The Many Faces of William J. Hamblin

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Hamblin alleged that Metcalfe had procured the photos via "dubious" means. Don't play dumb, Professor P.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?"

You are so right, Dr. Robbers. Then again, I have presented a mountain of evidence that FARMS/SHIELDS Mopologists engage in smear tactics, and DCP--and other apologists--will not cop to it. The poster on the Z thread known as "FreeThinker" said that Hamblin/Christodoulos had every right to "feel frustrated." Should I feel the same way? Or, will the Mopologists fess up?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hamblin alleged that Metcalfe had procured the photos via "dubious" means. Don't play dumb, Professor P.

Hamblin said that he had heard accounts suggesting that. So had I.

He invited Metcalfe to give his side of the story.

Metcalfe did.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You are so right, Dr. Robbers.

Scratch One praises Scratch Two.

No matter how often it's repeated, the mating ritual of a pair of mature Scratches never fails to capture the interest of scientists and hobbyists alike.

Then again, I have presented a mountain of evidence that FARMS/SHIELDS Mopologists engage in smear tactics, and DCP--and other apologists--will not cop to it.

Translation: I've been falsely alleging grossly unethical acts against Peterson almost non-stop for three years now, and he won't plead guilty!

The poster on the Z thread known as "FreeThinker" said that Hamblin/Christodoulos had every right to "feel frustrated." Should I feel the same way? Or, will the Mopologists fess up?

You should feel frustrated. You've earned it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Then again, I have presented a mountain of evidence that FARMS/SHIELDS Mopologists engage in smear tactics, and DCP--and other apologists--will not cop to it.

Translation: I've been falsely alleging grossly unethical acts against Peterson almost non-stop for three years now, and he won't plead guilty!

I wouldn't say "grossly," nor would I say "non-stop," but aside from that, you are essentially right. I do find it bizarrely fascinating that you won't simply admit that you messed up, and apologize. I imagine it's fascinating to me in much the same way that RfM is fascinating to you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I wouldn't say "grossly," nor would I say "non-stop," but aside from that, you are essentially right.

Of course I'm right, and the words grossly and non-stop are precisely on target.

I note with interest that you didn't object to the word falsely. A significantly revealing slip-up on your part, I think.

I do find it bizarrely fascinating that you won't simply admit that you messed up, and apologize. I imagine it's fascinating to me in much the same way that RfM is fascinating to you.

It's simple to explain: You're wrong.

You've been engaged in malignant slander and character assassination for three years. At least.

[_EAllusion]

I've heard that DCP and Hamblin engage in gossip-mongering and vague, negative innuendo to smear their opponents and discredit their arguments in the minds of the faithful.

Just saying I heard that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you've been reading this board, you've been hearing it incessantly since the board began.

[_harmony]

Hamblin alleged that Metcalfe had procured the photos via "dubious" means. Don't play dumb, Professor P.

Hamblin said that he had heard accounts suggesting that.

That's not what he said. Hamblin said "(and which you aquired under somewhat dubious circumstances)". There is no "suggested" in that statement, it is worded as a concrete statement. Had he wanted to convey that it was suggested, he'd have said, "and which it has been suggested that you acquired under somewhat dubious circumstances".

Surely he is not as sloppy a communicator as you are trying to portray him, after the fact.

So had I.

This isn't about you. Sorry. You'll have to wait for the next attack on DCP.

He invited Metcalfe to give his side of the story.

Metcalfe did.

With invitations like that, I'm surprised anyone ever goes to his parties.

[_antishock8]

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.

There is a large divide between "allege" and "insinuate". Nice try, but Mr. Hamblin definitely insinuated Mr. Metcalfe had someone murdered so he could keep some photographs according to the account that was presented.