Bob Loblaw wrote:"It was passed on to him." Again that sounds exactly like one of Scratch's posts. Unless you have some evidence beyond "it was passed on" you are making some nasty allegations with absolutely zero proof.
"Nasty allegations?"
Against whom?
If I say something like "Bob Loblaw is Scratch," is that a "nasty allegation" against Scratch, or against Mr Loblaw?
The information came to me, and hence was passed on to Dan.
And I'm not going to tell you who my "informant" was. It's all about ethics and protecting one's sources, you know.
Bob Loblaw wrote:By the way, I'm Scratch, and everyone knows it. Feel free to pass that information on to Dr. Peterson.
You should apologise to Scratch for making "nasty allegations."
sock puppet wrote:Is DCP that indiscrete that he'll accept as a 'friend' those he does not even know?
Dan is accustomed to dealing with people on a basis of trust. If someone requests to be his friend, he would consider it ill-mannered and churlish to turn that person down, or question his/her motives, unless he has good reason to believe them ill-disposed. As a semi-public figure, he probably thinks "I don't know you" isn't a good enough reason.
Pahoran wrote:You are overstating your case when you suggest that there was anything "unhinged" about entertaining the possibility that Scratch might have been your sockpuppet.
But I didn't say that, and you know that I didn't say that.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
sock puppet wrote:Is DCP that indiscrete that he'll accept as a 'friend' those he does not even know?
Dan is accustomed to dealing with people on a basis of trust. If someone requests to be his friend, he would consider it ill-mannered and churlish to turn that person down, or question his/her motives, unless he has good reason to believe them ill-disposed. As a semi-public figure, he probably thinks "I don't know you" isn't a good enough reason.
Maybe he'll be more careful in the future.
Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran, are you a shared sock puppet of which DCP is one of the sharers? You speak declaratively and confidently about what DCP thinks, and rather swiftly posting responses that have such representations.
sock puppet wrote:Is DCP that indiscrete that he'll accept as a 'friend' those he does not even know?
In FAIRness, have you never done the same thing?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Pahoran wrote:You are overstating your case when you suggest that there was anything "unhinged" about entertaining the possibility that Scratch might have been your sockpuppet.
But I didn't say that, and you know that I didn't say that.
Recall, please, that you said:
Kishkumen wrote:If Daniel, like some other unhinged folks, believes that I am Scratch, then that is truly amusing and amazing.
So no, I don't "know" what you assert that I knew. Although I do accept that it is possible to read your statement as saying that it was mere happenstance that every one of those who held that view happened to be "unhinged."
What's harder to explain away is the clear implication that Dan would likewise be unhinged if he held that belief: "like some other unhinged folks."
If you disagree that that is what you intended to assert or imply, then feel free to clarify your position. But if you can manage it, please try to avoid telling me what I "know."
Kishkumen wrote:If Daniel, like some other unhinged folks, believes that I am Scratch, then that is truly amusing and amazing.
So no, I don't "know" what you assert that I knew. Although I do accept that it is possible to read your statement as saying that it was mere happenstance that every one of those who held that view happened to be "unhinged."
What's harder to explain away is the clear implication that Dan would likewise be unhinged if he held that belief: "like some other unhinged folks."
If you disagree that that is what you intended to assert or imply, then feel free to clarify your position. But if you can manage it, please try to avoid telling me what I "know."
Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran,
I know English is your second language (ahem), but you are persisting in obtuseness here for no observable reason. Only an idiot would *continue* to believe that I am Scratch today, hence my use of the *present* tense of the English verb "believes." Daniel has been aware of that accusation for some time, and this provides context for my use of the present tense. In any case, the meaning of the word "believes" is different from "entertaining the possibility," even if we forget that there is any context for this story. You know this, and you are simply being a jackass as is your wont.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Bob Loblaw wrote:FYI, Pahoran claims to know Scratch's in real life identity. The suspected Scratch is a good friend of mine and I figure he's one hell of a good liar and phony if we've been friends for this long and I don't know who he really is underneath the friendly appearances.
Is it true that they think Scratch is Chino Blanco?
lol.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13