The SCMC: New information Comes to Light

[_wenglund]

Either you have obsessed enough over RFM to fairly make generalizations on the nature of the place or you have not.

This is classic binary thinking.

Does anyone else besides "beastie" think one necessarily has to obsess over something before one can make a "fair generalization"?

I realize that obsession is no gaurantee of "fair generalizations" (as evinced by how frequently Scratch has been authoritatively corrected by the object of his obsession), but that is another question. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_barrelomonkeys]

It's Friday night. Why don't you go out somewhere? Have some fun. That's what I'm going to do.

Ouch!

[_Gadianton]

Either you have obsessed enough over RFM to fairly make generalizations on the nature of the place or you have not.

This is classic binary thinking.

Does anyone else besides "beastie" think one necessarily has to obsess over something before one can make a "fair generalization"?

I realize that obsession is no gaurantee of "fair generalizations" (as evinced by how frequently Scratch has been authoritatively corrected by the object of his obsession), but that is another question. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does anyone but Wade think that if Beastie were to believe one has to obsess over RFM to fairly make generalizations about the place that this means Beastie believes, generally, one has to obsess in order to make fair generalizations? I think that's the binary thinking of the interpreter reading that in.

[_wenglund]

Either you have obsessed enough over RFM to fairly make generalizations on the nature of the place or you have not.

This is classic binary thinking.

Does anyone else besides "beastie" think one necessarily has to obsess over something before one can make a "fair generalization"?

I realize that obsession is no gaurantee of "fair generalizations" (as evinced by how frequently Scratch has been authoritatively corrected by the object of his obsession), but that is another question. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does anyone but Wade think that if Beastie were to believe one has to obsess over RFM to fairly make generalizations about the place that this means Beastie believes, generally, one has to obsess in order to make fair generalizations? I think that's the binary thinking of the interpreter reading that in.

I suppose there is the possibility that "Beastie" arbitrarily and selectively applied that "rule"--at least in this specific case. But, absent any qualifiers on her part, I think it reasonable to presume that she didn't (not to be confused with "binary thinking"--inductively presuming one thing does not necessarily mean one has restricted the number of ways of looking at it to just two). Perhaps I gave her more credit than she deserved. ;-)

Whatever the case, if it is of any help, though, let me phrase the question more specifically to read: "Does anyone else besides 'beastie' think one necessarily has to obsess over RFM before one can make a "fair generalization" about RFM?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I'm using the word "obsess" in the same sense that people are using it to describe scratch's ongoing interest in Daniel. I seriously doubt that he is spending hours every day feeding his obsession. A couple of hours a week? So yes, for a board as busy as RFM, I think at least an hour a week reading threads would be required to make a fair generalization about the board. Certainly peeking in and spending a few minutes now and then doesn't give one enough information to make a fair generalization, particularly when one is deliberately seeking out inflammatory posts.

My boyfriend works on friday nights, so this is my entertainment for the night. Yes, it's boring, I know, but you're participating, aren't you?

[_Mister Scratch]

Either you have obsessed enough over RFM to fairly make generalizations on the nature of the place or you have not.

So, according to Beastie Principle #2, in order to make generalizations about a subject, one must be obsessed by it.

That's even more ridiculous than Beastie Principle #1.

It's Friday night. Why don't you go out somewhere? Have some fun. That's what I'm going to do.

What, by screening a silent anti-Mormon film with Bill Hamblin, just like the two of you have done in the past---for Family Home Evening no less! Boy, I bet that sure was uplifting!

It's better, if you're going to write a formal essay on the subject, to have actually taken careful notes during your obsessive observation so as not to have to rely on problematic memory.

If ever I choose to write a formal essay, let alone an academic article,

Wait a sec.... Back up here. As I recall, you have published no less than two (and perhaps more) articles dealing with this board and/or RfM. You published these in FARMS Review. Does this mean that you don't regard FARMS Review as an "academic" venue?

about RFM -- which I have no present intention of doing -- I'll certainly keep some notes. You may not know this, but I actually have some experience with academic research and writing.

Incidentally, one of the quotations that you cite as demonstrating my alleged obsession with (and ignorance of) RFM wasn't even about RFM. As for the others, I feel quite confident in standing behind them, even without either an obsession or a Beastie-approved "dossier."

There are several good movies out there. And you don't need to set up a dossier about them.

Beastie is quite right, and, as usual, Wade is up the creek without a paddle. If I am "obsessed," then what are we to say about Prof. P.? He has amassed over 5,000 posts on MAD. He has posted countless times to RfM, using Lord knows how many aliases (and, on top of this, he has read it enough to formulate his articles). Over 1,800 posts on ZLMB (and this was just under his own name---how many were posted as "FreeThinker"? How many as "LogicChopper"? How many using his countless other aliases?) He has nearly 500 posts here. On top of this, he leads all writers at FARMS Review, having published (I believe) over eighty articles for them. In addition to this, he goes on the "lecture circuit" at various conferences in order to wax poetic on all things ex- and anti-Mormon. His CV is top-heavy with all his Mopologetic activities (his contributions to the world of Islamic scholarship, as Guy Sajer has rightly pointed out, are relatively miniscule), and yet Wade wants to try and make some point about proportion? Now, how's that work? Who is the "nick" and who is the "decapitation"? How does one blog compare to all of that? (Oh, wait---I left out DCP's viewing of anti-Mormon films for FHE, his contributions to SHIELDS, his commentary on the Jewish blog, his back-and-forth with Infymus... Gee, I must be forgetting something, right?) If Wade was a real man, he would admit that he made a mistake. Will he do this, given how much he wants to contribute to "goodness" and "joy" in the world? I can hardly wait to find out!

[_Daniel Peterson]

As I recall, you have published no less than two (and perhaps more) articles dealing with this board and/or RfM.

I've never published an article about either this board or RFM. A couple of times, maybe more, I've used a quotation or several quotations from here or from there in order to set up a discussion of something else.

He has posted countless times to RfM, using Lord knows how many aliases

By using the word countless and the expression Lord knows how many, you implicitly admit that you're just making this up. I've rarely posted on RFM, and I've used my own name. The last time was probably two years ago.

I'm impressed, though, by your zeal for monitoring the numbers of my posts here and there -- even if you have to supplement your researches, as usual, with pure fiction.

Over 2,000 posts on ZLMB (and this was just under his own name---how many were posted as "FreeThinker"? How many as "LogicChopper"?

Far, far, far fewer as "Freethinker," and fewer still as "Logic Chopper."

How many using his countless other aliases?

Off hand, I can't remember any other aliases. And, again, by offering only a vague countless, you're acknowledging that what you're saying is wholly untethered to any actual facts.

He has nearly 500 posts here.

Most of them racked up during insane back-and-forths with you and Other Scratch.

How any of this demonstrates some sort of obsession with RFM on my part, though, eludes me.

On top of this, he leads all writers at FARMS Review, having published (I believe) over eighty articles for them.

Which, I suppose, further demonstrates my alleged obsession with RFM?

Have you given up all pretense of making any sense?

In addition to this, he goes on the "lecture circuit" at various conferences in order to wax poetic on all things ex- and anti-Mormon.

By "various conferences" and the "lecture circuit" I assume you mean the annual FAIR conference?

His CV is top-heavy with all his Mopologetic activities (his contributions to the world of Islamic scholarship, as Guy Sajer has rightly pointed out, are relatively miniscule)

You haven't seen my CV, poor fellow. I realize that that's unlikely to slow you down, but I thought I'd point it out nonetheless.

Oh, wait---I left out DCP's viewing of anti-Mormon films for FHE

By which you mean once inviting some friends over for popcorn and a showing of the hilarious 1922 British silent film Trapped by the Mormons? I take it that this is supposed to indicate some grave moral or psychological defect in me, but I'm afraid I don't quite see what it might be. Perhaps it's the idea of a sense of humor, rather than grim and obsessive fanaticism, that disturbs you?

You seem exceptionally weird tonight, Scratch. I'm impressed, though, by all of the stuff you've managed to accumulate in your dossier on me. That must have taken many, many hours to gather up. The level of detail is genuinely remarkable. Why would it ever occur to anybody that you might be . . . well, obsessed?

[_moksha]

My quotes include things written by Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, and Nike, among others, not people from internet bulletin boards.

In other words, you maintain Sinister Dossiers (shudder!) on Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, and Nike?

If I were Scratch, I'd soon have you depicted as an agent of some vast global espionage network.

One never knows when Elders Frost, Thomas and Nike will need to be called into the Bishop's Office.

[_Daniel Peterson]

To whoever it is who posts under the name of "Mister Scratch":

Your 11:20 PM note from last night was very striking to me. The level of detailed information (and misinformation) that you've sought to gather on me, coupled with your implacable hostility and your apparent obsession with me, has puzzled me for some time. Last night's note made me suddenly wonder, quite seriously, whether you might represent a potential threat to me and even to my family. Your behavior toward me in (I'm guessing) hundreds of posts over the past year or two has seemed to me, frankly, somewhat pathological. Your 11:20 note appears to reflect a more deep-seated hatred, a more comprehensive but -- and this was the biggest worry -- rather subterranean enmity, than I had really picked up on before. I found the thought chilling.

You're anonymous. I'm not. In fact, I'm fairly public and easily found. It's obviously impossible for me to disappear, but it occurs to me that it might be advisable for me to avoid further contact with you so as not to aggravate your seeming fixation.

Perhaps, of course, I'm wrong. I know nothing about you. Perhaps my concerns are without any foundation. But I can't know that. You may say that I'm being insulting. I don't mean to be. I'm entirely serious. The note last night crossed a line in my mind, and the more I reflected on it the more certain I became that this has to be the end. I had already decided to cut back on the time I've been wasting with you, and had in mind a final and rather humorous response. But I've decided that it would be unwise to taunt you.

I wish you all the best.

[_Mister Scratch]

To whoever it is who posts under the name of "Mister Scratch":

Your 11:20 PM note from last night was very striking to me. The level of detailed information (and misinformation) that you've sought to gather on me, coupled with your implacable hostility and your apparent obsession with me, has puzzled me for some time. Last night's note made me suddenly wonder, quite seriously, whether you might represent a potential threat to me and even to my family. Your behavior toward me in (I'm guessing) hundreds of posts over the past year or two has seemed to me, frankly, somewhat pathological. Your 11:20 note appears to reflect a more deep-seated hatred, a more comprehensive but -- and this was the biggest worry -- rather subterranean enmity, than I had really picked up on before. I found the thought chilling.

Gee, and this is coming from the person who has been carrying on about me being "paranoid" over the course of the past few threads? Get over it, Prof. P. As I've pointed out before, I've never done anything beyond read your online stuff. I don't have any interest in dealing with you beyond that. I have found, from dealing with you Mopologetic knuckleheads, that I cannot pile on ENOUGH details in order for you guys to concede that I've got a point! Plus, unlike you, I am not constantly attacking your character, or sticking all sorts of insulting labels on you. Either way, I take this post as evidence that you have finally flipped-out into the de rigueur LDS fashion of labeling opponents as being "possessed by Satan"---i.e., "subterranean." Well, I am "Mister Scratch," after all! ; )

You're anonymous. I'm not. In fact, I'm fairly public and easily found. It's obviously impossible for me to disappear, but it occurs to me that it might be advisable for me to avoid further contact with you so as not to aggravate your seeming fixation.

Perhaps, of course, I'm wrong. I know nothing about you. Perhaps my concerns are without any foundation. But I can't know that. You may say that I'm being insulting. I don't mean to be. I'm entirely serious. The note last night crossed a line in my mind, and the more I reflected on it the more certain I became that this has to be the end. I had already decided to cut back on the time I've been wasting with you, and had in mind a final and rather humorous response. But I've decided that it would be unwise to taunt you.

I wish you all the best.

This has got to be among the most bizarre posts from you I have ever seen. I can only guess that you're suffering an emotional meltdown here because I proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are every bit as "obsessive" as anyone else on these boards.

But, if you've chosen now to take a break, I will bid you "adieu." I wish you the best, too, Prof. P. If you ever choose to come back, I'll look forward to crossing swords with you again at that time.

Warm wishes,
Mr. S.