The Many Faces of William J. Hamblin

[_CaliforniaKid]

Defamation means to make false statements to give a person a negative reputation. If you are making statements about a person that "blacken the reputation" and they're arguably true, it isn't defamation. While Scratch is a little creepy and a bit of a d-bag, he's not making false statements here. (Well, outside of that pomo jab). This is reasonably accurate. Ironically enough, falsely claiming that someone is engaging in defamation to tarnish their reputation is itself defamation.

Precisely.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Hamblin insinuated Mr. Metcalfe had someone murdered so he could keep some photographs.

Speaking of false and defamatory statements . . .

Professor Hamblin, of course, alleged absolutely nothing of the kind, and believes nothing of the kind. And there are a number of other falsehoods -- to say nothing of question-begging assertions and loaded language -- in Mister Scratch's brief for the prosecution.

I've re-read the carefully pruned version of the larger exchange that Mister Scratch (and, presumably, his creepy network of anonymous informants) presented above, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote. Indeed, I think he raised some very sound points.

Significant portions of the audience here, of course, will see that as yet further evidence of my moral depravity and viciousness.

If a representative segment of the general non-MDB population were to agree, I would find that depressing. And if this were really a court case, the defense would have a transparently obvious right to seek a change of venue. As it is, I resign myself to the inevitable.



.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The never-substantive Scratch sets out to defame Bill Hamblin.

How fascinating.

To the contrary, if Christodoulos (an absolutely inappropriate name for a Mormon apologist, by the way) is one of Hamblin's aliases, then Scratch nailed him. Is there further evidence that Hamblin = "Christodoulos?"

[_Calculus Crusader]

I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Hamblin insinuated Mr. Metcalfe had someone murdered so he could keep some photographs.

Speaking of false and defamatory statements . . .

Professor Hamblin, of course, alleged absolutely nothing of the kind, and believes nothing of the kind. And there are a number of other falsehoods -- to say nothing of question-begging assertions and loaded language -- in Mister Scratch's brief for the prosecution.

I've re-read the carefully pruned version of the larger exchange that Mister Scratch (and, presumably, his creepy network of anonymous informants) presented above, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote. Indeed, I think he raised some very sound points.

Significant portions of the audience here, of course, will see that as yet further evidence of my moral depravity and viciousness.

If a representative segment of the general non-MDB population were to agree, I would find that depressing. And if this were really a court case, the defense would have a transparently obvious right to seek a change of venue. As it is, I resign myself to the inevitable.



.

I'll take this as confirmation that "Christodoulos" was Hamblin.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'll take this as confirmation that "Christodoulos" was Hamblin.

Actually, I don't know that for sure. I was trying to remember whether he was or wasn't, but I don't.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if he were, though.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've re-read the carefully pruned version of the larger exchange that Mister Scratch (and, presumably, his creepy network of anonymous informants) presented above, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote. Indeed, I think he raised some very sound points.




.

You feel, then, that Metcalfe procured the photos via "dubious" means?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You feel, then, that Metcalfe procured the photos via "dubious" means?

I don't know -- and, at this point, don't much care -- whether he did or didn't.

Some, as I recall, had suggested that. Professor Hamblin didn't know for sure. Metcalfe claimed it wasn't true.

Whatever.

That's not the primary focus of the exchange.

[_Gadianton]

I had to read quite a bit of that before I remembered the thread at all. Back in the day...

Reading every word of that entire thread in detail had to have been at least almost as hard as finishing a post by Bob McCue. I mean, 85% of it is repeat information that could be reduced to this:

the logic of Christodulous's argument is essentially, "If you see the face of the virgin Mary in a piece of toast, is that evidence of her Sainthood? Granted, it's not proof, but will you admit it's a positive data point in that direction? Huh? Huh?"

And when Brent wouldn't agree to answer such a ridiculous, juvenile question -- Christodulous fast becoming known for asking such kinds of questions -- out of the blue, christodulous steps it up more than a notch by bringing in a gossipy rumor that was entirely off topic to score a point.

[_Mister Scratch]

You feel, then, that Metcalfe procured the photos via "dubious" means?

I don't know -- and, at this point, don't much care -- whether he did or didn't.

Some, as I recall, had suggested that. Professor Hamblin didn't know for sure. Metcalfe claimed it wasn't true.

Whatever.

That's not the primary focus of the exchange.

Up above, you wrote:

I've re-read the carefully pruned version of the larger exchange that Mister Scratch (and, presumably, his creepy network of anonymous informants) presented above, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote.

This statement: "I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote", suggests that you "don't seen anything particularly wrong" with Hamblin's allegations against Metcalfe. Is that true?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I never trust Gadianton's synopses. The summary above illustrates why.

This statement: "I don't see anything particularly wrong with what Professor Hamblin wrote", suggests that you "don't seen anything particularly wrong" with Hamblin's allegations against Metcalfe. Is that true?

What allegations?