DCP's Gamble
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:52 pm
Yesterday, full of himself, DCP posted on his patheos blog that he new the in real life identity of Dr Scratch, and named the person he thought was Dr Scratch.
The only evidence proffered for this is that online persona chino blanco outed himself at the last Sunstone Symposium. The problem is, that relied on an assumption that whomever in real life chino blanco is, that same in real life person is also Dr Scratch. That is, there was an assumption, with no evidence, that chino blanco = Dr Scratch.
That was DCP's gamble. So in his outing post on patheos, DCP did this, essentially: since Person X = chino blanco by his own admission, chino blanco = Dr Scratch by DCP/Pahoran's assumption, then Person X = chino blanco. The case of Dr Scratch's in real life identity solved, right?
Apparently, in making the outing post yesterday on patheos DCP acted on the assumption that chino blanco = Dr Scratch. An assumption for which DCP and Pahoran have and proffer no evidence.
Thus, in the face of a denial by Person X that he is Dr Scratch, DCP quickly posted the denial, and then within an hour or two took down both blog posts from patheos, the outing post and the subsequent correction post.
DCP wanted to out Dr Scratch's in real life identity. Otherwise, there would not have been the first of his patheos posts yesterday, the outing post.
If DCP had evidence of chino blanco = Dr Scratch, DCP would have identified it, and not been so quick and willing to make the second, 'correction' post yesterday. He most certainly would not have taken down the outing and correction posts.
When Person X/chino blanco made the denial of being Dr Scratch, DCP accepted that. DCP's evidence-less bluff was called. DCP slinked back from his gambit. But what is telling is that it took him two steps to do so.
If DCP was trying to eliminate Person X/chino blanco as a candidate of Dr Scrath's in real life identity, why did DCP not persist by asking for evidence that Person X/chino blanco is not Dr Scratch? Why merely accept Person X's baldly asserted denial?
DCP's MO would clearly be to persist, himself denying Person X's denial, much as DCP's minion, Alter Idem has done. After all, Person X did not out Dr Scratch's in real life identity to DCP to prove Person X is not Dr Scratch. So, if that was DCP's angle, thinking by fingering a flimsily suspected in real life Person X it would provoke disclosure of Dr Scratch's in real life identity, it did not work.
Spectacular failure on DCP's part. All DCP did provoke was a baldly asserted denial from Person X, one that Alter Idem for instance does not accept. But obviously a denial that DCP not only accepted, but for his inflated ego caused DCP to quickly post a 'correction' post. DCP had no evidence in the first place to back up the chino blanco = Dr Scratch assumption behind the outing post, so DCP would take a denial for which there was no corroborating evidence either, and post the correction.
But DCP had not yet seen the full extent of his folly until it was dissected here on MDB, where his pompous threats of defamation litigation were eviscerated (and yes, I've now been supplied a copy of DCP's outing post, the one he took down).
If DCP had been merely trying to eliminate a possible contact or provoke someone who knows Dr Scratch's in real life identity, DCP's correction post following Person X's denial would have served a useful DCP purpose and would have been left up for late comers to see and to perhaps elicit further information by way of evidence others proffered why Dr Scratch is not Person X. But DCP later took the additional step of 'scratching' both his outing post and his correction post.
This two step retreat by DCP is revealing that he was not unsure of Dr Scratch's in real life identity when he first put the outing post up, and was doing so to merely eliminate Person X as a Dr Scratch candidate. Had that been the case and DCP was satisfied with Person X's denial with no backup proof, DCP could simply have taken down the outing post or left it alone. Instead, he posted the correction post. Had Person X's denial satisfied DCP and thought a correction for Person X necessary and so posted the correction post, then why take it down later?
The best explanation for (a) making the ousting post, (b) then making the correction post, but also then (c) taking both down is that DCP truly thought that he had Dr Scratch's in real life identity figured out, in the face of the denial by Person X posted the half-hearted correction post, but realized only later that he'd stepped in a pile of crap and couldn't shake it off of his shoes (MDB had a field day with DCP's Saturday indiscretion), so DCP took the third, #(c) step and tried to 'erase' his Saturday folly altogether.
Oh, for DCP, that there weren't screen shots taken and Google cache. The evidence remains, despite his efforts to deep six it, of his egotistical folly.
The only evidence proffered for this is that online persona chino blanco outed himself at the last Sunstone Symposium. The problem is, that relied on an assumption that whomever in real life chino blanco is, that same in real life person is also Dr Scratch. That is, there was an assumption, with no evidence, that chino blanco = Dr Scratch.
That was DCP's gamble. So in his outing post on patheos, DCP did this, essentially: since Person X = chino blanco by his own admission, chino blanco = Dr Scratch by DCP/Pahoran's assumption, then Person X = chino blanco. The case of Dr Scratch's in real life identity solved, right?
Apparently, in making the outing post yesterday on patheos DCP acted on the assumption that chino blanco = Dr Scratch. An assumption for which DCP and Pahoran have and proffer no evidence.
Thus, in the face of a denial by Person X that he is Dr Scratch, DCP quickly posted the denial, and then within an hour or two took down both blog posts from patheos, the outing post and the subsequent correction post.
DCP wanted to out Dr Scratch's in real life identity. Otherwise, there would not have been the first of his patheos posts yesterday, the outing post.
If DCP had evidence of chino blanco = Dr Scratch, DCP would have identified it, and not been so quick and willing to make the second, 'correction' post yesterday. He most certainly would not have taken down the outing and correction posts.
When Person X/chino blanco made the denial of being Dr Scratch, DCP accepted that. DCP's evidence-less bluff was called. DCP slinked back from his gambit. But what is telling is that it took him two steps to do so.
If DCP was trying to eliminate Person X/chino blanco as a candidate of Dr Scrath's in real life identity, why did DCP not persist by asking for evidence that Person X/chino blanco is not Dr Scratch? Why merely accept Person X's baldly asserted denial?
DCP's MO would clearly be to persist, himself denying Person X's denial, much as DCP's minion, Alter Idem has done. After all, Person X did not out Dr Scratch's in real life identity to DCP to prove Person X is not Dr Scratch. So, if that was DCP's angle, thinking by fingering a flimsily suspected in real life Person X it would provoke disclosure of Dr Scratch's in real life identity, it did not work.
Spectacular failure on DCP's part. All DCP did provoke was a baldly asserted denial from Person X, one that Alter Idem for instance does not accept. But obviously a denial that DCP not only accepted, but for his inflated ego caused DCP to quickly post a 'correction' post. DCP had no evidence in the first place to back up the chino blanco = Dr Scratch assumption behind the outing post, so DCP would take a denial for which there was no corroborating evidence either, and post the correction.
But DCP had not yet seen the full extent of his folly until it was dissected here on MDB, where his pompous threats of defamation litigation were eviscerated (and yes, I've now been supplied a copy of DCP's outing post, the one he took down).
If DCP had been merely trying to eliminate a possible contact or provoke someone who knows Dr Scratch's in real life identity, DCP's correction post following Person X's denial would have served a useful DCP purpose and would have been left up for late comers to see and to perhaps elicit further information by way of evidence others proffered why Dr Scratch is not Person X. But DCP later took the additional step of 'scratching' both his outing post and his correction post.
This two step retreat by DCP is revealing that he was not unsure of Dr Scratch's in real life identity when he first put the outing post up, and was doing so to merely eliminate Person X as a Dr Scratch candidate. Had that been the case and DCP was satisfied with Person X's denial with no backup proof, DCP could simply have taken down the outing post or left it alone. Instead, he posted the correction post. Had Person X's denial satisfied DCP and thought a correction for Person X necessary and so posted the correction post, then why take it down later?
The best explanation for (a) making the ousting post, (b) then making the correction post, but also then (c) taking both down is that DCP truly thought that he had Dr Scratch's in real life identity figured out, in the face of the denial by Person X posted the half-hearted correction post, but realized only later that he'd stepped in a pile of crap and couldn't shake it off of his shoes (MDB had a field day with DCP's Saturday indiscretion), so DCP took the third, #(c) step and tried to 'erase' his Saturday folly altogether.
Oh, for DCP, that there weren't screen shots taken and Google cache. The evidence remains, despite his efforts to deep six it, of his egotistical folly.