a five+ year crusade of character assassination

[_sock puppet]

Some of DCP's sychophants repeat DCP's worn out claim in asking Dr Scratch, what has DCP done that justifies a five+ year crusade of character assassination? Claiming that Dr Scratch has been "attempt[ing], for half a decade now, to destroy someone's professional reputation".

Dr Scratch is not a fan of DCP, but Dr Scratch's targets are much more clearly and focused on Mormon Apologetics and NAMIRS, in general. DCP is a kingpin in both. Dr Scratch has not went after DCP's professional reputation, which is in Islamic Studies and Arabic language. Dr Scratch keeps it on mopologetics aims, goals, strategies and tactics.

Yet DCP has, in his responses, made it personal towards Dr Scratch. What with rifle comments and all.

So, you DCP sycophants, why not use this thread to call DCP out for his having responded to criticism against mopologetics by making it personal towards Dr Scratch. It would be one thing for DCP to defend mopologetics and NAMIRS by addressing the specific criticisms thereof leveled by Dr Scratch. But DCP points his responses at Dr Scratch personally.

So, DCP sycophants--and you know who you are--here is your chance to tell DCP in no uncertain terms, keep your responses to mopologetic/NAMIRS criticisms focused on the critiques, to stop making the responses personally directed at Dr Scratch or any other critic.

Don't let the crickets chirp too long.

[_Simon Belmont]

Some of DCP's sychophants repeat DCP's worn out claim in asking Dr Scratch, what has DCP done that justifies a five+ year crusade of character assassination? Claiming that Dr Scratch has been "attempt[ing], for half a decade now, to destroy someone's professional reputation".

Dr Scratch is not a fan of DCP, but Dr Scratch's targets are much more clearly and focused on Mormon Apologetics and NAMIRS, in general. DCP is a kingpin in both. Dr Scratch has not went after DCP's professional reputation, which is in Islamic Studies and Arabic language. Dr Scratch keeps it on mopologetics aims, goals, strategies and tactics.

• Ask Scratch about finding, posting, and mocking DCP's son's Amazon wish list.
• Ask Scratch about finding, posting, and mocking DCP's 1978 BYU Isreal reunion information.
• Ask Scratch about calling DCP a "human dung heap," posting that he has a "very deep character flaw [as a] deeply dishonest individual [whose behavior is] very sick indeed."
• Ask Scratch about calling DCP "pathologically sick," and "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced."

These things are pretty personal, sock puppet, wouldn't you agree?

Yet DCP has, in his responses, made it personal towards Dr Scratch. What with rifle comments and all.

Personal to "Doctor Scratch?" What does that mean? "Doctor Scratch" is a made-up pseudonym from which the person behind safely attacks. It is like me making the same gun comments toward... "thefearfactor" -- an online pseudonym. There is absolutely nothing personal about making comments to a fake name and a false identity.

Oh and...

Hey, what do you know? Another DCP thread!

[_sock puppet]

Some of DCP's sychophants repeat DCP's worn out claim in asking Dr Scratch, what has DCP done that justifies a five+ year crusade of character assassination? Claiming that Dr Scratch has been "attempt[ing], for half a decade now, to destroy someone's professional reputation".

Dr Scratch is not a fan of DCP, but Dr Scratch's targets are much more clearly and focused on Mormon Apologetics and NAMIRS, in general. DCP is a kingpin in both. Dr Scratch has not went after DCP's professional reputation, which is in Islamic Studies and Arabic language. Dr Scratch keeps it on mopologetics aims, goals, strategies and tactics.

• Ask Scratch about finding, posting, and mocking DCP's son's Amazon wish list.
• Ask Scratch about finding, posting, and mocking DCP's 1978 BYU Isreal reunion information.
• Ask Scratch about calling DCP a "human dung heap," posting that he has a "very deep character flaw [as a] deeply dishonest individual [whose behavior is] very sick indeed."
• Ask Scratch about calling DCP "pathologically sick," and "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced."

These things are pretty personal, sock puppet, wouldn't you agree?

Yet DCP has, in his responses, made it personal towards Dr Scratch. What with rifle comments and all.

Personal to "Doctor Scratch?" What does that mean? "Doctor Scratch" is a made-up pseudonym from which the person behind safely attacks. It is like me making the same gun comments toward... "thefearfactor" -- an online pseudonym. There is absolutely nothing personal about making comments to a fake name and a false identity.

Oh and...

Hey, what do you know? Another DCP thread!

4 posts in 5 years? Of that, you make a 5+ year crusade?

[_Simon Belmont]

4 posts in 5 years? Of that, you make a 5+ year crusade?

Oh, trust me... that is but a very small sample.

[_sock puppet]

4 posts in 5 years? Of that, you make a 5+ year crusade?

Oh, trust me... that is but a very small sample.

Are you keeping a dossier on Dr Scratch?

[_harmony]

4 posts in 5 years? Of that, you make a 5+ year crusade?

Quantity wasn't the issue, sock. You implied that Scratch never made it personal. Simon gave examples contrary to that. He could find dozens if not hundreds more. Now you claim something different?

Contrary to your implication, Scratch has been toe to toe with Dan, giving as good as he gets.

[_Simon Belmont]

Are you keeping a dossier on Dr Scratch?

No, and I don't need to. It's all right there, in the search feature.

[Guest]

4 posts in 5 years? Of that, you make a 5+ year crusade?

Quantity wasn't the issue, sock. You implied that Scratch never made it personal. Simon gave examples contrary to that. He could find dozens if not hundreds more. Now you claim something different?

Contrary to your implication, Scratch has been toe to toe with Dan, giving as good as he gets.

But with Dan, his retorts are nothing but personal. He never addresses the mopologetic/NAMIRS tactics of personal assassination against authors of Mormon critical works or the denuding of uniquely Mormon doctrine. With Dan towards Scratch, it's always personal and Dan feigning victimization.

With Dr Scratch, the personal is an aberration. For every personal post, you get at least a dozen that are directed at mopologetic tactics. Dan, coming back the other way, is heavily dowsed with personal, and very, very little by way of defending those mopologetic tactics.

[_Simon Belmont]

But with Dan, his retorts are nothing but personal. He never addresses the mopologetic/NAMIRS tactics of personal assassination against authors of Mormon critical works or the denuding of uniquely Mormon doctrine. With Dan towards Scratch, it's always personal and Dan feigning victimization.

It cannot be personal, sock puppet. No matter how you spin it, he is commenting on a false identity and a fake pseudonym, not a real person.

[_sock puppet]

But with Dan, his retorts are nothing but personal. He never addresses the mopologetic/NAMIRS tactics of personal assassination against authors of Mormon critical works or the denuding of uniquely Mormon doctrine. With Dan towards Scratch, it's always personal and Dan feigning victimization.

It cannot be personal, sock puppet. No matter how you spin it, he is commenting on a false identity and a fake pseudonym, not a real person.

It's personal because Dan is attacking the messenger (whether in real life identity or a pen name), not the message. Ironically, that is the very tactic Dr Scratch often attacks mopologetics/NAMIRS for: they attack the author of Mormon critiques, rather than the critique's substance.