More Evidence of DCP's Gossipmongering

[_Daniel Peterson]

Since you're anonymous, the damage, if any, done to you by an incorrect allegation is minimal.

This is a lame excuse, and you know it.

Actually, I think it's a very sound principle.

You're anonymous. Even if the charge against you were false, you would not have been damaged, except insofar as you are "known" under the pseudonym of "Mister Scratch" on this board (and vaguely remembered under the same pseudonym by a few people on another board).

Who cares what you "believe"? You don't have the evidence.

Given the nature of the case, definitive proof is impossible to obtain, one way or the other. I go with the probabilities, which were overwhelmingly against you even before your latest slip-up with this personal message to Ray.

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. However, I'm quite confident that I'm not wrong.

If a man steps on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit politely asking him to remove it.

You've repeated that slogan roughly half a dozen times. You've also accused me of being obsessed with vengeance.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, putting myself into his shoes, I'd say he did it in order to affirm the reliability of his own recollection. To prove his honesty, if you will.

Precisely. Thanks for your fairness on this.

[_Mister Scratch]

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. However, I'm quite confident that I'm not wrong.

See? The qualification somewhat puts a damper on your "sorry." You would send a man to prison on the basis of your "beliefs" and shrug your shoulders at his wasting away.

If a man steps on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit politely asking him to remove it.

You've repeated that slogan roughly half a dozen times. You've also accused me of being obsessed with vengeance.

There is a difference between "vengeance" and resenting a person's endless false accusations.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. However, I'm quite confident that I'm not wrong.

See? The qualification somewhat puts a damper on your "sorry." You would send a man to prison on the basis of your "beliefs" and shrug your shoulders at his wasting away.

Oh my.

Well, as a matter of fact, criminal verdicts are handed down when jurors decide that the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and civil damages are awarded on the basis of "the preponderance of the evidence."

We commonly use probabilistic standards for making very serious judgments that are far and away more damaging to individuals than anything that has accrued to a pseudonymous poster on a small message board.

If a man steps on your neck for long enough, eventually you are going to quit politely asking him to remove it.

You've repeated that slogan roughly half a dozen times. You've also accused me of being obsessed with vengeance.

There is a difference between "vengeance" and resenting a person's endless false accusations.

Quite.

And perhaps you should reflect on that for a while.

[_Mister Scratch]

There is a difference between "vengeance" and resenting a person's endless false accusations.

Quite.

And perhaps you should reflect on that for a while.

As should you. Look: all I have ever asked for was to be extended the very simply courtesy of being taken at my word. What, in all sincerity, is so wrong about that?

[_Daniel Peterson]

As should you. Look: all I have ever asked for was to be extended the very simply courtesy of being taken at my word. What, in all sincerity, is so wrong about that?

As the record shows, I did, at first, take you at your word.

But then -- and I laid out my reasoning on this -- new information came to my attention strongly suggesting that your word was not to be trusted.

I said so, and then I essentially dropped the subject.

You have, of course, never taken me at my word. And you've gone on and on and on and on and on, and then on and on again, obsessively searching for and posting anything at all that might blacken my character, trash my name, and damage my reputation. You've anonymously accused me of all manner of serious ethical lapses, insanity, academic crimes, and cruelties.

When this latest apparent stunt of yours became public, I noted it with interest because it is entirely consistent with my previous observation of your behavior.

[_Mister Scratch]

As should you. Look: all I have ever asked for was to be extended the very simply courtesy of being taken at my word. What, in all sincerity, is so wrong about that?

As the record shows, I did, at first, take you at your word.

But then -- and I laid out my reasoning on this -- new information came to my attention strongly suggesting that your word was not to be trusted.

It was pretty poor reasoning---cum hoc, ergo propter hoc as I recall.

I said so, and then I essentially dropped the subject.

You have, of course, never taken me at my word.

????? What are you talking about? I always thought our exchanges on the old FAIRboard were enjoyable and quite fun. I'm unaware of any time where I doubted your word prior to my banning from FAIR. If you'd care to provide an example, I'll happily apologize.

And you've gone on and on and on and on and on, and then on and on again, obsessively searching for and posting anything at all that might blacken my character, trash my name, and damage my reputation.

No, that's not correct. You labeled me a "brazen liar," which subsequently got me booted off of the FAIRboard (much to the laughter of hyenas such as "Scotty Dog" Lloyd. So, I had to sort of wonder: Does Dan Peterson really have good reason to treat me this way? Is his record really so spotless? Is he really in much of a position to condescend and cast judgment? So, I went looking. The more I looked, the more I discovered that Mopologetics is an enormously rich and fascinating (and sordid) web of history.

You've anonymously accused me of all manner of serious ethical lapses, insanity, academic crimes, and cruelties.

Another key difference is that I've always provided clear documentary evidence for these "accusations." Unlike you, I don't have to rely on "beliefs." All I have to do is supply a link, and the truth is obvious to everyone! Do you understand the difference between these two kinds of proofs---the one you've used to attack me, vs. the kind I've used against you?

When this latest apparent stunt of yours became public, I noted it with interest because it is entirely consistent with my previous observation of your behavior.

Sheesh. I'll say it again: You reap what you sow, Prof. P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Very selective, Scratch, but spun with your characteristic cunning.

[_Mister Scratch]

Very selective, Scratch, but spun with your characteristic cunning.

Great comeback!

In any case, I'll say again: I did not lie regarding the RfM post. You can go on carrying on about it all you like, but if you ever make up your mind to try and start over, I'm willing to extend my hand in a cyber-handshake to you.

[_Gadianton]

DCP's intent was to show how Ray A's public characterization of their private correspondence was rather extreme compared to the reality

Huh, couldn't that be read as "lying" about reality? Yet, I thought DCP said he'd never known Ray A to lie, ever, not even if it meant a great personal loss. Yet, if what you're saying is true, then Ray would have specifically been "lying", or "severely misrepresenting reality" in order to make his case look better and DCP would have been proving to his peers that Ray A had "lied". And not only "lied" but "lying" specifically in the context of misrepresenting private communication. Which means that we do, contrary to what he said elsewhere, have a pattern of Ray and "lies" in the context of private communications. In fact, the pattern is established more fully than Scratch's. In Scratch's case, DCP feels the RFM Scratch link can be established with high probability. Yet in Ray's case, he has two points of absolute certainty.

An interesting fork. It's either own up to gossip, or sell out Ray as "less than truthful."

Again, for the record, I don't think anyone's actions unearthed in the course of these recent conversations paints anyone as a terrible villain, I'm just interested in consistent reasoning.