Orthopraxy in Apologetics?

[_ttribe]

Still waiting for a response from Scratch - Please provide evidence to support your assertion that "[Blair] has been known to do that in the past."

Besides, why should be trust LoaP on this? His experience with peer review is quite limited---and, as I've said, some of the things he's "admitted" just don't square with the way things work in the real world of academic publishing. Plus, he could be lying wholesale about the entire thing, or distorting the facts somewhat. He has been known to do that in the past. The only way to know for certain would be for him to post the materials.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Tim. And this is your name, no? I've seen other posters on the board refer to you as "Tim" with nary a complaint from you in response, so I've always assumed that you're fine with it. Is that not the case?

In response to your question: LoaP has engaged in distortion on a number of occasions. His problematic characterization of McCraney as an "addict" is one example. Your demands to know why I have been addressing you by your name reminded me of something else, though.

For a while, I posted as "Mister Scratch" rather than "Doctor Scratch," and I still had the same avatar. For some strange reason, LoaP, out of the blue, began calling me "Ms. Scratch." He insisted (in spite of the avatar and gender-specific screen-name) that he thought I was female. Myself and others wondered: why was LoaP calling _Mister_ Scratch "Ms. Scratch"? Was he trying to hand out an insult? He claimed not, and in fact tried to twist the whole situation around in such a way that anyone who dared question his motives was actually a woman-hater---after all, why would anyone find it "insulting" to be addressed as a female? His logic was apparently that anyone who took insult at being called a female was actually himself a misogynist, thought that women were inferior, etc.

This went on for some time. Finally, after he'd been told to knock it off a few dozen times by Liz, Harmony, Beastie, and a number of other posters, he dropped the act. If I recall correctly, he never corrected himself, never "admitted" he was wrong, never apologized, never confessed his motives, etc.

Wow, you know---until you brought up the whole "Why are you calling me Tim?" thing, I hadn't thought about this incident with LoaP in a long time. It does really say a lot about the kind of person he is, though. So, this is the person you're defending here, ttribe.

[_ttribe]

Hi there, Tim. And this is your name, no? I've seen other posters on the board refer to you as "Tim" with nary a complaint from you in response, so I've always assumed that you're fine with it. Is that not the case?

It was a question of curiosity. Besides the other people who do use it (GP, Scottie and Seth Payne, for example) tend to do so in a friendly manner. Not in an effort to be condescending.

In response to your question: LoaP has engaged in distortion on a number of occasions. His problematic characterization of McCraney as an "addict" is one example.

Not good enough. That one's already been shot down given that McCraney referred to himself using that term. Give me your evidence or retract your attack Scratch. I'm sick to death of your waffling on this.

Your demands to know why I have been addressing you by your name reminded me of something else, though.

And here comes the deflection.

For a while, I posted as "Mister Scratch" rather than "Doctor Scratch," and I still had the same avatar. For some strange reason, LoaP, out of the blue, began calling me "Ms. Scratch." He insisted (in spite of the avatar and gender-specific screen-name) that he thought I was female. Myself and others wondered: why was LoaP calling _Mister_ Scratch "Ms. Scratch"? Was he trying to hand out an insult? He claimed not, and in fact tried to twist the whole situation around in such a way that anyone who dared question his motives was actually a woman-hater---after all, why would anyone find it "insulting" to be addressed as a female? His logic was apparently that anyone who took insult at being called a female was actually himself a misogynist, thought that women were inferior, etc.

This went on for some time. Finally, after he'd been told to knock it off a few dozen times by Liz, Harmony, Beastie, and a number of other posters, he dropped the act. If I recall correctly, he never corrected himself, never "admitted" he was wrong, never apologized, never confessed his motives, etc.

Wow, you know---until you brought up the whole "Why are you calling me Tim?" thing, I hadn't thought about this incident with LoaP in a long time. It does really say a lot about the kind of person he is, though. So, this is the person you're defending here, ttribe.

Yeah...and if you hadn't done things far worse, it might be worth my time to care. Furthermore, I'm not defending the individual so much as I am defending the principle here - you continually gripe about the ad hom attacks of apologists, and yet you engage in the same tactics. You perpetually complain about the lack of evidence in support of assertions, and then you dodge (like above) when asked for evidence supporting your assertions.

Enough is enough Scratch. It's time to step up; what evidence do you have to support this statement -

Besides, why should be trust LoaP on this? His experience with peer review is quite limited---and, as I've said, some of the things he's "admitted" just don't square with the way things work in the real world of academic publishing. Plus, he could be lying wholesale about the entire thing, or distorting the facts somewhat. He has been known to do that in the past.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah...and if you hadn't done things far worse,

CFR. I have seen you claim on MAD, too, that I'm somehow guilty of the litany of charges that DCP has aimed at me. It's time for you to back up your claims with evidence. It would be terribly ironic if you---the guy who has been demanding evidence all throughout this thread---were to fail to supply it now.

[_ttribe]

CFR. I have seen you claim on MAD, too, that I'm somehow guilty of the litany of charges that DCP has aimed at me. It's time for you to back up your claims with evidence. It would be terribly ironic if you---the guy who has been demanding evidence all throughout this thread---were to fail to supply it now.

Here you go:

Besides, why should be trust LoaP on this? His experience with peer review is quite limited---and, as I've said, some of the things he's "admitted" just don't square with the way things work in the real world of academic publishing. Plus, he could be lying wholesale about the entire thing, or distorting the facts somewhat. He has been known to do that in the past.

More disparaging conjecture: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 34#p305134

Demonstrated to be false and irresponsible: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 75#p304775

Example of your use of potentially libelous language ("vicious degenerate", "dictator", etc.): http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 73#p304673

Insulting blanket allegations of making intentionally false allegations as a trade-off for spending quality time with children: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 69#p303869

Do I really need to go on?

I think Trevor summed it up nicely with - "Thanks for the laughs, Scratch. You know, in case you haven't figured it out yet, being indiscriminately nasty to all apologists for no good reason isn't going to do anyone any good. The ability to distinguish them according to some reasonable standard of decent behavior separates the credible person from the lunatic." (http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 70#p304870)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Tim,

You do realize that Mr. Blair has not refuted Doctor Scratch's assertions, no?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Doctor Scratch]

CFR. I have seen you claim on MAD, too, that I'm somehow guilty of the litany of charges that DCP has aimed at me. It's time for you to back up your claims with evidence. It would be terribly ironic if you---the guy who has been demanding evidence all throughout this thread---were to fail to supply it now.

Here you go:

No, Tim. The charges, as I recall, were that I'd called DCP a "bigot" an "anti-Semite" a "pervert," etc., etc., etc. You agreed 100%, and when someone on MAD asked you and DCP to back up your accusations, you demurred. So I'll ask you myself: Prove that I said these things.

You managed to convince some of the people here that you're a fair, even-keeled guy. Someone who's willing to point out unfairness among both critics and TBMs. Are you, though?

[_ttribe]

Hello Mr. Tim,

You do realize that Mr. Blair has not refuted Doctor Scratch's assertions, no?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

No. In fact, he has refuted the express assertion Scratch made that he had "admitted" to an unusual editorial process and that he allegedly never saw the reviewers' notes.

Nice to finally see the third member of the Scratch Trio finally show though.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No. In fact, he has refuted the express assertion Scratch made that he had "admitted" to an unusual editorial process and that he allegedly never saw the reviewers' notes.

The only "refuting" that will count in this instance is for him to post the actual materials.

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your accusations against me.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Tim,

You do realize that Mr. Blair has not refuted Doctor Scratch's assertions, no?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

No. In fact, he has refuted the express assertion Scratch made that he had "admitted" to an unusual editorial process and that he allegedly never saw the reviewers' notes.

Nice to finally see the third member of the Scratch Trio finally show though.

Hello Tim,

I am generally opposed to a call for reference, but in this case I must insist you provide one. In addition, would you please provide a reference where Mr. Blair expressly refuted Doctor Scratch's assertions?

Thank you in advanced.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me