Scratch and DCP. Will it ever end?

[_harmony]

I freely admit that my interactions here typically waste my time and benefit me not at all, and that, rationally speaking, I ought to withdraw from them. That I'm still here nonetheless demonstrates that this is a kind of addiction.

Food, air, water, rest, love and sex... and MDB. All necessary for life as we know it. And if you weren't so far away, I'd give you a chocolate kiss.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You don't consider calling someone a "malevolently obsessive loon" a kind of character assassination?

No. It's name-calling, not character assassination.

And it's not my typical style.

However, having been his target without any let-up for three years now, it's my very serious evaluation. I don't say it lightly, nor merely out of pique or anger.

I've seen you call him such things on several occasions. One might even say "incessantly."

It's true that I've identified him as a malevolently obsessive loon several times over the past few months.

Perhaps you just consider it "name calling" which is nothing like character assassination?

Ah. Yes. Exactly. See above.

Just curious what your rationale is on this one.

Happy to oblige.

obsessive: I think his behavior over the past three years leaves little doubt that he's obsessed with me, though for reasons that aren't entirely clear. He was monitoring me and posting about me long before I showed up here, and I'm plainly, overwhelmingly, his principal target. Even when he goes after, say, Lou Midgley or Matt Roper or Bill Hamblin, there's a connection with me.

malevolent: Here again, he has a lengthy track record. Three years' worth. And it's plain, despite his occasional denials, that he dislikes me intensely. (In the past few days, as has happened on a few occasions previously, he's become so frustrated that his normal mask of cool disdain has fallen off, and the more naked rage beneath it has been pretty clearly visible.) He has sought, repeatedly, over the past several years, to portray me as a liar, a religious bigot, a racist, a sneak, a slanderer, a sexual voyeur, a would-be theocratic tyrant, and a mercenary, as well as a person who takes delight in injuring other people's families and finances, someone who seeks to do physical violence to others, who relishes intimidating others, and etc. and etc. Very weirdly, although he's almost certainly never inspected my CD or DVD collection or my library, he's even sometimes ridiculed my purported taste in music, my allegedly narrow and conventional literary preferences, and my 1950-ish [!?!] sense of humor. HIs hostility is so total, so-consuming, and so utterly over the top, that it actually fascinates me, in a very odd way. It goes far beyond disagreement over religion. And the fact that his crusade to blacken my character is conducted anonymously doesn't exactly make it better.

loon: It's here that we venture into more debatable territory. Is Mister Scratch genuinely insane? I don't know. Probably not in the normal sense of the word; I assume that he's reasonably high-functioning in his ordinary life. But his malevolent hostility toward me, and its obsessive, implacable, never-ceasing, comprehensive character, are, it seems to me, manifestly pathological. Certainly I, personally, have never encountered anything remotely like it. Sometimes I've thought that maybe he's joking (rather the way I suspect Gadianton has recently been having us on). But I don't think so. He never steps out of character, he's too dedicated to his campaign of character-assassination, and there would seem to be little point to the charade.


.

[_Some Schmo]

(...the stuff you wrote...)

Actually, that's fair (claiming it's only name calling and not necessarily character assassination). Before I read your response, I was actually thinking that as well.

What do ya know... We agree on something. I think I'll go check to see if the moon has a bluish tint to it tonight.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've seen you call him such things on several occasions. One might even say "incessantly."

It's true that I've identified him as a malevolently obsessive loon several times over the past few months.

No, you characterized me this way years ago. It was sometime close to when I introduced my blog, back in 2006, or thereabouts. So, you have been giving as good as you've been getting for three years now. (From me, anyhow; your disputes with critics generally goes back decades, so you've got me beat there.)

Just curious what your rationale is on this one.

Happy to oblige.

obsessive: I think his behavior over the past three years leaves little doubt that he's obsessed with me, though for reasons that aren't entirely clear. He was monitoring me and posting about me long before I showed up here, and I'm plainly, overwhelmingly, his principal target. Even when he goes after, say, Lou Midgley or Matt Roper or Bill Hamblin, there's a connection with me.

Well, then (as has been said before), this would mean that you are "obsessed" with RfM, and with critical messageboards. We even have evidence of this spilling over into your in real life activities and presentations. You have no such evidence for me. D'oh!

malevolent: Here again, he has a lengthy track record. Three years' worth. And it's plain, despite his occasional denials, that he dislikes me intensely. (In the past few days, as has happened on a few occasions previously, he's become so frustrated that his normal mask of cool disdain has fallen off, and the more naked rage beneath it has been pretty clearly visible.)

ROFL! Gee.... Are you sure it wasn't just a joke? And I'd be careful here, if I were you. We now have you on record rubbing your hands with glee over the prospect of HBO "taking a hit," which shows that your "normal mask" actually conceals a boiling, vindictive rage at anything critical of the Church. It's really quite psychologically fascinating.

He has sought, repeatedly, over the past several years, to portray me as a liar, a religious bigot, a racist, a sneak, a slanderer, a sexual voyeur, a would-be theocratic tyrant, and a mercenary, as well as a person who takes delight in injuring other people's families and finances, someone who seeks to do physical violence to others, who relishes intimidating others, and etc. and etc.

I disagree. Citing your posts, verbatim, hardly qualifies as "portrayal."

Very weirdly, although he's almost certainly never inspected my CD or DVD collection or my library, he's even sometimes ridiculed my purported taste in music, my allegedly narrow and conventional literary preferences, and my 1950-ish [!?!] sense of humor.

I have based this upon your comments and references to such things in your posts. You know even less about me than I know about you, so, again, I think Schmo has quite a good point. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time getting to know your Friendly, Neighborhood Mr. Scratch?

HIs hostility is so total, so-consuming, and so utterly over the top, that it actually fascinates me, in a very odd way.

Well, hey: I find your "antics" "fascinating," too.

It goes far beyond disagreement over religion. And the fact that his crusade to blacken my character is conducted anonymously doesn't exactly make it better.

You don't want to know who I am, though. Remember?

loon: It's here that we venture into more debatable territory. Is Mister Scratch genuinely insane? I don't know. Probably not in the normal sense of the word; I assume that he's reasonably high-functioning in his ordinary life. But his malevolent hostility toward me, and its obsessive, implacable, never-ceasing, comprehensive character, are, it seems to me, manifestly pathological.

"Pathological" in what way? Really, how, at heart, is it any different--either in scope or in character--from your Mopologetics?

Certainly I, personally, have never encountered anything remotely like it. Sometimes I've thought that maybe he's joking (rather the way I suspect Gadianton has recently been having us on). But I don't think so. He never steps out of character, he's too dedicated to his campaign of character-assassination, and there would seem to be little point to the charade.
.

If I were joking, what would be the punch line?

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, you characterized me this way years ago. It was sometime close to when I introduced my blog, back in 2006, or thereabouts

If so, then your crusade against me has been going on for more than three years. That's possible.

So, you have been giving as good as you've been getting for three years now.

Really?

How many threads have I started about you? How many threads have you started about me?

What have I said about your publications? (Answer: Nothing. I don't know whether you have any.) What have I said about your finances or your job? (Answer: Nothing. You're anonymous.)

I've stated what I think is manifestly obvious: You're obsessed with me, and you're profoundly hostile to me. But I've never accused you of threatening my life, nor of being a religious bigot, nor a voyeur, nor an anti-Semite, nor a racist, nor any of the other allegations that are your stock-in-trade against me.

We now have you on record rubbing your hands with glee over the prospect of HBO "taking a hit," which shows that your "normal mask" actually conceals a boiling, vindictive rage at anything critical of the Church. It's really quite psychologically fascinating.

Here's what I actually said, which you yourself just quoted on another thread here: "I wouldn't mind HBO taking a measurable hit on this, even if it were small."

That's "rubbing [my] hands with glee," indicative of a "boiling, vindictive rage"?

You don't want to know who I am, though. Remember?

I wouldn't mind knowing, but I don't care much. Not enough to put any real effort into identifying you. (I actually do have a rough hunch, but it'll probably stay that way. Which is fine.)

"Pathological" in what way? Really, how, at heart, is it any different--either in scope or in character--from your Mopologetics?

I really can't imagine anybody who, comparing your blog and the totality of your posts here with the materials at the two links immediately below, would be unable to see a vast difference:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

If I were joking, what would be the punch line?

I can't think of one. That's why I've reluctantly but genuinely come to the conclusion that you're serious. And, if serious, then, to that extent at least, deranged.

[_Mister Scratch]

No, you characterized me this way years ago. It was sometime close to when I introduced my blog, back in 2006, or thereabouts

If so, then your crusade against me has been going on for more than three years. That's possible.

No. I have criticized your Mopologetics and online activities as of (roughly) the Fall of 2006, which means that it's barely more than 2 years. So, you are exaggerating.

So, you have been giving as good as you've been getting for three years now.

Really?

How many threads have I started about you? How many threads have you started about me?

A dozen or more. Plus, you have quoted me without proper attribution in the Review.

What have I said about your publications? (Answer: Nothing. I don't know whether you have any.) What have I said about your finances or your job? (Answer: Nothing. You're anonymous.)

You have said that I'm insane, etc., which, one would think, would reflect on this things. And "Mopologetics" is not your "job," Professor P. If you're going to make aggressively hostile accusations, you can at least make an effort to get your facts straight.

I've stated what I think is manifestly obvious: You're obsessed with me, and you're profoundly hostile to me.

No; neither. I think that you seem like a mostly nice guy--friendly, well-spoken---who has opted to participate (and some would say devote his life to) an extraordinarily disgusting hobby that brings out the worst in him.

But I've never accused you of threatening my life, nor of being a religious bigot, nor a voyeur, nor an anti-Semite, nor a racist, nor any of the other allegations that are your stock-in-trade against me.

That's because I haven't ever done any of those things. Not by a long shot. You, on the other hand, *have* done questionable things relating to all of the items you named. Does that gall you, or something?

We now have you on record rubbing your hands with glee over the prospect of HBO "taking a hit," which shows that your "normal mask" actually conceals a boiling, vindictive rage at anything critical of the Church. It's really quite psychologically fascinating.

Here's what I actually said, which you yourself just quoted on another thread here: "I wouldn't mind HBO taking a measurable hit on this, even if it were small."

That's "rubbing [my] hands with glee," indicative of a "boiling, vindictive rage"?

I think it is, yes. Looking over your works over a period of decades, it seems very, very obvious that the prime motivation for your Mopologetics is revenge. You want the critics (me included) to pay dearly.

You don't want to know who I am, though. Remember?

I wouldn't mind knowing, but I don't care much. Not enough to put any real effort into identifying you. (I actually do have a rough hunch, but it'll probably stay that way. Which is fine.)

Yes, I know you have a "rough hunch." You tried to use it to taunt me into silence. Remember?

"Pathological" in what way? Really, how, at heart, is it any different--either in scope or in character--from your Mopologetics?

I really can't imagine anybody who, comparing your blog and the totality of your posts here with the materials at the two links immediately below, would be unable to see a vast difference:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Perhaps because your comparison is false? People would need to be provided with links to your output on MAD and SHIELDS. It's interesting that you never link that stuff yourself. You would probably like for people to think that the bulk of your Mopologetic activities are represented by the above links, but, I think that's rather plainly not the case.

If I were joking, what would be the punch line?

I can't think of one. That's why I've reluctantly but genuinely come to the conclusion that you're serious. And, if serious, then, to that extent at least, deranged.

Of course you can't. Just like you can't imagine why anyone might take issue with your Mopologetics, or your online behavior. You're just a perfect little angel who never condescends, and who never does anything remotely objectionable.

Hey, I'll tell you what. You claim to take my criticism "very seriously," so I'll offer you yet another bargain. If you want to cop to feeling badly about an item that appeared in FROB, then I'll end my "career." And I'm not talking about a bit of punctuation, or some minor typo or editorial blunder (the "Metcalfe is Butthead" thing can count, though). I am talking about a case of gross misrepresentation, or hyper aggression, or something of that nature. If you want to admit (at last!) that you realize that some of these publications were extraordinarily wrong-headed, then I'll quit posting.

Do we have a deal?

[_Daniel Peterson]

No. I have criticized your Mopologetics and online activities as of (roughly) the Fall of 2006, which means that it's barely more than 2 years. So, you are exaggerating.

I just checked on the board formerly known as FAIR. Your activities there began in the summer of 2006. So my original perception of your obsession with me as having lasted about three years seems to be correct enough.

You have said that I'm insane, etc., which, one would think, would reflect on this things.

My working hypothesis is that you're high-functioning obsessive and crazy. But presumably you can do reasonably well in school or at a job. Lots of such people do.

But I've never accused you of threatening my life, nor of being a religious bigot, nor a voyeur, nor an anti-Semite, nor a racist, nor any of the other allegations that are your stock-in-trade against me.

That's because I haven't ever done any of those things. Not by a long shot. You, on the other hand, *have* done questionable things relating to all of the items you named. Does that gall you, or something?

No. Your charges are false.

the prime motivation for your Mopologetics is revenge.

I think you're nuts.

Yes, I know you have a "rough hunch." You tried to use it to taunt me into silence. Remember?

The proper verb for things that didn't actually happen is imagine, not remember.

You're just a perfect little angel who never condescends, and who never does anything remotely objectionable.

A Scratchite straw man.

Do we have a deal?

No.

You can post from now until eternity for all I care.

I won't "deal" with you. I'm not accountable to you.

[_Mister Scratch]

I just checked on the board formerly known as FAIR. Your activities there began in the summer of 2006. So my original perception of your obsession with me as having lasted about three years seems to be correct enough.

Not correct. The bulk of my discussions on FAIR dealt with a variety of LDS issues, and not with you. You yourself complimented me (in a very odd aside) for my "civility." Unless I'm mistaken, I registered on this board quite later---around October, or something like that. So: not quite 3 years, Dan. Try to get your facts straight.

You have said that I'm insane, etc., which, one would think, would reflect on this things.

My working hypothesis is that you're high-functioning obsessive and crazy. But presumably you can do reasonably well in school or at a job. Lots of such people do.

Including yourself?

That's because I haven't ever done any of those things. Not by a long shot. You, on the other hand, *have* done questionable things relating to all of the items you named. Does that gall you, or something?

No. Your charges are false.[/quote]

They aren't. You did say, "Jews have few friends in the world." You *did* say that you question your parishioners on whether they've engaged "oral sex" or "coitus interruptus." You *did* say that the thought of me made you think of your "assault rifle." There is nothing remotely comparable to this stuff in my posts.

[quote

the prime motivation for your Mopologetics is revenge.

I think you're nuts.[/quote]

Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the plain fact that a lot of your Mopologetics is motivated by a desire to avenge yourself and the Church against the critics. I'd be willing to bet that there is a deeper, more personal element to this as well. My guess is that you were an unathletic nerd in high school, and that you got picked on quite a bit. (It's such fun to engage in amateur psychoanalysis! Now I know why you enjoy calling me "insane." Perhaps if I say that I really, seriously think this about you, that will make it more "okay"?)

You're just a perfect little angel who never condescends, and who never does anything remotely objectionable.

A Scratchite straw man.

Prove it. Identify one single example that would counter my claim. Be as specific as possible.

Do we have a deal?

No.

You can post from now until eternity for all I care.

I won't "deal" with you. I'm not accountable to you.

Ah, right. He feigns indifference. You take my charges "seriously," but you don't care if I post. Flip-flop, flip-flop! Either you genuinely object to my posts, or you don't, Dan. I'm willing to cut you a deal here. Why don't you take it? If I were you, I would seriously consider it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've got to leave.

Enjoy yourself, Scratch.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've got to leave.

Enjoy yourself, Scratch.

moderator edit by harmony: violation of Rule #1.