From My Informant: A Clandestine Meeting at the MI?

[_Gadianton]

Huh. I guess I can understand why you'd be skeptical Trevor. But beyond the fact that I consider Doctor Scratch to be a man of his word, I just don't see the point of making it up. Why Ugo? He's never been a part of the crew Scratch has ever discussed nor does his personality or Mopologetic history beg for an entrance onto the stage.

[_Molok]

I just don't see the point of making it up. Why Ugo? He's never been a part of the crew Scratch has ever discussed nor does his personality or Mopologetic history beg for an entrance onto the stage.

Misdirection, obviously!

[_Trevor]

Huh. I guess I can understand why you'd be skeptical Trevor. But beyond the fact that I consider Doctor Scratch to be a man of his word, I just don't see the point of making it up. Why Ugo? He's never been a part of the crew Scratch has ever discussed nor does his personality or Mopologetic history beg for an entrance onto the stage.

OK. Well, I don't really know Scratch, but he has floated a lot of information that has gone absolutely nowhere.

Why make it up? Why Ugo? Because anyone with an eye for good, humorous fiction can easily see the juicy possibilities. Ugo's testimony sparked the whole thing.

What I see here is a joke, and a pretty silly one too. The guy with the long hair in his 40s is meant to be Will Schryver. The test is to see whether he is the "love child" of Hugh Nibley, hence the presence of one of Nibley's children. Ugo comes in to report the findings.

If Scratch didn't make it up, he has been played, and he has been the bullhorn for a real howler. Who better than the abandoned lovechild of Dr. Nibley to protect the Book of Abraham for the new generation?

I can't see this as a joke that an apologist would come up with, but a critic with a wicked sense of humor? Sure. Scratch just sets it out there for people to connect the dots. And the fact that he did not connect the dots for us provides him the appearance of deniability.

The whole thing is a fiction.

[_William Schryver]

Huh. I guess I can understand why you'd be skeptical Trevor. But beyond the fact that I consider Doctor Scratch to be a man of his word, I just don't see the point of making it up. Why Ugo? He's never been a part of the crew Scratch has ever discussed nor does his personality or Mopologetic history beg for an entrance onto the stage.

OK. Well, I don't really know Scratch, but he has floated a lot of information that has gone absolutely nowhere.

Why make it up? Why Ugo? Because anyone with an eye for good, humorous fiction can easily see the juicy possibilities. Ugo's testimony sparked the whole thing.

What I see here is a joke, and a pretty silly one too. The guy with the long hair in his 40s is meant to be Will Schryver. The test is to see whether he is the "love child" of Hugh Nibley, hence the presence of one of Nibley's children. Ugo comes in to report the findings.

If Scratch didn't make it up, he has been played, and he has been the bullhorn for a real howler. Who better than the abandoned lovechild of Dr. Nibley to protect the Book of Abraham for the new generation?

I can't see this as a joke that an apologist would come up with, but a critic with a wicked sense of humor? Sure. Scratch just sets it out there for people to connect the dots. And the fact that he did not connect the dots for us provides him the appearance of deniability.

The whole thing is a fiction.

Whoa! Seriously? A "love-child?" Who knew dear old mom had a thing for scholars dressed up like Anubis? I mean, I knew I was adopted, but Nibley as the pater familias in absentia?

Once again, just when you think to yourself "you can't make this stuff up," someone does.

If someone doesn't one day write a doctoral dissertation based on this message board, it will be a damn shame ...

[_Trevor]

Whoa! Seriously? A "love-child?" Who knew dear old mom had a thing for scholars dressed up like Anubis? I mean, I knew I was adopted, but Nibley as the pater familias in absentia?

Once again, just when you think to yourself "you can't make this stuff up," someone does.

If someone doesn't one day write a doctoral dissertation based on this message board, it will be a damn shame ...

You have hit on another piece of information that suggested the whole joke. If I recall correctly, you mentioned the fact that you were adopted rather recently, whether again or for the first time I do not know. But, the mystery of your family history provided yet more fodder for virtuoso Scratchian conspiracy-theorizing.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Who knew dear old mom had a thing for scholars dressed up like Anubis?

This would be the most perfect sig line ever...

If someone doesn't one day write a doctoral dissertation based on this message board, it will be a damn shame ...

Sounds like a job for the Peterson Institute for Scratchian Studies.

WW

[_Trevor]

Sounds like a job for the Peterson Institute for Scratchian Studies.

WW

Oh great! Now you've revealed the existence of the super secret Institute. Why don't you just let every cat out of the bag?!?!?!?!

[_Gadianton]

That's a brilliant conjecture Trevor, full points for creativity.

But I think this is legitimate intel. And I disagree that previous intel hasn't gone anywhere, some of the stuff Scratch has proposed I've been skeptical of, and then it turns out to have merit.

[_Trevor]

But I think this is legitimate intel. And I disagree that previous intel hasn't gone anywhere, some of the stuff Scratch has proposed I've been skeptical of, and then it turns out to have merit.

The operative word being "some," and I think what usually happens is that the subsequent discussion is the productive part. Scratch goes from offering BS to getting denials from apologists that actually reveal some credible information. That credible information is most often not very earth-shaking stuff.

[_The Nehor]

That's a brilliant conjecture Trevor, full points for creativity.

But I think this is legitimate intel. And I disagree that previous intel hasn't gone anywhere, some of the stuff Scratch has proposed I've been skeptical of, and then it turns out to have merit.

If by 'intel' you mean the ground-breaking revelations of things the MI put on their website then yes, SOME of the intel was accurate.