedness here a strength. I find the stupidity that comes with free speech breath-taking.

On a different subject, I confess admiration for your courage in continuing to post here in what must be a hostile environment for you. You don't exhibit the coolness under fire, measured responses, and ability to resist escalation under provocation like Dr. Peterson does (and I've submitted just such a post to him), but you both exhibit genuine courage and I commend you for it. I don't even care if you've both been "set apart" to sustain a defense of the Church in this forum, you're both still brave. I just hope you'll learn from Dr. Peterson how to keep your temper under control. It's certainly something I need to learn (and hope to do).

I like to call a spade a - spade. And an angry exmo an absolute, angry Jack- Ass.