DiscussMormonism.com

After reading the most recent batch of informant rumors it strikes me as strange that Scratch large group of informants. I've participated in these types of message boards for 12+ years and I can't remember any other person with such a strong flow of "secret" information.

Just because you're reading gossip that you hope is true don't automatically suspend skepticism and critical thinking. It's entirely possible that one person has a group of informants that feed him negative information about a religion they are only pretending to affiliate with. It seems more likely to me that someone loves pushing peoples buttons on message boards and trolls believers and critics alike.

Phaedrus

I wrote this post after reading Scratch's latest release of inside information regarding the MI's upcoming piece about Dehlin. As we now have read apparently something was being prepared and both he and his informants were correct.

I'm often wrong and was obviously so in this case. I'm still very skeptical about all gossip, secret sources, and extraordinary claims. I enjoy applying reason and critical thinking to problems and now I know that it's also necessary to be skeptical of my own skepticism.

Mea Culpa,

Phaedrus

Phaedrus:

No worries, friend--I always try to insist that people treat the "intel" with caution and skepticism.

I noticed that DCP responded to you on the MDD board, and wanted to clarify a couple of things:

I know for a fact that somebody out there -- two or three years ago, at least -- has been playing him like a fiddle, plying him with absurd "intel" that he greedily and uncritically laps up. I know it because the person wrote to me and told me so. Once or twice, he or she even told me in advance what s/he was going to be planting in the Stalker's mind, and then I got to read it in the Stalker's posts. I have no idea who this person is -- s/he wrote to me anonymously -- nor exactly what the point of the exercise was, or the end game. And I don't know whether it's still continuing.

He suggested in the past that I was "being played like a fiddle," though this is the first time I've ever seen him elaborate in more detail. Of course, he might be right: it could be that one or more of the "informants" is telling me bogus stuff--hence why I always offer up a disclaimer about the need for skepticism and so forth. But he's never provided any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of what he's saying is even remotely true.

I will say that two the the things that caused him to explode the most were the bit of intel about the Maxwell Institute's supposed budget cuts, and the visit by Elder Oaks to see Scott Gordon at his home stake. Dan Peterson went absolutely ballistic over this stuff. And this was the same person who correctly identified the people who helped pull the plug on the Schryver publication, and it is the person who told me the alleged title for the Dehlin "hit piece."

Scratch,

I haven't followed all of the details because I'm a rather casual participant here but I have noticed there does seem to be a strange dysfunctional relationship between you and Dan. Like you many critics of the church have issues with DCP. As a frequent critic of the church I've exchanged my fair share of back and forth with him.

In my opinion you seem to devote a large amount of time and attention to some you claim to not like very much. And in the same vein you seem to measure success by how much you irritate him rather than being right or wrong. And on the other side of the coin Dan seems to spend a lot of time and attention to how much attention you're paying to him.

Please don't take my criticism for arrogance because I definitely can't claim to be accurately describing your interactions. I can only offer my impressions. Remember that living well is the best revenge and the opposite of love isn't hate it's apathy.

Best wishes,

Phaedrus

When I watch the dynamic between Scratch and Dan I am reminded of the scene in Little Shop of Horrors when Bill Murray, playing a masochistic dental patient, visits Steve Martin playing the sadistic dentist.

Scratch's intel is sort of like a weather forecast. You can plot its accuracy on a log normal probability distribution.

Clarification: log normal distribution with relatively small standard deviations.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Phaedrus:

No worries, friend--I always try to insist that people treat the "intel" with caution and skepticism.

I noticed that DCP responded to you on the MDD board, and wanted to clarify a couple of things:

I know for a fact that somebody out there -- two or three years ago, at least -- has been playing him like a fiddle, plying him with absurd "intel" that he greedily and uncritically laps up. I know it because the person wrote to me and told me so. Once or twice, he or she even told me in advance what s/he was going to be planting in the Stalker's mind, and then I got to read it in the Stalker's posts. I have no idea who this person is -- s/he wrote to me anonymously -- nor exactly what the point of the exercise was, or the end game. And I don't know whether it's still continuing.

He suggested in the past that I was "being played like a fiddle," though this is the first time I've ever seen him elaborate in more detail. Of course, he might be right: it could be that one or more of the "informants" is telling me bogus stuff--hence why I always offer up a disclaimer about the need for skepticism and so forth. But he's never provided any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of what he's saying is even remotely true.

I will say that two the the things that caused him to explode the most were the bit of intel about the Maxwell Institute's supposed budget cuts, and the visit by Elder Oaks to see Scott Gordon at his home stake. Dan Peterson went absolutely ballistic over this stuff. And this was the same person who correctly identified the people who helped pull the plug on the Schryver publication, and it is the person who told me the alleged title for the Dehlin "hit piece."

What I find interesting about Dan's allegation is what it tells us about Dan. He knows someone is lying by feeding Scratch false intel, but he does nothing to stop it. Apparently, being "honest in your dealings with your fellow man" means tacitly approving of feeding people false information.

I do not believe Dan's claim about the anonymous e-mail. There are very few in that tight of a circle that would know for Dr Scratch's informant to have the batting average that the informant does. So, would Dan not be able to figure out who that would be, particularly from how the e-mail's 'word print'? NAMIRS works with words and writings; their styles would be well known by each other. Either Dan is lying about there being any such e-mail, or lying about not knowing the source of it.

zeezrom wrote:Clarification: log normal distribution with relatively small standard deviations.

I like the analogy of the forward motion of marbles in a Chinese checkers match between IBM's Watson and George W. Bush.