Drifting wrote: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!!!
Drifting wrote:
Chap wrote: 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.
You are missing the point: Liz thought when she made that post that Scratch was probably Jason Echols, the person to whom the indications of 'Democrats Abroad in Taiwan' and 'LDS male' lead when taken together. What she thought she was doing amounted to outing the person she thought Scratch to be.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
beastie wrote: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.
It is clear that Dr Scratch is a 'cool cucumber', not a hot head like DCP and Hambone. Protesting reactions by DCP or Hambone would betray that the accusation is in fact true. They are true reactionaries, and their buttons easily identified and pushed.
Dr Scratch, on the other hand, is cool and calm. His being miffed about the not-so-subtle hints at a theory of his in real life identity, as Pahoran was doing, suggests just the opposite, to throw Pahoran and his posse off track.
Why is it that Pahoran gets to openly attempt to out the in real life details of a poster here yet get his garments in a bunch monthly when people mention his in real life information?
Is it me or did he just lose the right to complain every time he is outed?
Phaedrus Ut wrote:Why is it that Pahoran gets to openly attempt to out the in real life details of a poster here yet get his garments in a bunch monthly when people mention his in real life information?
Is it me or did he just lose the right to complain every time he is outed?
Phaedrus
Phaedrus, even-handed application of the rules is a lofty goal, but as long as humans are the ones applying rules, the application will be hit-and-miss, often to pursue hidden agendas of the power holder. It is one reason I favor venues with fewer rather than more rules. We're all human, so how much power do we want to vest in any one or handful, regardless of whom is selected to possess the power?
I thank Shades for the dearth of rules here, to keep just such instances to a minimum.
beastie wrote: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.
Well, this is almost the same team of wingnuts and bozos that believed I was Scratch. That time liz was not to be found in their number.
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.
Very true.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
The thing I find the most troubling in all of this is DCP's willingness to publicly assert that person X is Scratch, when DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious and probably mentally deranged person, who could be a target of his future lawsuit.
He had better had some very serious and solid evidence that person X is, indeed, Scratch. Otherwise he has shown himself to be thoroughly lacking in judgment and character.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:The thing I find the most troubling in all of this is DCP's willingness to publicly assert that person X is Scratch, when DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious and probably mentally deranged person, who could be a target of his future lawsuit.
He had better had some very serious and solid evidence that person X is, indeed, Scratch. Otherwise he has shown himself to be thoroughly lacking in judgment and character.
Yes, that is the most troubling thing. But it is also, unfortunately, completely within Daniel's character as we have seen him act out time and again. He has a meltdown of some kind and then goes on an electronic rampage against his alleged "enemies." His philosophy seems to be "accuse them all and let God sort them out."
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
beastie wrote:The thing I find the most troubling in all of this is DCP's willingness to publicly assert that person X is Scratch, when DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious and probably mentally deranged person, who could be a target of his future lawsuit.
He had better had some very serious and solid evidence that person X is, indeed, Scratch. Otherwise he has shown himself to be thoroughly lacking in judgment and character.
Yes, that is the most troubling thing. But it is also, unfortunately, completely within Daniel's character as we have seen him act out time and again. He has a meltdown of some kind and then goes on an electronic rampage against his alleged "enemies." His philosophy seems to be "accuse them all and let God sort them out."
True enough. Look at all the innuendo and besmirching of Gerald Bradford, with winks and nods that they have evidence he acted alone (no upline Mormon involvement or support) and with a hidden agenda, but of course they offer up no evidence or facts.
If anything, it appears that Bradford had been giving DCP chance, after chance, after bloody chance to get on board, before at last canning him for having not taken any of those chances. Yet, somehow DCP is in the right having bucked his superior, and Bradford bad for not having indulged his subordinate yet again.
sock puppet wrote:True enough. Look at all the innuendo and besmirching of Gerald Bradford, with winks and nods that they have evidence he acted alone (no upline Mormon involvement or support) and with a hidden agenda, but of course they offer up no evidence or facts.
If anything, it appears that Bradford had been giving DCP chance, after chance, after bloody chance to get on board, before at last canning him for having not taken any of those chances. Yet, somehow DCP is in the right having bucked his superior, and Bradford bad for not having indulged his subordinate yet again.
Regardless of what went on there, and I am admittedly inclined to sympathize with Bradford, one does not publicly air such dirty laundry from the workplace for all the world to see.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
sock puppet wrote:True enough. Look at all the innuendo and besmirching of Gerald Bradford, with winks and nods that they have evidence he acted alone (no upline Mormon involvement or support) and with a hidden agenda, but of course they offer up no evidence or facts.
If anything, it appears that Bradford had been giving DCP chance, after chance, after bloody chance to get on board, before at last canning him for having not taken any of those chances. Yet, somehow DCP is in the right having bucked his superior, and Bradford bad for not having indulged his subordinate yet again.
Regardless of what went on there, and I am admittedly inclined to sympathize with Bradford, one does not publicly air such dirty laundry from the workplace for all the world to see.
I think DCP & Co have not aired the dirty laundry there, just have claimed Bradford's attire is badly soiled. Bradford, on the other hand, has neither aired it, nor claimed DCP's shorts are soiled.