From My Informant: A Clandestine Meeting at the MI?

[_Nimrod]

Oh, The Nehor, you poor victim of ad hominem. You take a swipe at critics calling us gullible. I counter that apologists are the ones gullible in the first place. You know, pointing out that your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Now you cry ad hominem foul? If my post was an ad hominem on you, then yours was an ad hominem. Take a step back, take a look, then look in the mirror--that red letter H on your forehead is for hypocrite.

I repeat: Why is your only defense of this insane theorizing that I am insane. If you counter some of my reasoning then I promise you my rebuttal will not mention your insanity.

I called you gullible not as an ad hominem. That implies that I'm using the accusation to detract from what is being discussed. I called you gullible as a self-evident conclusion based on what you said. I'm expecting you to have some kind of defense for believing Scratch beyond my own supposed insanity. I guess I can assume you repeating your accusation as an admission that you don't have one. Fair enough.

When you take a pot shot, you better be ready to receive one. To protest as you have after having launched such a salvo is very unbecoming, even for an apologist.

[_harmony]

If a computer is in reach wherever he is, you can guarantee that he's been keeping tabs on this board.

Nothing new and different about that.

[_Malcolm]

Perhaps the long haired guy is to challenge for the Presidency of the RLDS
Community of Christ, and needs a DNA test to prove his Joseph Smith connections.
OK, well I may have had too much Ribena!!!

[_The Nehor]

I have to say that the apologists' behavior on this thread is very odd. The only thing that has been alleged is that a meeting took place, and that Ugo Perego was paid to conduct a paternity test. Honestly, what is so "bizarre" or unbelievable about that? People at the MI have meetings all the time, and last I checked, Perego is essentially *paid* to conduct what might be called "paternity tests."

Except that I've been in contact with someone at this supposed meeting and he guarantees me it never happened.

Sure: there has been some speculation, but I don't see why the apologists are getting so bent out of shape over this.

Because you're a liar.

Incidentally, I've noticed that Dr. Peterson hasn't responded to the allegations. Given his normal pattern of typing up literally dozens of threads and posts in response to things my "informants" have said in the past, this seems especially striking.

And who do you think told me that the meeting never happened.

This is a damned either way situation. If he responds you say that all the fuss proves there's something to it. If he remains silent you also contend that this is very telling.

What response will convince you there is nothing going on? Shooting you with his assault rifle? Holding a press conference? Dressing up as Bozo the clown and egging your house? I'm sure he'd be thrilled to know. I'll even pass on the advice.

[_The Nehor]

When you take a pot shot, you better be ready to receive one. To protest as you have after having launched such a salvo is very unbecoming, even for an apologist.

I see. This is the best you've got to defend yourself with. I understand. I won't embarrass you any further.

God bless.

[_asbestosman]

Sure: there has been some speculation, but I don't see why the apologists are getting so bent out of shape over this.

Because you're a liar.

Now Nehor, "indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus."

Not that this proverb has anything to do with Scratch.

[_William Schryver]

It's not nearly as striking when you consider that Dan is (again) "out of town." He's taking a tour through the Confederacy.

No, it's still striking. If a computer is in reach wherever he is, you can guarantee that he's been keeping tabs on this board.

No doubt he is willing that you should continue to entangle yourself as intractably as possible in the absurdities of your ever more incredible tales of intrigue emanating from the NAMIRS. Of course, credibility is obviously the least of your concerns. But with each new yarn, you make certain that no one will ever believe anything you have to say, even if it were true.

Assuming for a moment that you really do have a "source" for your "intel," (and it is, in certain circles, increasingly believed that you do) then I imagine your "informant" must take immense satisfaction in knowing how foolish you have been made to look--and how easily the whole thing was accomplished.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Incidentally, I've noticed that Dr. Peterson hasn't responded to the allegations. Given his normal pattern of typing up literally dozens of threads and posts in response to things my "informants" have said in the past, this seems especially striking.

And who do you think told me that the meeting never happened.

Oh, so Dr. Peterson is going around sending people PMs in an effort to downplay the allegations? How very, very interesting. *Remarkably* interesting.

[_Joseph Antley]

This is a damned either way situation. If he responds you say that all the fuss proves there's something to it. If he remains silent you also contend that this is very telling.

This is Scratch's usual MO, and there's nothing we can do about it. Like others I've begun to try to look past the idiocy and see the humor in it.

[_The Nehor]

Oh, so Dr. Peterson is going around sending people PMs in an effort to downplay the allegations? How very, very interesting. *Remarkably* interesting.

Indeed. Contacting someone you know about a topic of interest is very, very interesting. One might say downright disturbing.

Not nearly as interesting though as your phantom informant who lied to you about the meeting. You may want to drop him from your list of 'reliable' informants and never listen to him again. Admittedly that might be difficult if what I suspect is true and the informant is one of the voices in your head.