DCP naming names again

[_Darth J]

the Scratch machine;

[_Drifting]

If you knew Dr. Scratch's in real life identity, how would you and your friends put a stop to his obsessive hate campaign?

- Doc Cam

Given his demonstrated cowardice, in the extent to which he relies upon anonymity to protect him...

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran's not your real name, right?
So if protecting ones anonymity is akin to 'cowardice', that would make most of us, yourself included...well...cowards, right?

So you're a self confessed coward. Got it.

[_Philidel]

I don't know what kind of "research" you think I have done, Scratch. If you are accusing me of looking at IP addresses and giving that type of information to Pahoran or anyone else, I flat out deny it.

Did Pahoran tell me that he thought that Chino Blanco was Scratch? Yes, he did.

Did I suggest that Dan unfriend Jason Echols, who was on Dan's Facebook friend list? Yes, I did. (by the way, Dan does not know Jason, and has no idea why that person was on his friends list to begin with.)

Pahoran had already told Dan that he thought Jason was Scratch. All I did was notice that Jason Echols' name was on Dan's Friends list, and suggested that he remove Jason as a friend as a security precaution.

I did read on Jason's Facebook page (which is public) that he spent time in Taiwan. The comment I made to Scratch was an obscure swipe. It was a payback for his prior pulling of crap on me when he has tried to get me ousted as a Moderator previously.

It was an obscure enough swipe that if Scratch was NOT Jason Echols, Scratch would not know what the hell I was talking about, and it would be no harm no foul. If Scratch WAS Jason, then it would allow him to know that I suspected who he was, and he better simply leave me alone.

I find the idea of a moderator dialoguing with someone like Pahoran about the possible identity of an MDB poster - as Liz now says has - to be extremely unsettling.

And is she outing Chino as Jason Echols? It would appear that she is. Why do that?

I really do think that moderators need to avoid the appearance of evil in order to retain the trust of other posters. I am not clear whether Liz has succeeded in doing that.

Admittedly I'm a newcomer, a nearly unknown quantity. However, I have to agree with Chap. Liz, unfortunately, your protestations strike me as disingenuous. I'm not saying dishonest; I believe you're telling the truth about your communications. But these are not 'innocent' communications in the context of this board.

[_beastie]

Can someone point me to where Scratch apparently went ballistic at the "hints" Pahoran delivered? I don't recall that happening, but, of course, I don't read every thread on this board.

[_Kishkumen]

Can someone point me to where Scratch apparently went ballistic at the "hints" Pahoran delivered? I don't recall that happening, but, of course, I don't read every thread on this board.

I have the same question.

[_sock puppet]

Can someone point me to where Scratch apparently went ballistic at the "hints" Pahoran delivered? I don't recall that happening, but, of course, I don't read every thread on this board.

I have the same question.

There was a thread about a month back, I think Chap could direct you, where Pahoran--whom virtually everyone knows his in real life name anyway--smugly insisted that the rule against in real life information be observed, but kept dropping hints of his Scratch=chino blanco assumption. Pahoran was all Pharisaical about the rule as it applied to him (even though he has not guarded his in real life identity in the past) but trying to out another poster who has guarded his own in real life identity quite well. It was a spectacular display of hypocrisy.

[Tator]

There was a thread about a month back, I think Chap could direct you, where Pahoran--whom virtually everyone knows his in real life name anyway--smugly insisted that the rule against in real life information be observed, but kept dropping hints of his Scratch=chino blanco assumption. Pahoran was all Pharisaical about the rule as it applied to him (even though he has not guarded his in real life identity in the past) but trying to out another poster who has guarded his own in real life identity quite well. It was a spectacular display of hypocrisy.

Thanks, with that tip, I found it.

viewtopic.php?p=636066#p636066

So Pahoran and liz think Scratch confirmed their suspicions when he made snarky comments to them after liz mentioned Taiwan?

Scratch often makes snarky comments to people, so I'm at a loss to see how this was some sort of confirmation of their suspicions.

I do not approve of all of Scratch's postings, as he knows. I have no idea who he is and have not attempted to find out. But I do know this - if someone started dropping "hints" that they knew my "real life" identity, if I had taken care not to reveal that to them, even if their hints were wrong, I'd respond snarkily.

In fact, if I were scratch and the hints were correct, I'd be more apt to blow them off. Responding testily may give them the impression that they were on the right trail after all, and that is NOT the impression I'd wish to convey, if the hints were correct.

And if Scratch's reaction is the only evidence they have for their suspicion, it is a sad case. And while the person in question may not mind being labeled as scratch, it is certainly an accusation made with venom and malice on DCP's part, since he has been quite open in his views on Scratch as being mentally deranged.

DCP has always maintained that scratch is a big fish in a silly, ridiculous, little pool only fools would pay attention to. Given that, this extraordinary effort to uncover is real identity is troubling to me. Let's be frank, here - certain defenders of the faith on the internet have made it a mission to "out" critics to their family and ward. I have always found that despicable, and because of that tendency, I automatically assume when a defender of the faith makes a concerted effort to uncover some critic's real life identity, it is probably with the aim to cause said problems. This willingness to tattle on other members has a long and troubling history in the church.

[_Drifting]

If Taiwan and snarky remarks are an indication of Scratch then there are a plethora of potential suspects...just search "Taiwan" on this board and you will find pages upon pages of references to Taiwan followed by snarky remarks.

I hope they had more to go on than that!!!

[_Chap]

If Taiwan and snarky remarks are an indication of Scratch then there are a plethora of potential suspects...just search "Taiwan" on this board and you will find pages upon pages of references to Taiwan followed by snarky remarks.

I hope they had more to go on than that!!!

The focus was much tighter than that. We had 'Democrats Abroad in Taiwan', plus the fact that the person in question was male and had LDS connections. A bit of well-structured googling soon gets you to a very likely target.

[_Drifting]

If Taiwan and snarky remarks are an indication of Scratch then there are a plethora of potential suspects...just search "Taiwan" on this board and you will find pages upon pages of references to Taiwan followed by snarky remarks.

I hope they had more to go on than that!!!

The focus was much tighter than that. We had 'Democrats Abroad in Taiwan', plus the fact that the person in question was male and had LDS connections. A bit of well-structured googling soon gets you to a very likely target.

I realise that gets you a person, but I fail to see how that connects to Scratch.