Scratch's Tactics

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I thought Simon proved through sentence analysis that Scratch is only a computer program with some type of rudimentary artifical intellegence?

[_sock puppet]

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?

Let me help you (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackmail):

to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions

to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats

Well, let's deal with the third one, since it is the most expansive for you to try and snag Doctor Scratch's "tactics" as blackmail.

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing 14 year old girls by telling each that she and her family would go to heaven if she "married" him? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the actions of the 14 year old girl, by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing some of the neighbors in New York by telling them that if they paid him, with his magic rocks he could tell them where to dig for buried treasure, when he'd never found buried treasure (at least not without Moroni's help)? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the neighbors to part with their money by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

Actually, with these two popping to my mind so quickly, it might make for a fun thread for someone to start: "The Blackmailing by Joseph Smith" and everyone can post their contributions.

[_Simon Belmont]

I thought Simon proved through sentence analysis that Scratch is only a computer program with some type of rudimentary artifical intellegence?

I did, and rudimentary is correct.

Put some of those phrases together, write an "if/then" algorithm that puts up a picture of ttribe if ttribe ever dares question the program, and you have Scratch.

[_ttribe]

Well, let's deal with the third one, since it is the most expansive for you to try and snag Doctor Scratch's "tactics" as blackmail.

You are, of course, attempting to derail away from the real issue, but if you think that's what it takes to defend your buddy.

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing 14 year old girls by telling each that she and her family would go to heaven if she "married" him? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the actions of the 14 year old girl, by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

If, in fact, there was no divine support for his actions relative to Helen Mar Kimball (who, near as I can tell is only one girl, not "girls" plural), then - yes, that would have the appearance of blackmail.

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing some of the neighbors in New York by telling them that if they paid him, with his magic rocks he could tell them where to dig for buried treasure, when he'd never found buried treasure (at least not without Moroni's help)? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the neighbors to part with their money by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

Actually, this looks less like blackmail and more like fraud if Joseph Smith knew he couldn't do any such thing and attempted to sell the service. Since we don't have the full facts, I can't reach a complete conclusion.

Actually, with these two popping to my mind so quickly, it might make for a fun thread for someone to start: "The Blackmailing by Joseph Smith" and everyone can post their contributions.

So, I guess you do approve of Scratch's tactics then.

[_Simon Belmont]

I am going to reiterate my immortal words for posterity, because I truly believe it is one of the most accurate descriptions of Scratch ever written:

The poster known as "Doctor Scratch" is nothing more than an "internet tough guy" who carefully constructs posts in such a way as to make him/her look more intelligent than she/he actually is. A reasonable guess for the ability to do this would be that writing is a part of her/his career, or she/he received an A (A- maybe) in English 1010. In any case, each post Scratch constructs takes approximately double the time to write than a standard user; this is the reason he/she takes anywhere from several hours to several days to respond. If this specimen is unable to respond, he/she will simply cease posting in that particular thread.

Another of Scratch's abilities is called "Internet Detective" which is a well known phenomenon of the information age. The Internet Detective, according to one reliable source is defined as: Someone who spends their time looking all over the internet to prove someones claim false. Scratch knows some basic search operators to use in Google, such as the quotes, the plus and minus signs, the colon, and the period. When utilized properly, the search string can yield very specific results. It is not magic, it is not technical ability, and it definitely is not intelligence that this Internet detective is able to dredge up old posts from ZLMB, a LinkedIn profile, an old Myspace account, or other such information.

Do you notice how Doctor Scratch joined the group "bloggers" just so his name could be blue and bold? He did not join this group to advertise his blog, because he was a member before he had a blog. No, this specimen's ego is writing checks his posting habits simply cannot cash. Did you also notice the avatar he/she chose? That's correct, it is The Architect from The Matrix, a very technically speaking person who uses a lot of big words and Latin phrases, yet shows no emotion. The blue-bold name, combined with the avatar completes Scratch's mental image of himself as someone who is intimidating. His/her ego is also expanded by his/her imaginary network of "informants," who tell her/him things that are supposedly going on in the LDS apologetics world, but are rarely (if ever) factual.

I have watched as Dr. Peterson mopped the floor with Scratch on multiple occasions and multiple threads. These threads were the catalyst for Scratch's highly unhealthy obsession for stalking Dr. Peterson. Every move this Islamic Studies professor makes is noted on this board in a new thread, usually titled: "DCP admits to..." or "DCP and..." But as we can see, a real doctor can easily outwit, and out maneuver Scratch. Scratch has no other recourse to alleviate himself of this frustration than to begin character assassinations against this peaceful BYU professor. I do not necessarily blame him, I suppose. If I were getting totally owned by DCP like Scratch was, I would find a creative way to vent my frustrations, too.

Indeed, it has been an interesting specimen to study.

Cue the Scratchpologists.

[_sock puppet]

Well, let's deal with the third one, since it is the most expansive for you to try and snag Doctor Scratch's "tactics" as blackmail.

You are, of course, attempting to derail away from the real issue, but if you think that's what it takes to defend your buddy.

Well, aren't you here attempting to defend your buddy, Joseph Smith?

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing 14 year old girls by telling each that she and her family would go to heaven if she "married" him? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the actions of the 14 year old girl, by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

If, in fact, there was divine support for his actions relative to Helen Mar Kimball (who, near as I can tell is only one girl, not girls plural), then - yes, that would have the appearance of blackmail.

That says it all, whether there was divine support or not.

Might we say then that Joseph Smith was blackmailing some of the neighbors in New York by telling them that if they paid him, with his magic rocks he could tell them where to dig for buried treasure, when he'd never found buried treasure (at least not without Moroni's help)? That would certainly look to an objective third party as though Joseph Smith was attempting to influence the neighbors to part with their money by unfair pressure, wouldn't you say ttribe?

Actually, this looks less like blackmail and more like fraud if Joseph Smith knew he couldn't do any such thing and attempted to sell the service. Since we don't have the full facts, I can't reach a complete conclusion.

There's plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith was so selling his services, and you are right, there's not a whiff of evidence that any hidden treasure was ever found as a result of his glass-looking.

Actually, with these two popping to my mind so quickly, it might make for a fun thread for someone to start: "The Blackmailing by Joseph Smith" and everyone can post their contributions.

So, I guess you do approve of Scratch's tactics then.

I do approve of Scratch giving a courtesy on his blog to those who reciprocate with some courtesy, and while reciprocating, and not to those who dog him with persistent hate.

[_ttribe]

Well, aren't you here attempting to defend your buddy, Joseph Smith?

Not in this thread I'm not. You do understand how topics work, right?

That says it all, whether there was divine support or not.

Of course. That's always been true.

There's plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith was so selling his services, and you are right, there's not a whiff of evidence that any hidden treasure was ever found as a result of his glass-looking.

As I've stated before, the real key is evidence of intent; of which we have little or none.

I do approve of Scratch giving a courtesy on his blog to those who reciprocate with some courtesy, and while reciprocating, and not to those who dog him with persistent hate.

Are you suggesting that I "dog him with persistent hate?"

by the way, the suggestion is absolutely laughable given the individual we are talking about.

[_sock puppet]

Well, aren't you here attempting to defend your buddy, Joseph Smith?

Not in this thread I'm not. You do understand how topics work, right?

You do understand how boards work don't you? When I said here, I was referring to MDB. I did not say this specific thread, or any specific post. Since one cannot post on the board outside of a thread, but the thread is part of MDB, here is MDB.

So if you want to play pharisee, go right ahead, Board Nanny. But you'll not prevail.

There's plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith was so selling his services, and you are right, there's not a whiff of evidence that any hidden treasure was ever found as a result of his glass-looking.

As I've stated before, the real key is evidence of intent; of which we have little or none.

In the absence of a confession, intent is deduced from circumstantial evidence. Indeed, your Church courts work on this same evidentiary premise when the member in question does not fess up to the allegations levied against him or her. Here, there is but one conclusion to be drawn from that circumstantial evidence: deceitful intent by Joseph Smith with his magic rocks.

I do approve of Scratch giving a courtesy on his blog to those who reciprocate with some courtesy, and while reciprocating, and not to those who dog him with persistent hate.

Are you suggesting that I "dog him with persistent hate?"

by the way, the suggestion is absolutely laughable given the individual we are talking about.

No, I did not merely suggest it, I stated it clearly with my words that you quoted.

[_ttribe]

You do understand how boards work don't you? When I said here, I was referring to MDB. I did not say this specific thread, or any specific post. Since one cannot post on the board outside of a thread, but the thread is part of MDB, here is MDB.

Yes, I do understand how MB's work, which is why I can safely say this is a derail.

So if you want to play pharisee, go right ahead, Board Nanny. But you'll not prevail.

Whatever. It's curious how you've taken up the mantle of "Scratch Defender" though.

In the absence of a confession, intent is deduced from circumstantial evidence. Indeed, your Church courts work on this same evidentiary premise when the member in question does not fess up to the allegations levied against him or her. Here, there is but one conclusion to be drawn from that circumstantial evidence: deceitful intent by Joseph Smith with his magic rocks.

Wrong standard of evidence for a court of law, which is the professional standard I use.

No, I did not merely suggest it, I stated it clearly with my words that you quoted.

Hmmm. Can't recall ever saying anything about hating Scratch. Can you find that for me?

[_sock puppet]

You do understand how boards work don't you? When I said here, I was referring to MDB. I did not say this specific thread, or any specific post. Since one cannot post on the board outside of a thread, but the thread is part of MDB, here is MDB.

Yes, I do understand how MB's work, which is why I can safely say this is a derail.

Pointing out your selectivity and hypocrisy in ascribing the label of blackmail to Doctor Scratch is not a derail, when you fail to ascribe it to Joseph Smith given the definition you rely upon. If it were, then no one could ever post anything contributory to any thread OP unless it was Amen.

If you genuinely feel I've derailed your whiny, self-indulgent little thread, then my apologies, sir.

So if you want to play pharisee, go right ahead, Board Nanny. But you'll not prevail.

Whatever. It's curious how you've taken up the mantle of "Scratch Defender" though.

Unlike Joseph Smith or Mormonism in general, Doctor Scratch hardly needs anyone else to do his defense bidding for him. No apologists needed for Doctor Scratch. He is most capable on his own. I am an admirer of his many sources, his analytical mind and his witty prose. I find the hackneyed protests from a handful of defenders to everything Doctor Scratch posts here very predictable, very tiring and of course, adding nothing but additional posts, with additional words meaning nothing.

In the absence of a confession, intent is deduced from circumstantial evidence. Indeed, your Church courts work on this same evidentiary premise when the member in question does not fess up to the allegations levied against him or her. Here, there is but one conclusion to be drawn from that circumstantial evidence: deceitful intent by Joseph Smith with his magic rocks.

Wrong standard of evidence for a court of law, which is the professional standard I use.

Not so. Murder is a specific intent crime and defendants are convicted of it in courts of this country every day without the benefit of a confession. Ergo, the jury finds, per the appropriate standard of evidence as instructed by the judge, the necessary specific intent element from the circumstantial evidence. Go to law school first if you want to argue evidentiary standards.

No, I did not merely suggest it, I stated it clearly with my words that you quoted.

Hmmm. Can't recall ever saying anything about hating Scratch. Can you find that for me?

Ah, you see, I never claimed you had said it. Using the same evidentiary standards used by courts, I have drawn that conclusion from the circumstantial evidence--the facts that you can be relied upon to post your protest and inflammatory remarks in response to most every OP of Doctor Scratch's.