I'm a Woman?

[_sock puppet]

My question is this: If Daniel Peterson wants Doctor Scratch to leave him alone, why has he started threads about Doctor Scratch without recent provocation?

After all Simon, your crusade is pretty pointless if you can't get your victim to cooperate in his own defense.

I have no crusade. I just want to know, specifically and definitively, how Scratch justifies this. That's it.

Also, if DCP starts a thread about "Doctor Scratch," who is he starting a thread about? A pseudonym, not a real person. Scratch's attacks are toward a real person, using his real name. That's a huge difference.

That does not address Kish's question. If DCP wants Dr Scratch to leave DCP alone, why does DCP poke Dr Scratch even in times when Dr Scratch has been quiet for a stretch about DCP?

Has it occurred to you DCP sycophants that perhaps the Bellicose One actually likes the attention from Dr Scratch, and likes playing the victim?

[_Doctor Scratch]

This:

ETA: if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand my perspective, Simon, then let's get some reciprocity here. Go ahead and lay out the following things:

[...]

The top ten worst things that Mopologists have done.
The top 5 nasty / malicious / spiteful things that DCP has done.

I'll go ahead and say that my assumption in advance is that you won't put up these items

[_Simon Belmont]

This:

I've been more than accommodating. If you can't pinpoint specific justification, with evidence, for your five year crusade, then I expect your retirement will be genuine this time and you'll stop the slander.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I thought you were genuinely interested in talking about this? Not so much, huh? What a big surprise.

[_Simon Belmont]

I thought you were genuinely interested in talking about this? Not so much, huh? What a big surprise.

By being more than accommodating, I have proven that I am genuinely interested in talking about this. I answered your first question. I compromised. It is you who is unwilling (unable?) to tell me exactly how you justify your 5+ year crusade.

I answered one of your questions, now you answer part of mine. Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things. So, can you tell me one thing that DCP has done, that you have evidence for him doing, that helps justify your crusade?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I could tell you lots of things, Simon. But I'm not going to until you complete the lists. Which I know you'll never do.

[_Chap]

This:

I've been more than accommodating. If you can't pinpoint specific justification, with evidence, for your five year crusade, then I expect your retirement will be genuine this time and you'll stop the slander.

If Scratch responds to this question without taking exception to the terms in which it is phrased, he would be admitting that his conduct can best be described as a 'five-year crusade'.

A form of the question without the implied admission might get an answer, but if I was Scratch I certainly would not accept the question as it stands as being legitimately phrased.

[_Simon Belmont]

I could tell you lots of things, Simon. But I'm not going to until you complete the lists. Which I know you'll never do.

I asked you a very specific question. You answered with with a series of questions, and no answer to my question. That's not how it works. But, in the spirit of cooperation, I decided to compromise and answered the first (and lengthiest) part of your question. Now, I only ask that you tell me one thing that DCP has done, with supporting evidence, that helps justify your crusade.

Again, I am being more than reasonable. My prediction is that you don't have a justification, and that you never did -- you only had speculation (about Dr. Q.) which turned out to be untrue.


Edit: If you take issue with the "five year crusade" thing -- then call it whatever you want: five year slander, five year character assassination, five year focus. The fact of the matter is that it has been going on for five years.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

[_Doctor Scratch]

But, in the spirit of cooperation, I decided to compromise and answered the first (and lengthiest) part of your question.

No... You answered the most irrelevant part of my question. As you yourself have been pointing out, my focus really isn't on Mormonism/the Church per se; rather, it has more to do with Mopologetics and DCP. So you deliberately dodged the critical portion of the question.

Just as I thought you would. But it doesn't matter either way. I'm more than happy for you to assume that I do things for no reason whatever. Mere anarchy loosed upon the world, etc.