Doctor Scratch wrote:I didn't "invent" anything, Dan. It's what I was told.
Then, if that's true, you were played for a credulous, over-eager fool.
This is always your retort, and I find it strange. I said from the outset that I was unsure if the "intel" was correct or not. Does it mean I'm a "fool" because I reacted with skepticism?
Doctor Scratch wrote:You say it's wrong, but won't put up any "testable facts."
You know full well that I don't post Maxwell Institute budget figures because it would be a gross violation of BYU policy were I to do so. (I wouldn't do it anyway just to satisfy your prurient curiosity, of course, but that's another matter, and, given the actual situation, a purely theoretical one.)
All of this is fine, Dan. All it means to me is that you haven't proven that my informant was wrong. It's your word against his/hers. End of story. I'm sure most of the TBMs reading this will believe you. As for me, I'm 50/50 on the whole thing, but as you've said, you have no interest in trying to convince me. And I'm fine with that.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:This is always your retort, and I find it strange. I said from the outset that I was unsure if the "intel" was correct or not. Does it mean I'm a "fool" because I reacted with skepticism?
You're a dupe for having credited it at all, and for having gone public with it. Somebody set you up very skillfully.
Doctor Scratch wrote:This is always your retort, and I find it strange. I said from the outset that I was unsure if the "intel" was correct or not. Does it mean I'm a "fool" because I reacted with skepticism?
You're a dupe for having credited it at all, and for having gone public with it.
Lol. But I didn't credit it. That's my point. I wasn't then and am still not sure if it's true. It may be. It might not be. I don't know. It certainly seems plausible. In fact, I daresay that, in light of all the craziness that surfaced recently in the ELW papers that were posted, it seems more plausible than ever.
Somebody set you up very skillfully.
How was I "set up"? Somebody passed me "intel" that I was skeptical about; I posted it, noting my skepticism and warning others to treat it skeptically, and we were then treated to a multi-day meltdown on your part. Actually, as I recall, you carried on for weeks in reaction to this, posting thread after thread where you "joked" about the MI's alleged funding cuts.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:It certainly seems plausible.
It's not even remotely plausible.
On several levels.
And the fact that you were inclined to credit your clever pseudo-"informant" despite my flat denials of his or her claims revealed you to be both gullible and hostile. Yet again.
Your phony "informant" knew that you had a voracious appetite for seeming "dirt" against me and against the Maxwell Institute, and played you like a violin.
Doctor Scratch wrote:It certainly seems plausible.
It's not even remotely plausible.
On several levels.
How so?
And the fact that you were inclined to credit your clever pseudo-"informant" despite my flat denials of his or her claims revealed you to be both gullible and hostile. Yet again.
No, it just means I have reason not to trust you.
Your phony "informant" knew that you had a voracious appetite for seeming "dirt" against me and against the Maxwell Institute, and played you like a violin.
Again: how was *I* played?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I have reason not to trust you.
None that you haven't invented.
No, I have legitimate reasons, dating back to some of our very first interactions with each other.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Again: how was *I* played?
We've discussed this at least a dozen times. You're the guy with the voluminous files on everything I say and do. Re-read them.
Okay, so you don't have a case. Fine with me.
My main purpose in this thread was to find out more about Jack Welch's power within Mopologetics, and I essentially got about all that I was going to get on that front.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I have legitimate reasons, dating back to some of our very first interactions with each other.
You decided that I was a liar at least five years ago. That's true.
But I'm not.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Okay, so you don't have a case.
I've already laid it out. There's no reason to do so again, and I'm not interested.
Doctor Scratch wrote:My main purpose in this thread was to find out more about Jack Welch's power within Mopologetics, and I essentially got about all that I was going to get on that front.
I'll agree with that. You got all you were going to get. Quite true.
Doctor Scratch wrote:I have legitimate reasons, dating back to some of our very first interactions with each other.
You decided that I was a liar at least five years ago. That's true.
But I'm not.
I didn't say you were a "liar." I said I have reasons not to trust you.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Okay, so you don't have a case.
I've already laid it out. There's no reason to do so again, and I'm not interested.
Your case was, "You got played because you refused to accept what I said." Pretty lame, Dr. Peterson.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I didn't say you were a "liar." I said I have reasons not to trust you.
Whatever. I'm not going to quibble over terms.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Your case was, "You got played because you refused to accept what I said." Pretty lame, Dr. Peterson.
No, you got played because you accepted a ridiculous falsehood and scurried breathlessly to this board to advertise it. You're source, I'm quite confident, was busting a gut.
You're scarcely in a position, on this matter, to pronounce me "lame." You were the sucker, not me.