Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll tell you what's outrageous, Gad. This:

And LoP spews out all this unvarified gossip as fact, and then has the audacity to criticize Scratch when Scratch "follows people around' or in other words, simply checks the source material available for accuracy.

Accuracy? Are you serious? Accuracy?!?!?

How accurate was Scratch when he floated the theory that I was barrolmonkeys?

How accurate was Scratch when he misrepresented the exchanges regarding the Ztrolls and failed to take a moment of his time to examine ALL of them?

How accurate was Scratch when he said on this very board that time stamps don't matter. In other words, chronology doesn't matter when examining a series of exchanges. (?!?!?!)

How accurate was Scratch when he attempted to float yet another theory regarding me when he accused me of being "complicit" in the Ztroll, Itchy events?

How damn accurate was he then?

And while you are formulating an answer to that, tell me, Gad, if he was so "interested" in the Ztrolls, in the so called personal information posted on the Itchy Blog, why didn't he register on ZLMB himself to check out those posters first hand instead of riding on second hand accounts passed to him?

And on this thread, you're ragging on LoaP for getting his information from others, when Scratch gets HIS from anonymous informants and even when links and instructions are delivered to him on a silver platter, he STILL can't get it right. And you claim he examines source material for "accuracy".

What the hell.

Scratch 8-12-07 Off Topic Forum:

Ah, so now you don't know anything. How convenient is that? You were complicit. You were guilty. You will pay.

Accuracy my ass!

[_Mister Scratch]

What printer prints a dozen copies which are then taken & shipped to subsribers? Typically a printer prints in larger batches.

Yes, I believe this is true, which is why I find DCP's claim about there being "less than ten" copies to be very hard to accept.

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.

I agree with this, too, and think that it only reflects further on how fundamentally strange things appear to operate at FARMS.

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?

Are we certain that's what happened, though? The Good Professor has been noticeably cagey on the "behind-the-scenes" details.

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

Or, it suggests that the hundreds of subscribers with copies have kept quiet about it. Right?

[_Mister Scratch]

Incidentally, Scartch, what will happen -- to the cosmos, to this board, to me -- if I don't "atone" for my alleged "sins," as you portray them?

Do you have plans for me? For the board? Something beyond the crusade you've already been conducting over the past two years or so?

Can you share? Or is it a secret?

Things will carry on as they have. I've always maintained that my posting career would come to an end once you genuinely apologized for the things you've done.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Let me remind LoP of his own words. After thousands of posts on MAD (more on MAD alone than I've ever made on the internet in 7 years and I admit I have a problem) and affiliating with FAIR in person, he is just now learning about the historical roots of FAIR/MAD, and who from? The critics!

What a perfect example of apologists covering up history.

I wouldn't blame anyone but myself for not knowing the specific details of various message boards, how they started, etc. The general idea I had is that FAIR was once involved in a message board that became somewhat more acerbic than what they wanted the organization to be associated with, including the time involved in managing it, so they released it. That is my own conclusion, based on my own learning, and if I wanted to get the specific details I am literally a phonecall away from knowing them. It's not a matter of hiding anything; it's a matter of general disinterest on those specifics on my part.

And yet it remains, former ZLMB participants have PM'd LoP with false accusations about Mister Scratch, given he never participated at Z. And LoP spews out all this unvarified gossip as fact, and then has the audacity to criticize Scratch when Scratch "follows people around' or in other words, simply checks the source material available for accuracy.

Yes LoP, you're a great example of how to operate on a message board, because you post thousands of posts, many concerning board politics and internet personalities, without having any first hand knowledge of what you're talking about. Because if you did bother to read the Z archives or what's available on MAD from FAIR, that would constitute "following people around' and harrassing them?

In my exchanges with scratch I have wondered what may help along his/her vindictive tenacity, and so I asked around. Interestingly, the people who responded were invariably explaining that they really don't know anything about why scratch does what scratch does. One specifically said that scratch was pretty congenial, and hoped they hadn't offended scratch, etc. I don't know what board it occurred on, and I was unaware of all the baggage associated with implying scratch had been on zlmb, it could have been the regular mad board. Either way, my intent has never been to gossip or tear anyone down by trying to figure out what might have led to such behavior.

Further, you are suspicious of Scratch's mental stability because of his bulletin board behavior, while you are not suspicious of Wade's after his many, many hoaky internet campaigns that have gone to the lengths of purchasing webspace as a front to launch his assaults, because well, you've met him in person.

This is outrageous.


This is outrageous.

It's really not that outrageous. I know people can goof around online and do things that are rather out of character; I've read material on internet psychology and been interested in what I have learned about my own behavior and that of others. Meeting wade and hearing him explain why what he had done was wrong, and that there are better ways to reach people I was satisfied that he was being sincere. He might not be, for all I know, but I suspect he is. Were I to personally sit down with mister scratch (something I would actually be perfectly willing to do) I imagine I could learn more about who he/she really is, and maybe learn more about what causes scratch to behave the way he/she does.

[_collegeterrace]

Incidentally, Scartch, what will happen -- to the cosmos, to this board, to me -- if I don't "atone" for my alleged "sins," as you portray them?

Do you have plans for me? For the board? Something beyond the crusade you've already been conducting over the past two years or so?

Can you share? Or is it a secret?

Things will carry on as they have. I've always maintained that my posting career would come to an end once you genuinely apologized for the things you've done.
_________________
"I apologize for conducting "whisper campaigns" against Robert Ritner and Mike Quinn" ---Daniel C. Peterson, 8/27/08

Bravo Mister Scratch.

Nice sig by the way.

Has Dan publicly apologized for the death threat he wished up on you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bravo Mister Scratch.

On the whole, I think Scartch attracts the kind of supporter he deserves.

The principle certainly holds in this case.

Nice sig by the way.

Indeed. A perfect illustration of Scartch's standard operating procedure: As anybody can easily see for himself or herself, Scartch has taken my comment out of context and turned its meaning on its head.

Has Dan publicly apologized for the death threat he wished up on you?

Dan has publicly apologized for the firebombing of Seattle, the assassination of Herbert Hoover, the destruction of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the extermination of the leprechauns, and a whole host of other entirely fictional crimes.

[_Gadianton]

It's not a matter of hiding anything; it's a matter of general disinterest on those specifics on my part.

Either way, my intent has never been to gossip or tear anyone down by trying to figure out what might have led to such behavior.

LoP,

Most people who gossip aren't intending to gossip or tear anyone down. They just, you know, have a "general disinterest on those specifics" which are key to ensuring that the party being discussed isn't torn down in the process.

Meeting wade and hearing him explain why what he had done was wrong

Ah, he admitted he was wrong. That's fascinating.

I have wondered what may help along his/her vindictive tenacity, and so I asked around.

So you began talking about Scratch behind his back and then publically came to certain conclusions based on this gossip, conclusions that include glaring erros, about Scratch's mental health? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to help Scratch's "vindictive tenacity".

Something that might help Scratch's "vindictive tenacity" would be if the Wengland's of the world who for years, put up phony "I'm concerned about you" type of websites that were really intended to make fun of the objects of his "concern" were to apologize to the people they hurt, and not just to friends who were all getting a good horse laugh out of it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

*sigh!*

Harrumph might have been more honestly expressive.

Just a thought.

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).

You mentioned two points.

On one of them, we disagree. Your inference leads you to a deduction. My first-hand knowledge of the journal and of the organization that printed it leads me to reject your deduction.

On the other point, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that your assumption may be correct. I don't care much.

As to your having "corrected" me "multiple times," I don't recall having ever previously heard your speculation about the number of copies that were printed, bound, and distributed. Thanks for sharing. I do believe that you've told me before about your assumption as to who contacted the news media. I couldn't tell you how many times you've told me of your assumption. I vaguely recall once.

If you would prefer to believe that it has been many times, that's okay by me. I scarcely remember the one time.

By "subscription-based" I was referring to a FARMS subscription—I don't recall any other method for pre-ordering the RBBM at the time.

The Review was not included in FARMS subscriptions at the time.

One could pre-order the Review by calling in and pre-ordering the Review. There was no Review subscription.

In any event, readers are free to judge your repetitious assertions against my photographic evidence.

Your photographic evidence doesn't contradict my assertions. (I understand that you intend to condescend to me by calling them "repetitious," but, while I've repeated them, I've only repeated them in order to deny your repeated [repetitious?] claim.) That somebody in California received a copy of the Review containing The Horrible Acrostic is entirely consistent with my assertion that only a small number of copies containing The Horrible Acrostic were printed, bound, and distributed. The proposition Some x are y is entirely consistent with the proposition This x is y. (Logic 101. First two or three weeks, max.)

Your self-admitted addiction to online banter is a craze that I find difficult to indulge in.

You're an extremely impressive fellow.

I have little interest in engaging interlocutors who brush off evidence with a hubristic flick of the rhetorical hand.

Nor do I.

We seem to have more in common than you might have imagined.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm curious about when DCP will clarify this increasingly problematic statement of Bill Hamblin's:

"'I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment--fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement. . . .' (computer message by William Hamblin, dated March 14, 1994)

Now, DCP has stated that the acrostic was a "one-time only" affair. Obviously, this clashes with Hamblin's statement, and thus it seems that one of them is lying.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm curious about when DCP will clarify this increasingly problematic statement of Bill Hamblin's

It's Bill Hamblin's statement. Ask him to clarify it.

Now, DCP has stated that the acrostic was a "one-time only" affair. Obviously, this clashes with Hamblin's statement,

I know of no other acrostics. Do you?

And it seems that you think that joke = acrostic. You must have a different dictionary than I do.

and thus it seems that one of them is lying.

At least one of us. And very likely all three.