dblagent007 wrote:My alternate theory is that Scratch stopped posting because he has to study for finals just before he graduates from U.S.C. law. Note that Scratch started his Mormonism posts in the summer of 2006, which would have been just before law school started. He has stopped posting just as that law school class is about to graduate.
But in his post on April 11 at 6:14 p.m., Scratch denied ever being a student at the USC law school.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:But in his post on April 11 at 6:14 p.m., Scratch denied ever being a student at the USC law school.
Which doesn't mean he isn't there. It's also possible he teaches there, or that he's a janitor there or an administrative assistant there. Or that he's the president of USC Law School.
It's also possible he lied. Lots of possibilities!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Is it news to anybody here that the relationship between GoodK and his stepdad is less than optimal? Does anybody really believe that that's something that occurred just recently, perhaps right after I sent that link to GoodK's stepdad? Does anybody here imagine that everything was entirely peachy until GoodK's father, out of the sheer blue, dispatched GoodK to the Utah Boy's Ranch? How have I revealed anything here that a minimally alert person with an IQ above the mid-fifties wouldn't already have figured out?
My simple point is this: Those who accuse me of causing a rupture between GoodK and his stepfather over something with which I have no legitimate concern and of which I have no knowledge whatsoever should understand, before they leap to condemn me, that GoodK's stepfather and I have known each other for more than two decades and that the troubled relationship between GoodK and his stepdad had been a topic of conversation between us at several points over that period.
Disagree with my providing the link as much as you wish, but it's simply false to claim that I destroyed a relationship of which I knew nothing. I knew about it, and I didn't destroy it.
Incidentally, I too wouldn't be surprised if Scratch proves to be behind this. But if he hopes to demonstrate that the Church has set me apart and paid me to be an "apologist" -- I suppose it's possible that he really believes some or all of the accusations he's made against me over the past three years -- he's going to be frustrated yet again.
It says that you possess damaging information about GoodK, which you choose not to share.
If that's not what you meant to say, what were you trying to say?
My simple point was this: Those who accuse me of causing a rupture between GoodK and his stepfather over something with which I have no legitimate concern and of which I have no knowledge whatsoever should understand, before they leap to condemn me, that GoodK's stepfather and I have known each other for more than two decades and that the troubled relationship between GoodK and his stepdad had been a topic of conversation between us at several points over that period.
Disagree with my providing the link as much as you wish, but it's simply false to claim that I destroyed a relationship of which I knew nothing. I knew about it, and I didn't destroy it.
But in his post on April 11 at 6:14 p.m., Scratch denied ever being a student at the USC law school.
And how would DCP have access to scratch's IP address in the first place?
It wasn't Daniel; it was dblagent007, at least on this thread.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Trevor wrote:One detail, if Scratch is just graduating, it is unlikely he has passed the bar yet. It would be pretty gutsy to start getting into a law suit without even having passed the bar.
I don't think Scratch is Goodk's principal legal counsel. If you read GoodK's posts about talking to an attorney, you will be left with the strong impression that Scratch is not the attorney GoodK is referring to. My theory is that Scratch is helping behind the scenes in sort of an attorney-consulting role, but does not wish to actually represent GoodK in court. Even in this limited role, Scratch is required to abide by the ethical rules that do not permit direct communication with the client on the other side. Also, I think Scratch would want to create an attorney-client relationship so that he could rely on the privilege associated with it to prevent himself from being outed to everyone.
My simple point was this: Those who accuse me of causing a rupture between GoodK and his stepfather over something with which I have no legitimate concern and of which I have no knowledge whatsoever should understand, before they leap to condemn me, that GoodK's stepfather and I have known each other for more than two decades and that the troubled relationship between GoodK and his stepdad had been a topic of conversation between us at several points over that period.
Disagree with my providing the link as much as you wish, but it's simply false to claim that I destroyed a relationship of which I knew nothing. I knew about it, and I didn't destroy it.
That wasn't my point in sharing that post of yours. I didn't accuse you of rupturing their relationship, although I doubt what you did helped an already troubled relationship.
My point is that you seem to be insinuating that you possess personal information that would be damaging to GoodK, but you choose not to share it.
Is or is not that what you were saying in the post I cited?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:However, in combination with what DCP kept hinting, along with how the post was phrased, a reasonable person could conclude DCP was sharing actual information. I'm not sure a reasonable person could conclude that BYU really had experiments with drugs going on that DCP was participating in.
What a reasonable person will conclude is irrelevant. The question is whether there was a false statement of fact. Both DCP and GoodK's posts qualify on that score. Parody is a defense and GoodK probably has a better shot at qualifying than DCP, but I kind of doubt it will carry the day for either one.
It wasn't Daniel; it was dblagent007, at least on this thread.
If I recall correctly, on another thread, it came out that DCP had obtained IP information about scratch and was dropping "hints" to him in posts that he knew where he was posting from.
I was under the impression that only moderators of boards had access to IP information. Is this impression incorrect?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
What a reasonable person will conclude is irrelevant. The question is whether there was a false statement of fact. Both DCP and GoodK's posts qualify on that score. Parody is a defense and GoodK probably has a better shot at qualifying than DCP, but I kind of doubt it will carry the day for either one.
Why would GoodK's post not qualify as parody?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.