Is "Scratch" a fitting name?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow! So why don't you tell me how you really feel, Wade? It really sounds like your heart is full of hate... I thought that was an affliction that was only specific to apostates.

That is facinating. I treat you like you treat others, and somehow you see my actions as a "heart full of hate" rather than as a "clear indication that I do indeed care a great deal about" you.

You said that I was the "least charitable" person you have ever encountered on the whole entire Internet, Wade. That's a bit extreme, no? Anyways, that's the way it sounded to me. Further, I wasn't referring to your "actions." I was referring to a very specific post of yours. Finally, can you demonstrate anywhere that I've "treat[ed] others" in this way?

My comment had in mind me calling you a liar because you had called the Church a liar. Do I need to demonstrate where you called the Church a liar, or is your admission to that affect in your previous post here sufficient?

Yes, you need to demonstrate were I called the Church a liar.

What good would that do if you can't even except your own word?

I can "accept" (and you did mean "accept," didn't you?) my own word, if you provide the evidence. Now snap to it, young man!

I had in mind all the times on this board and others where you have charitably (to the point of self-delusion) declared yourself the victor in a variety of discussions,

Was I not the victor, even if by default?

No.

I beg to differ, Wade. In a debate, if the other person throws in the towel, then the last man left standing is the one who wins. You continuously showed yourself to be a quitter, and so I won.

as well as when you have charitably (again in delusionmal ways) held yourself up as worthy and able to judge the words and actions of scholars and members.

Hmmm. What makes me "unworthy", Wade?

Your having yet to demonstrate worthiness.

And what might that constitute? Can you provide any examples? From yourself, perhaps? And anyways, not demonstrating "worthiness" does not automatically make one "unworthy."

If you don't recall where you have done so, then just search for when I have made note of the Black Knight scene of Monty Python infamy, and check out the 25 threads that you have started since the 1st of December, in which you presumed to criticize, from your remote perch on mount ego, those at MAD/FAIR.

I did not "presume" to criticize. I did criticize.

..as if that makes a difference.

I also had in mind all the threads and posts you have made that were self critical, compared with the 25 threads and innumerable posts where you have been critical of the Church, its members,

Which members? Still no specifics, eh my dear friend Wade?

The titles of your threads and the contents of your posts provide the specificity. If you don't know specifically who you have criticized, then that is your problem, not mine.

I have been critical of juliann and DCP. But so what? That's two people, Wade. Criticism of two of LDS apologetics' most visible and active posters ought not to inspire such upset feelings on your part. Further, I seriously doubt you can provide good reason as to why the criticism was unmerited.

and those defending the faith (the ratio being zero to innumerable, giving me a clear indication of the wealth of charity you have extend towards yourself versus what you have extended to others). If your recollection of what you have written doesn't suffice as evidence, then feel free to read through all your threads and posts and tally the ratio yourself. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope. I'm not going to do that. Sorry.

Exactly. You are unwilling to do what you demand of others. Again, the o'l double standard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I didn't demand anything from you, Wade. You're the one who started this thread. Remember? You say that you want the hurt you feel regarding your "most precious and dear" Church to go away. Maybe it's time to try a different tactic. You claim that criticism of the Church "causes pain to all parties involved," but I can attest to you that good, honest criticism of the Church actually brings me a great deal of joy. It puts a bounce in my step and a song in my heart. So perhaps the problem---after all this time!---actually lies with you.

[_beastie]

Huuuhhh!!!??? As expected, you read that exactly backwards (let;s see if you admit it). I said that YOU were the one claiming I deserved your rudeness. In other words, YOU, ironically, were using me to excuse your bad behavior towards me. NOT the other way around.

The point is, Wade, it's not an excuse under your paradigm.

[_Runtu]

By "turning the other cheek" do you mean like all the times you have spoken disparagingly about me with others on multiple threads in the not-to-distant past? Do you mean like how you uncharitably and unreasonably proclaim the Church to be a fraud and lying about what it claims to be--a position you seem reluctant still to compromise on even today, and even given the benefit it may have on you and your family and former members? You mean like when you claim to want to help eliminate hurt and anger and grief, yet seemingly have dug your heels in very deep on each and every little point where YOU were suggested as contribiting to the problem?

I don't know, John. I innitially viewed you as the most reasonable and loving and intelligent person on the board, and the one I thought would be most open to finding mutually beneficial solutions to the issues you had with the Church and in your life. But, after being subjected to your passive-aggressingness, and having you fight me both tooth and nail on some of the most seemingly benign and uncontroversial points-afer-points, and discovering your remarkable resistence to personal evaluation with me, I have really been given pause to wonder.

I haven't lost all hope. But, I am somewhat exhauted for the moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I'm trying. I have apologized for sometimes treating you with the same hostility you've shown to me, and I truly am sorry for that. The thread about "lying" I was hoping to continue in. I've never understood, for example, why you said that losing my faith wasn't really a loss at all.

I don't know how it's uncharitable for me to simply state that I believe the church is not what it claims to be. It's no more uncharitable to say that Scientology isn't true or that the little girls who photographed fairies in the 19th century lied about what they did.

If I have "fought" you, it is because I have been reluctant to follow you down numerous tangential paths that are not apparently related to the topic at hand.

I'm not exhausted. I understand why you have made the judgments you have about me. I think I'm fairly reasonable and loving and adequately intelligent. It's a little disheartening for you to write me off in that way, but then it's your loss. Well, mine, too, as I had hoped we could come up with something mutually beneficial.

But even when I've been as kind and patient as I can, you return it with hostility. I am genuinely saddened, Wade.

John

[_Mercury]

One of the participants here, who cowardly and lyingly operates under the guise of "Mr. Scratch", is fond of using the phrase "fittingly named" in relation to the MAD board, and "not-so-fittingly named" in relation to the FAIR board.

That got me to thinking whether his/her screen name is "fitting" or not?

Here is my take. When I think of the word "scratch", there are several images that come to mind:

First, I see a slight gouge on a vinyl record album that causes the record to repeat things over and over again. Given "Scratch's" incessant refrane (i.e. "MAD/FAIR this...MAD/FAIR that...DCP this...MAD/FAIR that...MAD/FAIR this...Juliann that...DCP this...MAD/FAIR this and that..."), I think the name fits very well in that regard.

Second, I invision a pair of fingernails drug the length of a chalk board. Given "Scratch's" invariably shrill whines and complaints, I think his/her screen name is very "fitting" as well.

Third, I see dirty finger nails clawing at a mild skin irritation, dysfunctionally causing it to bleed and festor and become infected. Yep, "Mr. Scratch's" approach to discussing issue involving the MAD/FAIR and its moderators and members (and perhaps even the Church and its members), is quite fitting in that way as well.

Fourth, I imagine the kind and extent of "scratches" on a pair of glasses such that they significantly limit one's sight and may even distort one's visions. Given how frequently or invariably "Mr. Scratch" has failed to correctly see or understand what I or others have said (often in mind-boggling ways), not to mention how he, in Mr. Magoo-like fashion ends up verbally boxing with his own projected shadow on the wall (falsely assuming it is one of many LDS apologist), then the screen name "fits" in that sense too.

What are your thoughts? Is the screen name "Mr. Scratch" fitting or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your comments illjustrate you do not have an education. Mr Scratch is, correct me if im wrong, using the name of the devil from puritan tales of the crossroads and Faustian deals. Course, you probably don't know what those are either.

Quick wade, run to wikipedia!!!!