Spider-to-the-Fly wrote:So it seems here that Dr. Scratch posts a picture of ttribe on Dr. Scratch's separate blog. That irritates ttribe. He complains. Dr. Scratch takes the photo down.
ttribe ups his board nannying. Dr. Scratch complains and explains that he'll put the picture of ttribe back up on Dr. Scratch's blog if ttribe keeps up the board nannying. ttribe keeps it up, so Dr. Scratch does as he said he would do and puts ttribe's picture back up.
Now who's supposed to be the bad guy here?
I'll reiterate again - defending oneself against baseless character assassination is not "nannying."
Spider-to-the-Fly wrote:So it seems here that Dr. Scratch posts a picture of ttribe on Dr. Scratch's separate blog. That irritates ttribe. He complains. Dr. Scratch takes the photo down.
ttribe ups his board nannying. Dr. Scratch complains and explains that he'll put the picture of ttribe back up on Dr. Scratch's blog if ttribe keeps up the board nannying. ttribe keeps it up, so Dr. Scratch does as he said he would do and puts ttribe's picture back up.
Now who's supposed to be the bad guy here?
The one who continually blackmails ttribe in order to control his actions, of course.
Ahh, the saga continues. You see, after several days of having my picture down from his blog, Scratch was (apparently) very unhappy that I would dare to give him any amount of grief in a thread and up it went again. Today, Scratch presented another one of his threads on LOAP, this time decrying LOAP's alleged commentary on Halloween tricks. In that thread, I pointed out that I believed he was reading LOAP's statement incorrectly. Naturally, Scratch being unwilling to admit to a mistake, responded that I just wasn't correct. My response was as follows: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 36#p374736
Shortly thereafter, I received a "notification" that my blog entry in his "encyclopedia" had been updated...to once again include my picture. Don't forget though, it's the "apologists" who are grimly humorless.
Recently, I was chided by Mr. Kevin Graham for not stepping in sooner to condemn alleged bad behavior on the part of a board apologist. So, critics, what of it? Does that pattern go both ways? Should I chide you for not condemning Scratch's acts of blackmail? Hmmm.
Last edited by _ttribe on Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ttribe wrote:Ahh, the saga continues. You see, after several days of having my picture down from his blog, Scratch was (apparently) very unhappy that would I dare to give him any amount of grief in a thread and up it went again. Today, Scratch presented another one of his threads on LOAP, this time decrying LOAP's alleged commentary on Halloween tricks. In that thread, I pointed out that I believed he was reading LOAP's statement incorrectly. Naturally, Scratch being unwilling to admit to a mistake, responded that I just wasn't correct. My response was as follows: viewtopic.php?p=374736#p374736
Shortly thereafter, I received a "notification" that my blog entry in his "encyclopedia" had been updated...to once again include my picture. Don't forget though, it's the "apologists" who are grimly humorless.
Recently, I was chided by Mr. Kevin Graham for not stepping in sooner to condemn alleged bad behavior on the part of a board apologist. So, critics, what of it? Does that pattern go both ways? Should I chide you for not condemning Scratch's acts of blackmail? Hmmm.
First Scratch was, according to you, blackmailing because he told you in advance what reaction he would take if you continued your board nannying. You did, so he did as he'd forewarned you.
Now you accuse him of blackmail without so much as an advance communication from him? What, did you pray and the HG warmed your bosom that Doctor Scratch was blackmailing you without even telling you anything before your action was taken?
sock puppet wrote:First Scratch was, according to you, blackmailing because he told you in advance what reaction he would take if you continued your board nannying. You did, so he did as he'd forewarned you.
Now you accuse him of blackmail without so much as an advance communication from him? What, did you pray and the HG warmed your bosom that Doctor Scratch was blackmailing you without even telling you anything before your action was taken?
Think about this for a moment - it's called a change in tactics. If Scratch is good at anything (and I happen to think he's good at several things), its being a tactician. He thinks he has a weapon that will get to me. The "warn" me first thing didn't work, so now it will just be a retaliatory thing.
But hey, if you happen to think his behavior is admirable, that's good information as well.
sock puppet wrote:First Scratch was, according to you, blackmailing because he told you in advance what reaction he would take if you continued your board nannying. You did, so he did as he'd forewarned you.
Now you accuse him of blackmail without so much as an advance communication from him? What, did you pray and the HG warmed your bosom that Doctor Scratch was blackmailing you without even telling you anything before your action was taken?
Think about this for a moment - it's called a change in tactics. If Scratch is good at anything (and I happen to think he's good at several things), its being a tactician. He thinks he has a weapon that will get to me. The "warn" me first thing didn't work, so now it will just be a retaliatory thing.
But hey, if you happen to think his behavior is admirable, that's good information as well.
First, you asked this about what you now call a mere change of Doctor Scratch's tactics: "Should I chide you for not condemning Scratch's acts of blackmail?"
But when I pointed out that you are accusing Doctor Scratch of blackmail without his having even had a pre-act communication with you, you then watered it down to merely a "change of tactics".
Am I reading it right that you are now backpedaling from you accusation of blackmail this evening?
sock puppet wrote:First, you asked this about what you now call a mere change of Doctor Scratch's tactics: "Should I chide you for not condemning Scratch's acts of blackmail?"
But when I pointed out that you are accusing Doctor Scratch of blackmail without his having even had a pre-act communication with you, you then watered it down to merely a "change of tactics".
Am I reading it right that you are now backpedaling from you accusation of blackmail this evening?
Is it not a type of "blackmail" to have the threat of retaliation hanging over one's head?
Oh, and, you are really not helping his cause by playing word games like this.
By your continued silence, I can only surmise that you approve of his antics...at least that's the way Kevin explained it to me.
sock puppet wrote:First, you asked this about what you now call a mere change of Doctor Scratch's tactics: "Should I chide you for not condemning Scratch's acts of blackmail?"
But when I pointed out that you are accusing Doctor Scratch of blackmail without his having even had a pre-act communication with you, you then watered it down to merely a "change of tactics".
Am I reading it right that you are now backpedaling from you accusation of blackmail this evening?
Is it not a type of "blackmail" to have the threat of retaliation hanging over one's head?
Oh, and, you are really not helping his cause by playing word games like this.
By your continued silence, I can only surmise that you approve of his antics...at least that's the way Kevin explained it to me.
You certainly have a very expansive understanding of blackmail. Is that the 5th degree expansion of the Egyptian hieratic taken from the Sensen papyri for blackmail, from the GAEL?
sock puppet wrote:You certainly have a very expansive understanding of blackmail. Is that the 5th degree expansion of the Egyptian hieratic taken from the Sensen papyri for blackmail, from the GAEL?
Doctor Scratch