Why would Mod Rhad's post be signed 'Smac'?

[_Smac97]

> After further consideration, and after a brief consultation with some of my informants,

So Mr. Scratch not only hides behind a pseudonym, he also has *informants*?

> I have come to the conclusion that you were probably not Itchy,

Funny how you could have arrived at the contrary conclusion in the first place. You made the claim on what, unsubstantiated innuendo and gossip?

Glad to see you putting all that objective empiricism to work.

> and have decided that I will go ahead and delete the bit about you possibly being Mr. Itchy from the blog.

As you like. I wouldn't care if you kept it up.

But I'm curious, are you simply going to delete it and pretend it was never there? Or are you going to leave a note letting readers know about the false accusation and that you've retracted it after consulting with your "informants"?

Enquiring minds wanna know!

-Smac

[_Jersey Girl]

> After further consideration, and after a brief consultation with some of my informants,

So Mr. Scratch not only hides behind a pseudonym, he also has *informants*?

> I have come to the conclusion that you were probably not Itchy,

Funny how you could have arrived at the contrary conclusion in the first place. You made the claim on what, unsubstantiated innuendo and gossip?

Glad to see you putting all that objective empiricism to work.

> and have decided that I will go ahead and delete the bit about you possibly being Mr. Itchy from the blog.

As you like. I wouldn't care if you kept it up.

But I'm curious, are you simply going to delete it and pretend it was never there? Or are you going to leave a note letting readers know about the false accusation and that you've retracted it after consulting with your "informants"?

Enquiring minds wanna know!

-Smac

Boy, doesn't that sound familiar, eh? Why shouldn't he simply delete it and pretend it was never there? That's what Itchy did, isn't it?

[_Mister Scratch]

> After further consideration, and after a brief consultation with some of my informants,

So Mr. Scratch not only hides behind a pseudonym, he also has *informants*?

***A brief sidenote: do you not know how to use the "quote" feature, Smac? I'd be glad to help you out, if you'd like.

> I have come to the conclusion that you were probably not Itchy,

Funny how you could have arrived at the contrary conclusion in the first place. You made the claim on what, unsubstantiated innuendo and gossip?

No, I made it based on observation of your behavior on the FAIR/MAD board, and also based on the fact that you were so vociferously opposed to my blog. It makes sense that the person who was most vocally opposed to my blog would also be associated with the Itchy blog.

Glad to see you putting all that objective empiricism to work.

> and have decided that I will go ahead and delete the bit about you possibly being Mr. Itchy from the blog.

As you like. I wouldn't care if you kept it up.

Then why did you complain in the first place?

But I'm curious, are you simply going to delete it and pretend it was never there? Or are you going to leave a note letting readers know about the false accusation and that you've retracted it after consulting with your "informants"?

Enquiring minds wanna know!

-Smac

Hey, I'm in a generous mood. If you'd like, I can append a note on your dossier explaining why the speculation about your being involved with Itchy was removed. Let me know, and I'll take care of it.

[_Smac97]

> A brief sidenote: do you not know how to use the "quote" feature, Smac? I'd be glad to help you out, if you'd like.

I can't get my posts to appear using the html tags (even though my settings are set for it).

> No, I made it based on observation of your behavior on the FAIR/MAD board, and also based on the fact that you were so vociferously opposed to my blog.

Huh? I don't recall saying *anything* about your blog on the FAIR board. In fact, I think the only time I commented on your blog was in DCP's thread, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, A Minor Critic Slips Up." In DCP's first post, he mentioned that you suspected me of stealing your identity and using it on RfM.

I responded: "Moi? Little ol' me, an identity thief? Sorry to burst Mister Scratch's bubble, but I have no interest in impersonating him, nor have I ever done so."

I had forgotten about your prior accusation (of me stealing your identity). What's next? Gonna accuse me of toilet-papering your house? Given the amount of evidence you rely on (that is, zero) before making public accusations against others, I'm surprised you've only made the two. Way to show some self-restraint!

I also quoted you in Hamblin's "In Praise Of Dan Peterson's Scholarship." I said "Ya gotta luv the comments on a certain not-too-friendly-to-the-Latter-day-Saints message board," then I quoted your comment about DCP: "He's still a pathetic joke and a liar."

These two comments are, AFAICS, the sum total of all posts I've ever made that reference you. I've never made *any* comment about your blog.

So are you going to explain how these to posts add up to "vociferous opposition" to your blog?

Take your time. You appear to be making things up as you go along, anyway.

> It makes sense that the person who was most vocally opposed to my blog would also be associated with the Itchy blog.

Except I *wasn't* opposed to your blog, vocally or otherwise.

*Darn* that little thing we call "reality!"

And I find your "reasoning," such as it is, quite revealing. X criticizes your blog, so X *must* have set up a satire of it. Stellar reasoning, that.

> Then why did you complain in the first place?

I wasn't complaining. Your accusation shed little light on me, but quite a bit on *you*.

> Hey, I'm in a generous mood. If you'd like, I can append a note on your dossier explaining why the speculation about your being involved with Itchy was removed. Let me know, and I'll take care of it.

As you like.

-Smac

[_Mister Scratch]

Huh? I don't recall saying *anything* about your blog on the FAIR board.

No, no---I was referring to the comments which you made about my blog here. Remember? You know, the comments which I deleted? (And which deletion you subsequently complained about?)

In fact, I think the only time I commented on your blog was in DCP's thread, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, A Minor Critic Slips Up." In DCP's first post, he mentioned that you suspected me of stealing your identity and using it on RfM.

Gee.... Did you?

I responded: "Moi? Little ol' me, an identity thief? Sorry to burst Mister Scratch's bubble, but I have no interest in impersonating him, nor have I ever done so."

I had forgotten about your prior accusation (of me stealing your identity). What's next? Gonna accuse me of toilet-papering your house? Given the amount of evidence you rely on (that is, zero) before making public accusations against others, I'm surprised you've only made the two. Way to show some self-restraint!

By any chance, Smac, have you ever posted using the moniker, "Opie Rockwell"?

I also quoted you in Hamblin's "In Praise Of Dan Peterson's Scholarship." I said "Ya gotta luv the comments on a certain not-too-friendly-to-the-Latter-day-Saints message board," then I quoted your comment about DCP: "He's still a pathetic joke and a liar."

Where did I ever say that, Smac? Please point me to the post in question. Enlighten me.

These two comments are, AFAICS, the sum total of all posts I've ever made that reference you. I've never made *any* comment about your blog.

So are you going to explain how these to posts add up to "vociferous opposition" to your blog?

Remember this?:

Several anti-Mormons don't want you to know who they are! They think that if you know, you'll be extra mean! But is it really fair that the people casting judgement and laying down the law on their own blogs should get to hide beneath a [double-]layer of online anonymity, thus protecting them from any accountability whatsoever? I think not!

So when do we get to see an "Anti-Mormon Shell Game" post? Mr. Scratch, Dr. Shades, Truth Dancer, Primary Chorister, let's out 'em all!

Also, are you going to be in the habit of deleting posts when you dislike their content? I notice you deleted my earlier one.
-Smac

(blue font ibid)

You know, I seem to recall this exact post appearing on Mr. Itchy's blog.... Care to comment?

Take your time. You appear to be making things up as you go along, anyway.

Nope. I just rely on the evidence I've got.

> It makes sense that the person who was most vocally opposed to my blog would also be associated with the Itchy blog.

Except I *wasn't* opposed to your blog, vocally or otherwise.

See above. I'm sure, if I feel like it, I can find other remarks you made as well. Would you like me to pull those up too? Or are you ready to just admit that you *were* quite obviously opposed to the blog? Perhaps you'd like to revise your earlier statement about being involved with the Itchy blog, since, after all, your words did seem to appear there?

*Darn* that little thing we call "reality!"

And I find your "reasoning," such as it is, quite revealing. X criticizes your blog, so X *must* have set up a satire of it. Stellar reasoning, that.

I just said it makes sense, that's all. Given the fact that a posting identical to the one I've quoted above appeared on the Itchy blog, it sort of makes even more sense. How is that for "stellar reasoning"?

> Then why did you complain in the first place?

I wasn't complaining. Your accusation shed little light on me, but quite a bit on *you*.

> Hey, I'm in a generous mood. If you'd like, I can append a note on your dossier explaining why the speculation about your being involved with Itchy was removed. Let me know, and I'll take care of it.

As you like.

-Smac

Oh, okay. If you don't care, then I will leave it as is.

[Guest]

> No, no---I was referring to the comments which you made about my blog here. Remember? You know, the comments which I deleted? (And which deletion you subsequently complained about?)

I didn't make any comments about your blog on MormonDiscussions.com. In fact, I wasn't even registered here (and hence unable to post anything) until a few days ago.

I do recall you deleting some of my comments on your blog that I left on your blog. But I left those on your "Dossier" of me, the one that includes the accusation that you are now saying precipitated my "vociferous opposition" to your blog.

So am I a time-traveler now?

In any event, I don't recall being "vociferously opposed" to your blog in the entries I posted. Convenient that you deleted them, so that we'll never know, eh?

Oh, but wait, this is the *third* accusation against me! First I stole your identity on RfM, then I started up a "Mr. Itchy" blog about you, and now I'm "vociferously opposed" to your blog!

What do all three of these accusations have in common? Just this: Zero supporting evidence.

> Gee.... Did you?

Ask your informants. ;)

Honestly, man. I wonder that a person like you can function in society. Is *everyone* a liar in your book? Or do you just reflexively distrust Mormons?

I said earlier "Sorry to burst Mister Scratch's bubble, but I have no interest in impersonating him, nor have I ever done so." There, I've said it twice. So now you can disregard it twice and thus maintain your baseless accusation of me stealing your identity.

> By any chance, Smac, have you ever posted using the moniker, "Opie Rockwell"?

No.

> Where did I ever say that, Smac? Please point me to the post in question. Enlighten me.

It was on RfM. They don't keep an archive of posts. So you'll just have to trust me, the identity-stealing, ripoff-blog-creating, vociferously-opposed-to-your-blog Mormon!

> Remember this?:

Frankly, no. Not until just now. I couldn't recall the content of the posts you deleted.

It sounds like I was paraphrasing something you wrote. Care to provide a link so I can read it in context?

> You know, I seem to recall this exact post appearing on Mr. Itchy's blog.... Care to comment?

I've never seen Mr. Itchy's blog. Care to provide a link?

There is this little feature on most computers called "cut and paste." It enables anyone to cut (copy, actually) context from website X and paste it into website Y.

But let's see Mr. Itchy's blog before we go any further. Where is it?

> Nope. I just rely on the evidence I've got.

Right. So what "evidence" did you have that I stole your identity on RfM?

What "evidence" did you have that I started this "Mr. Itchy" blog thing?

> See above. I'm sure, if I feel like it, I can find other remarks you made as well.

Fine. Let's see 'em.

> Would you like me to pull those up too?

Sure. Let's have 'em all!

> Or are you ready to just admit that you *were* quite obviously opposed to the blog?

I was not, nor am I now, "vociferously opposed" to your blog.

> Perhaps you'd like to revise your earlier statement about being involved with the Itchy blog, since, after all, your words did seem to appear there?

So that's the sum total of your "evidence?"

Glad to see all that objective, empirical evaluation of "evidence" is bearing fruit.

Or nuts. Whatever.

> I just said it makes sense, that's all.

And that's enough, in your mind, to justify a public accusation.

Wow!

> Given the fact that a posting identical to the one I've quoted above appeared on the Itchy blog, it sort of makes even more sense. How is that for "stellar reasoning"?

It's not stellar reasoning. It's banal, puerile and insipid.

-Smac

[_Smac97]

I just looked up the posts from this "Opie Rockwell" fellow.

No, it wasn't me.

A few quotes from Opie:

QUOTE: “Our” leaders? That’s rich, coming from you! If I were your stake president, I’d have your apostate ass in a disciplinary court so fast it’d set records.

==Number 1: I don't cuss ("apostate ass"), so this doesn't sound like me.

QUOTE: I knew Quinn was a buggerer no later than 1985. It could have been earlier.

==Number 2: I would never refer to Quinn (or anyone else) as a "buggerer" or any other deliberately insulting term. Please review my posts on FAIR to confirm.

==Number 3: I was 12 years old in 1985, hardly old enough to be aware of or caring about the sexual orientation of D. Michael Quinn.

QUOTE: That’s how I know that you are an ugly-hearted, bitter old woman who blames God and the church (along with its leaders) for the tribulations of your life – tribulations incident to your own stupid decisions and failure to properly exercise your own agency.

==Number 4: I would never make such crude, sexist comments to harmony (or any other woman).

QUOTE: No, my dear Mr. Scratch, I’m simply a third party who just happened to live in the Salt Lake Stake at the time and was casually aware of some of these things going on.

==Number 5: I've never lived in Salt Lake.

QUOTE: You ask about Quinn’s stake president and what he knew and why he knew it. Well, I know a little bit about this whole affair, since my wife and I lived, at the time, in the same neighborhood with them all.

==Number 6: I was married in 1996, well after the operative events of Quinn's "coming out" took place.

==Number 7: I've never lived in the same neighborhood as D. Michael Quinn.

QUOTE: The stake president was Paul Hanks, a humble and noble man, and a man full of sincere love and concern for the members of his stake.

==Number 8: I don't know Paul Hanks. Never have.

For the record, I am disappointed at many of Opie's comments. many of which were vicious and devoid of any charity, patience or any other virtue.

Opie ain't me, and I ain't Opie.

-Smac

[_Dr. Shades]

> A brief sidenote: do you not know how to use the "quote" feature, Smac? I'd be glad to help you out, if you'd like.

I can't get my posts to appear using the html tags (even though my settings are set for it).

[MODERATOR NOTE: Smac97, for some reason the "Allow HTML" setting doesn't work. Even if you have it turned on, it won't accept HTML tags.

I went ahead and activated your BBcode tags. So, just like at MAD, type [ b ] and [ /b ] to enclose quotes in bold, or [ quote ] and [ /quote ] to enclose them in a quote box, etc. (without the spaces, of course).

If you have any further problems, please let me know.]

[_harmony]

QUOTE: That’s how I know that you are an ugly-hearted, bitter old woman who blames God and the church (along with its leaders) for the tribulations of your life – tribulations incident to your own stupid decisions and failure to properly exercise your own agency.

==Number 4: I would never make such crude, sexist comments to harmony (or any other woman).

Well, for what's it's worth, I didn't pin Opie on you. You may be many things (stubborn, opinionated, and even downright wrong on occasion), but sink to Opie's level? No. You have more class than that. And thanks.

[_Smac97]

Well, for what's it's worth, I didn't pin Opie on you. You may be many things (stubborn, opinionated, and even downright wrong on occasion), but sink to Opie's level? No. You have more class than that. And thanks.

Thanks!

-Smac