From My Informant: A Clandestine Meeting at the MI?

[_William Schryver]

Of course once Scratch is beaten he now proceeds to derail his own thread to draw attention from his lies.

See Scratch Run. Run Scratch Run.

I'm surprised he hasn't already found all kinds of things to confirm his "intel." That is his usual MO: concoct the fantasy, and then immediately start to find confirmation for it in everything he sees and hears.

[_Gadianton]

Of course once Scratch is beaten he now proceeds to derail his own thread to draw attention from his lies.

See Scratch Run. Run Scratch Run.

I'm surprised he hasn't already found all kinds of things to confirm his "intel." That is his usual MO: concoct the fantasy, and then immediately start to find confirmation for it in everything he sees and hears.

Don't confuse Doctor Scratch with Book of Abraham apologists.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Of course once Scratch is beaten he now proceeds to derail his own thread to draw attention from his lies.

See Scratch Run. Run Scratch Run.

I'm surprised he hasn't already found all kinds of things to confirm his "intel." That is his usual MO: concoct the fantasy, and then immediately start to find confirmation for it in everything he sees and hears.

Hi there, Will. Once again, I have to say that I'm baffled at your response. All I did was pass along a story about some apologists meeting at the MI. As far as I can tell, beyond the reliability of the informant, there is no evidence either for or against the story, and as such, I'm inclined to accept it as the truth. There's no reason to think that such a meeting is far-fetched or unlikely. Plus, DCP was trying to sneak around and persuade people that it never happened, which in and of itself is interesting. If the meeting *did* legitimately take place, my suspicion is that the apologists would be obliged to lie about it, just like they did with the 2nd Watson Letter.

[_Darth J]

I'm surprised he hasn't already found all kinds of things to confirm his "intel." That is his usual MO: concoct the fantasy, and then immediately start to find confirmation for it in everything he sees and hears.

Scratch is a Mormon apologist! I knew it!

[_asbestosman]

As far as I can tell, beyond the reliability of the informant, there is no evidence either for or against the story, and as such, I'm inclined to accept it as the truth.

You forgot to mention one other juicy reason you're inclined to accept it: it paints certain apologists in a bad light.

There's no reason to think that such a meeting is far-fetched or unlikely.

Yes there is. Is there a precedent for apologists using hush money? Is there any reason to think that such a tactic would work? Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead. Hush money is as useful as trying to stop a moving car by dragging your heels on the street. Even blackmail has limited efficacy.

Plus, DCP was trying to sneak around and persuade people that it never happened, which in and of itself is interesting.

Let's see. It paints him and his friends in a bad light. Furthermore you are wont to declare victory whether he says anything or not--in such a case their silence proves you're right because they don't want to be caught in a lie. What option should he pick--become the loser or simply let Scratch win? Hmm.

If the meeting *did* legitimately take place, my suspicion is that the apologists would be obliged to lie about it, just like they did with the 2nd Watson Letter.

Thus you secure your unfounded accusation from any possible challenge. Scratch, people are not all the same--some people are actually honest. My take on the Watson letter is that either your information is still incomplete or that the apologists made a legitimate error in their recollection of events. Memory can be easily corrupted, especially over time such that we think we really saw something we did not. That does not make people liars--it just means they mixed up memories of a couple events which is more common than most people realize.

[_The Nehor]

Hi there, Will. Once again, I have to say that I'm baffled at your response. All I did was pass along a story about some apologists meeting at the MI. As far as I can tell, beyond the reliability of the informant, there is no evidence either for or against the story, and as such, I'm inclined to accept it as the truth.

Except of course that someone who was there said it never happened. Most people would accept that as evidence. You, on the other hand, are a liar and morally bankrupt so I can see why you wouldn't.

There's no reason to think that such a meeting is far-fetched or unlikely. Plus, DCP was trying to sneak around and persuade people that it never happened, which in and of itself is interesting.

No, it's actually evidence against it. See above.

If the meeting *did* legitimately take place, my suspicion is that the apologists would be obliged to lie about it, just like they did with the 2nd Watson Letter.

Of course the government is poisoning our drinking water. After all, they said they're not and what else would you expect? More evidence then that? No, why would I need more?

[_Trevor]

Suddenly I am curious about the timing of Scratch's latest piece of intel. Is it possible that the story of Ugo Perego's meeting with apologists was concocted shortly after his testimony appeared on MST? Is it the case that there was no meeting and there is no informant, but that someone who is interested in the progress of MST simply found something that could be used to stir the pot? Hmmm... I wonder.

[_Gadianton]

Hi trevor,

How can there be someone watching MST looking for something to stir the pot and no informant at the same time? (Assuming u didn't mean scratch)

[_Trevor]

Hi trevor,

How can there be someone watching MST looking for something to stir the pot and no informant at the same time? (Assuming u didn't mean scratch)

I did mean Scratch. I am skeptical concerning the existence of informants in some instances. The appearance of Ugo's testimony on MST in April, followed by this thread in late May, seems a little too convenient to be mere coincidence.

[_Nimrod]

Hi trevor,

How can there be someone watching MST looking for something to stir the pot and no informant at the same time? (Assuming u didn't mean scratch)

I did mean Scratch. I am skeptical concerning the existence of informants in some instances. The appearance of Ugo's testimony on MST in April, followed by this thread in late May, seems a little too convenient to be mere coincidence.

Or, it could be that because DCP is working with Ugo in some other respect (and for which the meeting was part and parcel), and DCP decided to snag a MST testimony from Ugo. "Hey, Ugo, it's great working with you on project X. by the way, would you mind also giving me a written testimony that I can post on MST?" The coincident of timing validates Dr. Scratch's intel as much as it might cause skepticism.