Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[Guest]

Then let me give you a reason to doubt it: the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon received via snail-mail by a Californian FARMS subscriber.
...To suggest that a subscription-based publication like RBBM would be mailed to subscribers after only "fewer than ten" "were printed and bound" is, well, perhaps the "joke" that you've been referring to all along.

Regards,

</brent>

This is interesting, Brent. It seems obvious that your friend got a copy of one of the few printed Reviews with the acrostic. Do you know what he/she did with it?

I also find it interesting, however, that I-- living in Ogden-- never received such a copy. I was always one of the first to get my copies of the new Reviews. I wonder why it is that a copy was sent to someone in California while those people who lived closer (and generally received their copies earlier) did not get such copies?

I don't know how FARMS decides who gets the first editions of a new Review, but if they kick out labels based on an alphabetical listing of surnames, mine usually rises near the top. If they base it on proximity of zip codes, mine would be fairly high. If they do it numerically based on zip code, the subscribers in the eastern states would get first choice. I've done some bulk mailing for work and I can't image that the FARMS shipping dept. would only send 1 or 2 copies of the Review out at a time (unless your source had some sort of vip privilges). Typically, a book like the Review (just like Dialouge) would be sent out in bulk to many people-- yet who else has ever received a copy of the infamous Review?

I'm not doubting that your source received a copy of this book I just find it odd that more people also didn't receive copies. If, from what I infer from your post, you believe that dozens or hundreds of copies were printed before the book was recalled, how is it that we hear almost nothing about people who own(ed) said copies (your source is the first non-FARMS person I've heard who has even handled a copy)?

You've had quite a bit of experience in printing and I know at least a little, so don't you find it odd-- from a printing aspect-- that your source got a copy as a "subscriber"?

What printer prints a dozen copies which are then taken & shipped to subsribers? Typically a printer prints in larger batches. These batches are then picked up by shipping & sent to subscribers. I guess it's possible that the shipping dept. grabbed the first pile of books of the printer's table & began shipping them out 1 by 1, but that seems atypical to how it would normally work.

Sometime during the printing process the FARMS leaders found out about the accrostic & halted the printing. Who would send copies out after the presses had been stopped to fix the mistake?

It seems to me that the virtual absence of such copies suggests that either a handful were printed (and your source got his/her hands on one), or your source has some sort of vip status or luck to get a copy of the Review before a bulk mailing was made. Either way, it suggests that very few copies of the Review ever left FARMS and I think it supports Dan's recollection that possibly less than a dozen books were printed before the printing stopped.

Mike Ash

[_Gadianton]

"Scratch." I honestly believe you are suffering from some sort of mental disorder. I do not say that as an insult, I say it with concern. Some people from the old Z board have been in touch with me explaining that you were once a somewhat pleasant person, though you seemed very interested in seeking the approval of others. I suggest seeing a counselor.

Now there is irrefutable proof that Mister Scratch, who I believe in many ways is the most sane poster on this board, has a mental disorder. But I guess I should reconsider because, it turns out, he sought approval from others? That would make him downright nuts. It's unheard of for posters on message boards to look for approval from their peers, you know. I'm sure you don't have any "approval" needs at all from the senior apologists you follow around and fancy yourself as having an "in" with. If Scratch needs a counselor for his approval needs, then you need a straight-jacket.

But you do have my curiosity, who from Z has been in contact with you? How were you contacted? Can you pony up some names?

I'm not even sure if Scratch posted on Z. And believe me, I should know if he had. Your plotting "informants" are either deceiving you in order to further their hidden aims, or they have done some kind of high-tech spying and have exploited private information and are now using it as fuel for gossip material. I can't say I'm surprised.

When I was a moderator on Z, I only glanced at the IP information on a couple of occasions for moderator purposes. I never copied that information, or used it in any way to figure out cross-board handles and then gossip about the unwitting target.

This is really disgusting.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

*sigh!*

Hi Dan,

I've corrected you multiple times on the points that I mentioned (though in fairness to my friends, I have no firsthand information that they actually contacted the news media; that's simply an assumption on my part).

News like that is generally done in order to elicit publicity, ie sell more books. I imagine the folks at Signature were involved in alerting the media. I could be wrong, but it seems highly likely.

Your self-admitted addiction to online banter is a craze that I find difficult to indulge in. I have little interest in engaging interlocutors who brush off evidence with a hubristic flick of the rhetorical hand.

Best wishes,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[/quote]

And yet you didn't acknowledge the point the acrostic was making, defend your position from the substantive points in Hamblin's review, and brushed me off as an "intellectual twinkie." If it wasn't worth your time to be insulting online I wonder why you were.

(© 2008 Harrison Ford. All rights reserved.)

[_beastie]

I'm not aware of anyone who posted on Z. at the time feeling that this was a major problem. He didn't overtly lie, and I don't think anyone "cornered" him on the issue, though most of us suspected it was DCP.

This isn't exactly accurate, I think. If I recall correctly, at least one poster mentioned that Freethinker was DCP, and got into trouble with the mods. DCP was definitely trying to hide his identity as FreeThinker, because he would, at times, refer to DCP in the third person as someone he had access to.

It was an odd situation. I believe DCP created the alternate identity because there, like here, DCP tended to often become The Topic. There's nothing wrong with wanting to change that dynamic, and would be understandable. But it was odd because the posting style was obviously the same, and most people knew it was DCP, but were forbidden to recognize that fact. It created weird situations at times.

It reminds me of the Pahoran brouhaha. He used to openly post with his real name, and most people know his real name. But at one point he switched to the Pahoran name. However, everyone knew it was still him and posters did reference him with his real name from time to time. Later, he said he received some sort of threat and no longer wanted his real name used or associated with "Pahoran", either. But he didn't change his name to something other than Pahoran, which had already been heavily linked with his real name, or alter his unmistakable posting style, so everyone knew, but weren't allowed to say. Again, an odd situation.

[Guest]

you are kidding, I hope?

I am quite serious. Such long standing malice is odd. Bitterness and smearing so consistently, to me, evidences a deep-seated insecurity. We don't attack those we pity, or those whom we know are less than ourselves, generally, or so said E. Hoffer, anyway. We tend to reserve our largest criticism for those whom we think are better than ourselves, but whom we hate.

How many boards do you and your Mormon idol (DCP) post on?

The Z board became MAD. Here and MAD are the only message boards related to the church I post on more than occasionally.

Do you post on boards that do not support your world view?

Well, I'm here, right? ;)

Why?

I suppose we all have our reasons.

Has Scratch ever made public death threats toward anyone?

I think scratch reserves the malice to be acted out under a pseudonym. I also think "death threats" aren't the problem. It's the consistent and bizarre character assassinations that worry me.

Have you or your Mormon idol DCP even made public death threats towards anyone?

Can't speak for the evil DCP, but of course I have no made public death threats against anything. Such a question itself is completely strange to me.

Now then, who needs psychiatric help?

We could all probably use a good counseling session now and again. I don't see psychiatry or psychology as the huge pariah other people might. I don't say it as an insult, I say it because I believe Scratch could benefit from seeing a counselor.

PS, In case you have not heard, in order to get married as commanded by your prophet, you need to DATE. Spending all of your free time on these boards is not a wise choice for a single Mormon male. Like your hair line, time is disappearing. Act now before all that is left is divorced or old maid Sweet Spirits® with baggage.

I don't think my wife would be happy about me entering the dating scene again. And since I am utterly satisfied in my current marriage I think I'll have to pass. (insults work better when they make sense, by the way. ;)) Lastly, I find your dig at divorced persons to be pretty distasteful.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Now there is irrefutable proof that Mister Scratch, who I believe in many ways is the most sane poster on this board, has a mental disorder. But I guess I should reconsider because, it turns out, he sought approval from others? That would make him downright nuts. It's unheard of for posters on message boards to look for approval from their peers, you know. I'm sure you don't have any "approval" needs at all from the senior apologists you follow around and fancy yourself as having an "in" with. If Scratch needs a counselor for his approval needs, then you need a straight-jacket.

But you do have my curiosity, who from Z has been in contact with you? How were you contacted? Can you pony up some names?

I'm not even sure if Scratch posted on Z. And believe me, I should know if he had. Your plotting "informants" are either deceiving you in order to further their hidden aims, or they have done some kind of high-tech spying and have exploited private information and are now using it as fuel for gossip material. I can't say I'm surprised.

When I was a moderator on Z, I only glanced at the IP information on a couple of occasions for moderator purposes. I never copied that information, or used it in any way to figure out cross-board handles and then gossip about the unwitting target.

This is really disgusting.

What's so disgusting about it? The fact that there are people who are seriously concerned for the internet personality who goes by "Mister Scratch"? It's not an effort to smear, it's an effort to say "hey, I'm trying to understand you as a real person with real feelings. Someone who likes a certain kind of food or has a favorite TV show. Someone who has cried before, maybe lost a loved one, or who has a little dog they love." If scratch really isn't putting us all on I can't imagine that it would be a fulfilling life following people around on the internet in order to mock, smear, and defame them.

[_harmony]

PS, In case you have not heard, in order to get married as commanded by your prophet, you need to DATE.

Spending all of your free time on these boards is not a wise choice for a single Mormon male. Like your hair line, time is disappearing. Act now before all that is left is divorced or old maid Sweet Spirits® with baggage.

LOAP is married. At least that's the impression I got from Kerry's recent video.

[_harmony]

The Z board became MAD. Here and MAD are the only message boards related to the church I post on more than occasionally.

The Z board did not become MAD. Some Z posters got PO'd one day and left to form the FAIR board. The FAIR board morphed into MAD. The Z board still exists.

[_Ray A]

This isn't exactly accurate, I think. If I recall correctly, at least one poster mentioned that Freethinker was DCP, and got into trouble with the mods. DCP was definitely trying to hide his identity as FreeThinker, because he would, at times, refer to DCP in the third person as someone he had access to.

That may have well have occurred, but I didn't see anyone mention that Freethinker was DCP. I believe Brent knew it (among the non-mods), and hinted as much, but he can clear that up if he wants. I think his style would have been unmistakable to Brent, but it was my first MB encounter with him.

I was about 80 per cent sure, but never voiced it, and played along with his third person dialogue. I was getting emails from the real DCP at the same time, and the connection became more certain in my mind when that happened. The time between FT "alerting DCP" to my board comments was too short to be believable.

The duality didn't bother me, then or now, and it became clear later on FAIR when it was openly mentioned that DCP was Freethinker. As far as I was concerned, if they weren't the same person, "they" certainly looked like LDS twins, so whatever I said to FT, as far as I was concerned, was applicable to DCP.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The Z board became MAD. Here and MAD are the only message boards related to the church I post on more than occasionally.

The Z board did not become MAD. Some Z posters got PO'd one day and left to form the FAIR board. The FAIR board morphed into MAD. The Z board still exists.

From what I understand, ZLMB was started by members of FAIR and others who wanted to have a board where respectful persons from different angles could be mods and facilitate a constructive dialog. It became apparent that it was in FAIR's best interest to become disassociated with the board, so they jettisoned it. I could be wrong, but that is what I have understood.