The Identity of Mr. Scratch

[_Ray A]

I don't even read most of Scratch's posts. I certainly haven't read any where he called DCP corrupt and evil.

You can try these for size (and there are more):

Is this not yet another instance of what appears to be a very deep character flaw in our most favorite BYU Prof??? Let's face facts here: this is a deeply dishonest individual who strung along people for months at ZLMB, apparently thinking it was "funny." His whole behavior on this issue strikes me as being very, very sick indeed.


MDB, Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:11 am

I think it is worthwhile to reiterate again that DCP is obviously a dishonest (and quite possibly pathologically sick) individual. I have hesitated at making these declarations in the past, but it has become clear now that he seems virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns. He can make sarcastic jokes about it all he wants, but the truth remains: he sits, comfortably and laughingly in his BYU sinecure, launching these various cruel and dishonest attacks on others. Was he involved in a BKP-headed conspiracy to destroy Mike Quinn's life? You be the judge.

MDB, Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:21 am

What irony. Scratch has always believe this, note, but in other threads he has said things like (to DCP):

Please do know that I like you a great deal, and would love to see you continue to participate on the board. You are one of the great ones, in terms of Mopologetic history. I really believe that. Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:46 pm

But prior to this:

But, I don't need this latest sockpuppet to tell me that the Good Professor is dishonest and deceptive and duplicitous. I have his prior sockpuppets, his gossipmongering, and his smear tactics to show me that.

Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:49 am

This is the same person who says I have "many faces". LOL.



(Scratch would also be disappointed you don't read most of his posts.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Why do you have to know anything about Scratch, in order to debunk the argument?

Because if Scratch is lying, or avoiding his real motives for attacking every and anything Mormon, then he's a complete SHAM. If, for example, he is really gay, but posing as a heterosexual, married and all that, but believes in the Church, and is SO cautious to hide his real identity - he could be anything! He knows, for example, that IF he is gay, none of his arguments would be taken seriously, and would be immediately dismissed by Mormons. But he wants credibility! And he can't do that by telling who he really is!

So let Scratch declare who he really is. His obsession with Mike Quinn, and gay issues, is one deadset give-away.

My goodness, Ray. Your tireless immaturity and inability to focus on the issues are absolutely staggering. I really have no choice but to conclude that you opt to focus on my anonymity because you cannot hack in terms of the arguments. I am hereby requesting that the Moderators consign your ridiculous comments to the "Off Topic Forum."

[_Ray A]

My goodness, Ray. Your tireless immaturity and inability to focus on the issues are absolutely staggering. I really have no choice but to conclude that you opt to focus on my anonymity because you cannot hack in terms of the arguments. I am hereby requesting that the Moderators consign your ridiculous comments to the "Off Topic Forum."

Still dodging questions, Scratch? You have perfected this. Of course you want this consigned to the "Off Topic Forum", because you can't hack it. Probe everyone else - when you get probed - Off Topic!!

[_Mister Scratch]

My goodness, Ray. Your tireless immaturity and inability to focus on the issues are absolutely staggering. I really have no choice but to conclude that you opt to focus on my anonymity because you cannot hack in terms of the arguments. I am hereby requesting that the Moderators consign your ridiculous comments to the "Off Topic Forum."

Still dodging questions, Scratch? You have perfected this. Of course you want this consigned to the "Off Topic Forum", because you can't hack it. Probe everyone else - when you get probed - Off Topic!!

No, Ray. If you'd like to discuss whether or not LDS scholars have done a thorough job of submitting their most audacious and controversial theories to the rigors of academic analysis, then by all means: join in. But, you seem incapable of doing this. Instead, you carry on with your creepy obsession over my in real life identity.

I have never engaged in the sorts of behavior you are engaging in now. Never have I demanded, say, that some Mopologist fork over details of his personal life, his phone number or driver's license number, or whatever else. I have never asked for a photo, nor their vital statistics, nor anything else. I have always been content to deal only and always with material which is freely available on the LDS messageboards. Why this remains unsatisfactory to you is anybody's guess, though I would wager that it has something to do with you still smarting over that "crack whore" remark---i.e., you resent that you were dumb enough to post this personal information, and yet to sensitive to healthily deal with the mean-spirited remarks that followed. C'mon, Ray: no need to attack me for your own weaknesses.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't even read most of Scratch's posts. I certainly haven't read any where he called DCP corrupt and evil. But if I had, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Even if you had called him corrupt and evil, I wouldn't have said anything. But your homophobic insinuation that he must be some sort of scheming closet homosexual in order to think that the Church's treatment of Quinn was a load of bull**** is, in itself, a load of bull**** and calls for remonstrance.

Scratch did call DCP corrupt, and a lot more. I'm looking for the quotes, and will produce them when I find them.

The fact that you seem to have such difficultly finding any quotes belies your claims, Ray.

I would have no problem at all if Scratch was homosexual. I have no problem with Quinn, or the other gay Internet friends I have posted with on various boards, who have all been open about their sexuality. I do not have a problem with gay posters on MADB, either, and one is very open about his sexuality, and openly criticises the Church.

What if I *am* Quinn, Ray?

I have been interrogated with many questions, on many boards, and I've always tried to give honest answers about myself, and my personal beliefs, even when in "enemy territory".

Yes, and you paid for this when your daughter was called "a crack whore." I bet you'd like to take back your forthrightness, wouldn't you?

All Scratch has to do is clarify, and similarly answer questions, since he's the one always calling for CFR, and dismantling others' motives.

I always provide references when called to, and I never ask others for personal details.

HE has accused DCP of being homophobic by "gossipping" about Quinn,

Yes, due to the nature of the gossip, and the nature of LDS culture.

when DCP has explicitly denied this, which is backed by ALL of his FROB editorials since 1990,

Okay. CFR. Let me see the proof of this, tough guy.

and also backed by a former poster who left this board after becoming disgusted at the false charges.

And who might this be? Pahoran? Who, Ray?

He has never been obsessed with Quinn's sexuality, but Scratch is certainly obsessed with "exposing" DCP on false premises. His constant, unrelenting campaign to smear "The Good Professor" (used with ironic morbidity), should be opposed by all.

If this were really true (the premise, that is) then you would oppose the endless smears which are published in FARMS Review. Do you oppose those? No. You don't.

[_Ray A]

No, Ray. If you'd like to discuss whether or not LDS scholars have done a thorough job of submitting their most audacious and controversial theories to the rigors of academic analysis, then by all means: join in. But, you seem incapable of doing this. Instead, you carry on with your creepy obsession over my in real life identity.

I have never engaged in the sorts of behavior you are engaging in now. Never have I demanded, say, that some Mopologist fork over details of his personal life, his phone number or driver's license number, or whatever else. I have never asked for a photo, nor their vital statistics, nor anything else. I have always been content to deal only and always with material which is freely available on the LDS messageboards. Why this remains unsatisfactory to you is anybody's guess, though I would wager that it has something to do with you still smarting over that "crack whore" remark---I.e., you resent that you were dumb enough to post this personal information, and yet to sensitive to healthily deal with the mean-spirited remarks that followed. C'mon, Ray: no need to attack me for your own weaknesses.

According to Gad:

He does drive a hard bargain though on information swaps.

Does that include the email I sent to the Z. mods? So, I see, if it exposes an enemy, it's okay, but if something exposes you, it's NOT okay. Maybe Gad didn't share this with you beforehand, but if considerable "information exchanges" were taking place, I wonder?

I don't care about phone numbers, licence details, photos, any more than you do. I've asked for some basic information which I feel is relevant to your posts.

You're wrong about me still smarting over the "crack whore" issue. This has nothing to do with our exchanges.

[_Ray A]

The fact that you seem to have such difficultly finding any quotes belies your claims, Ray.

You mean the ones I already produced mean nothing?? Wow! If I produced a library of them you'd still deny it.

What if I *am* Quinn, Ray?

That thought did occur to me, but I dismiss it for several reasons. Your knowledge of Church history, and your knowledge of many things Mormon, including the content of several Mormon journals, books, etc., are too lacking for you to be Quinn. Unless you were deliberately pretending ignorance, which I don't believe. I also don't believe Quinn would be this vindictive, and, as far as I know he doesn't have access to the Internet. Quinn would not have posted as you did on FAIR, and we all know that's where your vendetta against FAIR, DCP, Juliann, all started. You got banned, and you have never forgiven them! I doubt Quinn would be that small-minded.

Yes, and you paid for this when your daughter was called "a crack whore." I bet you'd like to take back your forthrightness, wouldn't you?

You still don't understand the situation. I said nothing about my daughter. Her pic was in my avatar - nothing else. This is why I don't place pics of my family in avatars anymore, anywhere.

I always provide references when called to, and I never ask others for personal details.

No, you don't, you just get them in "information swaps", as you admit:

A very fascinating tidbit was brought to my attention by one of my so-called "informants":

Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:46 pm

Who are your "informants", Scratch, and what sort of information do they give you?

And who might this be? Pahoran? Who, Ray?

No, it was not Pahoran, but a poster who knew Quinn's stake president.

If this were really true (the premise, that is) then you would oppose the endless smears which are published in FARMS Review. Do you oppose those? No. You don't.

Why? You've completely taken the stage on this one. Anymore criticism would be flogging a dead horse - mob lynching.

[_Mister Scratch]

]And who might this be? Pahoran? Who, Ray?

No, it was not Pahoran, but a poster who knew Quinn's stake president.

That would be "Opie Rockwell," who was hardly a "regular poster." Or was he? If you tell me what Opie's handle is elsewhere, (and provide ample evidence demonstrating that you know what you're talking about) I will tell you my Church status. You have my word. I will state it right here, out in the open, on the board.

[_Ray A]

That would be "Opie Rockwell," who was hardly a "regular poster." Or was he? If you tell me what Opie's handle is elsewhere, (and provide ample evidence demonstrating that you know what you're talking about) I will tell you my Church status. You have my word. I will state it right here, out in the open, on the board.

I don't know what Opie's handle is, because unlike you I don't have "informants".

Now Scratch, quit the BS with the bribes. This is the second time you've tried to bribe me. Your KGB-style "informants" obviously work well. Pity they can't teach you much about Church history.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't care about phone numbers, licence details, photos, any more than you do. I've asked for some basic information which I feel is relevant to your posts.

You have never adequately explained how/why any of this material is "relevant" to my posts, Ray.