The FROB Submission Guidlines

[_antishock8]

Who in the “F” archives chats and bulletins?

Holy. crap.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thank you for weighing in on this, Dr. Shades. What role did you see Jersey playing in all of this? For example, did you feel that she gave you clear answers, or that she "played games" with you? I still feel as if I was jerked around by her, and I rather resent it.

I've told you straight up why I didn't further name individuals. That you don't like the reasons, isn't my problem.

After I had done some research on the posts (using some of the methods that I shared with you) I PM'd Shades directly with who I thought some of the Ztrolls actually were, identified them and listed the evidences that I collected for those.

You feel jerked around because you'd rather enjoy the convenience of someone delivering the goods without your having to do your leg work and later, if they're wrong you'd rather blame them for it.

Do your own damned detective work, own your own stated cause and stop trying to point fingers of doubt regarding me. I told you a long time ago, you're barking up the wrong tree with me.

If you want to continue along this path with me, you go right ahead. I have no problem tracking and following exchanges such as this for days, weeks and even months on end, and there are folks here who would confirm that fact.

Try me.

Or...here's a novel idea. Instead of trying to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, you could respond directly to the post I made regarding your failed claims/offers which was the starting point of this current derailment of yours.

You choose.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch

Look, Jersey. Once upon a time, you and I got along pretty well. If you are interested in trying to patch things up, then by all means, please send me a PM. If you want to carry on in another round of Drama Queen antics, however, then I can't stop you.

I didn't initiate this derailment, you did.

Since I was not the one who wrote your post for you, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.

If YOU want to carry on in another round of this, you go right ahead, only don't be surprised when I respond directly. I don't chase easy.

"Respond directly"? Well, given your history, I actually would be *extremely* surprised.

If you don't like the way your derailment is going, then you should have responded on point to my post regarding your failed claims and promises.

What was your point, and how would you like me to respond? That you think I'm "baiting"? What am I supposed to say to that? "Why, yes, Jersey Girl, I am just trying to bait a response!" "Why, yes, Jersey! My proposition was ignored, and so I did not cease posting!" "Why, yes, Jersey, my trip to Utah was cancelled, and so I'm not going!"

Really, what kind of response did you want?

In any case, I've twice offered to try and patch stuff up with you via PM---this despite the fact that it was you jerking me around. You already got your apologies from me some time ago, and yet you have still found reason to go stomping about, complaining about how "horribly" you were treated, and whatnot. Well: it was your own damn fault.

I wonder: are you interested in this "community" you alluded to earlier, or is your interest merely in "stirring the pot"?

[_Jersey Girl]

Who in the f*** archives chats and bulletins?

Holy. s***.

Apparently both Scratch and myself copied chat logs, one each. You got a particular problem with that? If so, you might wanna get out of this kitchen, anti-thought, because it's clear and apparent that you don't know what goes on around here, and don't have a pony in this little side show derailment of Scratch's.

So get out.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's your derailment.

I see that, in return for certain concessions on Daniel's part, Scratch now offers to cease posting, delete the blog and go away.

Within the past week, Scratch discussed a possible trip to Utah and proposed a face-to-face with Daniel, within minutes began to question the particulars of said meeting, and finally withdrew the offer because his trip plans had been cancelled.

It wasn't long ago that Scratch also offered to reveal his identity. Curious that, since he was up in arms over the Itchy Blog wherein some sort of in real life information was posted about him.

Within the past two years, Scratch has also stated he would cease posting about specific individuals.

Scratch has a history of making claims/offers for which there is no follow through.

Is this simple baiting? Methinks, yes.

'I know I said that I would....but...'

Uh huh.

Yes, yes---of course. All of this coming from "the straight shooter" who "dick dances" around the answers to very straightforward questions.

Tell me, Jersey: are you ready to apologize to us for your bogus Kerry Shirts accusations? You know, since you are so noble, so interested in standing up for The Truth? Or is the reality that you only play that card when it coincides with one of your Drama Queen freakouts?

[_Mister Scratch]

I've told you straight up why I didn't further name individuals. That you don't like the reasons, isn't my problem.

Round and around we go.

You feel jerked around because you'd rather enjoy the convenience of someone delivering the goods without your having to do your leg work and later, if they're wrong you'd rather blame them for it.

No. I know for a fact that others felt jerked around.

Do your own damned detective work, own your own stated cause and stop trying to point fingers of doubt regarding me. I told you a long time ago, you're barking up the wrong tree with me.

What "fingers" of doubt? Jersey: *you* were the one who inserted an irrelevant post onto *this* thread. Why come barging in, only to later whine about fingers being pointed? Do you want a "community," or are you just looking to pick fights?

If you want to continue along this path with me, you go right ahead. I have no problem tracking and following exchanges such as this for days, weeks and even months on end, and there are folks here who would confirm that fact.

No, no, I know. I know that you love it when such occasions arise. It makes you feel like your contributions to the board "community" are meaningful. I suppose they are a nice reprieve from your usual regimen of drive-by, substance-free posts about French manicures, how tough you think you are, or whatever else.

Or...here's a novel idea. Instead of trying to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, you could respond directly to the post I made regarding your failed claims/offers which was the starting point of this current derailment of yours.

What kind of a response are you looking for, Jersey Girl? You tend not to be very direct or straightforward, in my experience.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's your derailment.

Yes, yes---of course. All of this coming from "the straight shooter" who "dick dances" around the answers to very straightforward questions.

Tell me, Jersey: are you ready to apologize to us for your bogus Kerry Shirts accusations? You know, since you are so noble, so interested in standing up for The Truth? Or is the reality that you only play that card when it coincides with one of your Drama Queen freakouts?

Good grief, Jersey. Would I have posted this in response to a post by you that was on-topic? Methinks not. *Your* post was the derailment, and that's why you got the reply from me that you did. Once again: I really have to hand it to you for making such positive and productive contributions to the board community.

Apparently both Scratch and myself copied chat logs, one each. You got a particular problem with that? If so, you might wanna get out of this kitchen, anti-thought, because it's clear and apparent that you don't know what goes on around here, and don't have a pony in this little side show derailment of Scratch's.

So get out.

You have no business telling antishock to "get out"---in fact, the board rules prohibit that. Further, you absolutely erupt when anyone tries to tell you something along those lines.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is a characteristically Petersonian spin-job. No one *asked* you to come in and clarify about the 990 tax forms, say. You just barged in because you were terrified that somebody might learn the truth, which is that you have been paid for apologetics. In other words, you were just covering your butt.

Scartch insists on his own complete anonymity, but finds it reprehensible that, when he and Mini-Scartch are posting anonymous falsehoods about my personal income on a public message board, I respond.

It seems obvious what you were implying.

If I want to say something, I'll say it.

For example, I've come to the conclusion that you're insane to at least some degree. And I've said so. I won't mock you for it, and I won't say so very often, but I'll be candid.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch

What "fingers" of doubt? Jersey: *you* were the one who inserted an irrelevant post onto *this* thread.

Irrelevant?

Let's look at some current claims posted on this thread, in no particular order:

Heck, if you can cough up something for #3, I may consider "outing" myself and posting a picture to the board.

1) I have offered, on at least a couple of occasions, a kind of "let's shake hands and let bygones be bygones" to DCP. Each time, he has essentially spat in my face. He would rather continue fighting then ever admit to any wrongdoing. But, I'll say it again: If he wants to fess up and admit to the rotten things he's done, I will permanently retire from the MB and completely delete the blog.

I'd like to offer you the opportunity to accept a truce once again, Prof. P. The choice is yours. Of course, this will mean that you'll have to make some unpleasant concessions, but would it be worth it? Just think: I would go away---permanently!! C'mon, there is no one alive whom you hate more than me. Would a minor apology be worth it, if it puts an end to my posting?

Yes, they were conditional, but nevertheless, I did offer to completely cease posting.

To which I responded as follows:

I see that, in return for certain concessions on Daniel's part, Scratch now offers to cease posting, delete the blog and go away.

Within the past week, Scratch discussed a possible trip to Utah and proposed a face-to-face with Daniel, within minutes began to question the particulars of said meeting, and finally withdrew the offer because his trip plans had been cancelled.

It wasn't long ago that Scratch also offered to reveal his identity. Curious that, since he was up in arms over the Itchy Blog wherein some sort of in real life information was posted about him.

Within the past two years, Scratch has also stated he would cease posting about specific individuals.

Scratch has a history of making claims/offers for which there is no follow through.

Is this simple baiting? Methinks, yes.

'I know I said that I would....but...'

Uh huh.

And you attempted to shift focus/derail:

Yes, yes---of course. All of this coming from "the straight shooter" who "dick dances" around the answers to very straightforward questions.

Tell me, Jersey: are you ready to apologize to us for your bogus Kerry Shirts accusations? You know, since you are so noble, so interested in standing up for The Truth? Or is the reality that you only play that card when it coincides with one of your Drama Queen freakouts?

[_Mister Scratch]

This is a characteristically Petersonian spin-job. No one *asked* you to come in and clarify about the 990 tax forms, say. You just barged in because you were terrified that somebody might learn the truth, which is that you have been paid for apologetics. In other words, you were just covering your butt.

Scartch insists on his own complete anonymity, but finds it reprehensible that, when he and Mini-Scartch are posting anonymous falsehoods about my personal income on a public message board, I respond.

More Petersonian spin. What "anonymous falsehoods"? That a 990 Form states that you were paid to work for FARMS? That's not "false" in the least. And back and forth you flip-flop, blown by the winds of your own equivocation and sophistry: first you claim that you were somehow pressured into talking about the 990 forms, and now you are claiming that you simply showed up in order to try and clear up "falsehoods."

It seems obvious what you were implying.

If I want to say something, I'll say it.

Yes, and by implication, you did.