DCP "Busts" Me

[_wenglund]

In spite of some of the circumstantial evidence that seems to counter Scratch's denial about calling DCP a "douche bag", I agree with DCP in thinking that until incontrovertable evidence can be produced, Scratch should be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at his word--even though it is unlikely that Scratch would extend the same leniancy towards the leaders and defenders of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Why would you suppose that? Seems more than a tad uncharitable.

Can you point to a single instance where he has extended such leniency, or any leniency at all? If so, I will gladly revise my perception. However, if not, then couldn't my comments reasonably be interpreted as charitable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think).

As I recall, Dawkins did a similar thing in his Delusion book when referring to comments by laypeople on various websites which he did not name. I think Dr. Peterson knows what he's doing in that regard.

You give DCP far too much credit.

Then I suppose his behavior (which Dawkins also displayed) was merely a lucky guess? Or maybe you're saying that you guys are experts and deserve to be given credit for your rants? I suppose the fundies Dawkins quotes might say the same thing about their inane "The Great Beethoven" fallacious arguments against abortion.

[_why me]

Well, I don't know. I defended ol' scratch on the MAD board. It just doesn't sound like him. However, I did say that it could have been possible that scratch was having a bad day and went into a skitzo frame of mind and lost it. But I doubt it. Scratch may be many things but he is no coward. He would bone up to it if he did it. For after all, he does have a reputation to uphold. If he was found to be lying...he would lose his god status on this board forever more.

And no one would take him seriously again. So scratch, why me, puts his faith in you...don't let me down.

[_Mister Scratch]

I recall DCP once leaving ZLMB and claiming I was the cause;

Really? What did you do?

MS's posts drive him to the edge better than mine ever did, so I bet MS is the chief reason for DCP's latest (albeit short-lived) bolt from FAIR/MAD.

I have never been able to figure out why he (apparently) gets so upset about my posts....

[_Mister Scratch]

In spite of some of the circumstantial evidence that seems to counter Scratch's denial about calling DCP a "douche bag", I agree with DCP in thinking that until incontrovertable evidence can be produced, Scratch should be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at his word

When has DCP ever said that I "should be given the benefit of the doubt"? He has *never* said this, and in fact his behavior contrary to this resulted in my getting banned from the ironically named FAIRboard in the first place!

--even though it is unlikely that Scratch would extend the same leniancy towards the leaders and defenders of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Sure I would, Wade! I go by the evidence I am given. Simple as that.

[_Mister Scratch]

You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think).

As I recall, Dawkins did a similar thing in his Delusion book when referring to comments by laypeople on various websites which he did not name. I think Dr. Peterson knows what he's doing in that regard.

Huh. Interesting. What say you post the material and let us all have a look-see?

Then he boasted that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose?

A sense of futility about trying to have a meaningful conversation between you and him?

If this were the case, then he wouldn't repeatedly respond to my posts.

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

Which is why I said "our." Your credibility is slipping away pretty fast, ABman.

It seems awfully coincidental that his most vicious posts come after criticism of it.... (Just a couple of days ago he lifted a quote from me in which I said that FARMS Review is "rank with ad hominem attack.")

That's an example of his most vicious posts?

Uh, no, Abman. That is not what I said at all.

[_asbestosman]

You may recall that he got a bit huffy when I pointed out that he'd failed to properly cite the material he quoted from Kevin Graham and myself (and Rollo too, I think).

As I recall, Dawkins did a similar thing in his Delusion book when referring to comments by laypeople on various websites which he did not name. I think Dr. Peterson knows what he's doing in that regard.

Huh. Interesting. What say you post the material and let us all have a look-see?

I don't own the book. I checked it out from the library and have since returned it. I am unlikely to get ahold of it again anytime soon, but if someone here has it, I am referring to a section where Dawkins speaks of The Great Beethoven Fallacy which was towards the end.

Then he boasted that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose?

A sense of futility about trying to have a meaningful conversation between you and him?

If this were the case, then he wouldn't repeatedly respond to my posts.

Why do you react to his comments? Isn't it because you want to set the record straight for lurkers and so on?

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

Which is why I said "our." Your credibility is slipping away pretty fast, ABman.

I think it was more than just (or only) your (plural) criticism of FARMS Review. I think it was also the countless critics who criticize almost everything he writes on MA&D.

And what credibility? I wasn't aware that I had any whether it be here or at MA&D.

It seems awfully coincidental that his most vicious posts come after criticism of it.... (Just a couple of days ago he lifted a quote from me in which I said that FARMS Review is "rank with ad hominem attack.")

That's an example of his most vicious posts?

Uh, no, Abman. That is not what I said at all.

Then what was the intent of your parenthetical comment? Rereading it I suppose you didn't intend for it anything to do with substantiating the claim of vicious posts. Rather you intended it as support of the claim that Dr. Peterson is very concerned with criticism of FARMS Review, correct?

In any case I am unaware of Dr. Peterson's style becoming more vicious after your criticism of FARMS Review.

[_Mister Scratch]

Then he boasted that we "didn't even bother to read the whole article." I posted a lengthy review of it, and he was noticeably silent. Why is that, do you suppose?

A sense of futility about trying to have a meaningful conversation between you and him?

If this were the case, then he wouldn't repeatedly respond to my posts.

Why do you react to his comments? Isn't it because you want to set the record straight for lurkers and so on?

Let's backtrack a moment. I asked, "Why did he go silent?" suggesting that he went silent because he could not provide an adequate defense against the criticism (bear in mind that this was after he 'threw down the gauntlet' by accusing me and others of having not read the article). You countered by saying, "Well, he probably felt a sense of futility in trying to have a conversation." My point is: What, is his "sense of futility" the sort of thing that "comes and goes"? He obviously has no problem responding when he feels like it... Why is it that he went dead silent after I'd posted an in-depth review of his article?

Hope that clarifies, ABman.

Shortly after that, he announced that he was "through" with posting, and disappeared for a brief period. Could it be that he is upset about our criticism of his precious FARMS Review?

Yes, that could very well have played a part. He said he was getting tired of constant criticism and now I'm sure you played a some part in that. However, I doubt it was you alone or even you chiefly.

Which is why I said "our." Your credibility is slipping away pretty fast, ABman.

I think it was more than just (or only) your (plural) criticism of FARMS Review. I think it was also the countless critics who criticize almost everything he writes on MA&D.

And what credibility? I wasn't aware that I had any whether it be here or at MA&D.[/quote]

You obviously feel that you've got *some*, or else you wouldn't feel the need to interject stuff like, "Hey, I'm not accusing, I'm just trying to clear the air," etc., etc. Right? Anyways, *I* normally find you to be quite credible, even if I don't always agree with you.

It seems awfully coincidental that his most vicious posts come after criticism of it.... (Just a couple of days ago he lifted a quote from me in which I said that FARMS Review is "rank with ad hominem attack.")

That's an example of his most vicious posts?

Uh, no, Abman. That is not what I said at all.

Then what was the intent of your parenthetical comment? Rereading it I suppose you didn't intend for it anything to do with substantiating the claim of vicious posts. Rather you intended it as support of the claim that Dr. Peterson is very concerned with criticism of FARMS Review, correct?

Yes, that's correct. You can see examples of his name-calling and viciousness in the current "O What A Tangled Web We Weave" thread, or on my blog, under the "DCP Doesn't Like Us" entry. He has called me, among other things, "mentally unbalanced," "mendacious," a "brazen liar," etc., etc. He likes to portray himself as being superior to Tal Bachman and others on RfM in this regard, but the truth is that he is just as much of a name-caller as they are.

[_wenglund]

When has DCP ever said that I "should be given the benefit of the doubt"? He has *never* said this, and in fact his behavior contrary to this resulted in my getting banned from the ironically named FAIRboard in the first place!

Here is what you quote from him in your OP on this thread (I will bold the relevant sections so that you don't miss it this go-round):

"Mister Scratch" responded (quite indignantly) that there was another "Mister Scratch," entirely distinct from himself, who posted on the so-called "Recovery" board, and that, therefore, he should not be held accountable for the insulting things said there by that putatively other "Mister Scratch." He plainly did not want to forfeit his posting privilege here.

I found the notion of a second anti-Mormon "Mister Scratch" unlikely, but, since "Mister Scratch" vehemently insisted that it was entirely unreasonable and unjust (despite the identity of names and attitudes) to suspect him of being the "Recovery" board's "Mister Scratch," I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt:...

...I've just been informed that Mister Scratch vigorously denies being the author of some grossly insulting lines, directed against me on the so-called "Recovery" board, that I quoted here the other day.

If he denies it, I'm happy to take him at his word."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

When has DCP ever said that I "should be given the benefit of the doubt"? He has *never* said this, and in fact his behavior contrary to this resulted in my getting banned from the ironically named FAIRboard in the first place!

Here is what you quote from him in your OP on this thread (I will bold the relevant sections so that you don't miss it this go-round):

"Mister Scratch" responded (quite indignantly) that there was another "Mister Scratch," entirely distinct from himself, who posted on the so-called "Recovery" board, and that, therefore, he should not be held accountable for the insulting things said there by that putatively other "Mister Scratch." He plainly did not want to forfeit his posting privilege here.

I found the notion of a second anti-Mormon "Mister Scratch" unlikely, but, since "Mister Scratch" vehemently insisted that it was entirely unreasonable and unjust (despite the identity of names and attitudes) to suspect him of being the "Recovery" board's "Mister Scratch," I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt:...

...I've just been informed that Mister Scratch vigorously denies being the author of some grossly insulting lines, directed against me on the so-called "Recovery" board, that I quoted here the other day.

If he denies it, I'm happy to take him at his word."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade, I guess the OP was unclear. This is very, very old text from DCP. Since then he has been on a warpath/smear campaign against me. He totally reneged and retracted on that "benefit of the doubt" stuff, and has been insisting that I am a "brazen liar" ever since. (You know, the more I think about it, the more plausible it seems that it was DCP himself impersonating me on RfM.)

Anyways, Wade, I appreciate your "charitable" view towards me on this one. I truly am innocent of the things Prof. Peterson has accused me of.