DCP naming names again

[_Yoda]

Some day you'll be sitting in a telestial kingdom priesthood class with Droopy and Why me as your instructors. Now that's hell.

Now this made me LOL!

It is also sig-worthy.

[_Drifting]

I think if I was DCP I would be giving pause to my consideration as to who was actually on my side. Perhaps Liz and Pahoran are actually Dr Scratch and concocted a plan to get DCP to publicly shoot himself in the foot.

The evidence fits...

[_Pahoran]

There is so much that is going on in hunt to determine the identity of Scratch that makes the participants look silly. One hardly needs to comment.

And yet somehow you can't help yourself.

You are overlooking the fact that the worthless Scratch has relied upon his anonymity as a shield for his relentless campaign of harassment for the last six years.

And I'm sure you're just fine with that. It's not as if questions of right and wrong matter to you at all.

Daniel Peterson's histrionics over it are the stuff of mock epic.

The fact that he has numerous lackeys and minions assisting him is drop dead hilarious.

The fact that the highlighted portion comes from the fellow who is proud to be Scratch's number one lackey, minion and all-around lickspittle is even more hilarious.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

This is a valid point. Everyone seems to agree that accusing the wrong person of being Scratch is essentially defamatory. Even Scratch's claque agree to that.

So what does that say about Scratch? That his utter vileness is simply taken as read?

Regards,
Pahoran

DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious, mentally deranged person.

Oh, without question he's malicious. That's just a fact. Is he mentally deranged? Possibly. He certainly seems unable to recognise anything that might refute his assertions; I've frequently seen him claim that something supports his position when in fact it completely eviscerates it.

So when DCP named someone as Scratch, he was certainly making a deliberately defamatory remark.

It's only "deliberately defamatory" if he did not have a good faith belief that the identification was correct.

Whether or not posters agree with DCP's defamatory description of Scratch is quite besides the point. Of course it was entirely predictable that you would attempt this bit of sophistry.

Thus speaks the unchallenged queen of "sophistry."

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Oh, without question he's malicious. That's just a fact. Is he mentally deranged? Possibly. He certainly seems unable to recognise anything that might refute his assertions; I've frequently seen him claim that something supports his position when in fact it completely eviscerates it.

The idea of you being qualified to judge the behavior of others is ludicrous.

It's only "deliberately defamatory" if he did not have a good faith belief that the identification was correct.

So, do tell, Pahoran. Upon what evidence did DCP base his "good faith belief" that the identification "was correct?" We've been waiting with bated breath to hear just that.

Thus speaks the unchallenged queen of "sophistry."

Regards,
Pahoran

Thus speaks the individual who has succeeded, through this silly episode, in making himself look even more ridiculous than he has long looked.

[_Yoda]

There was a group of people who were complicit in gathering the information and giving it to DCP. One of these folks is a moderator here at MDB.

I've also had issues with this same moderator sharing private information.

I just saw this. Would you mind explaining exactly what the hell you are talking about?

[_Kishkumen]

I just saw this. Would you mind explaining exactly what the hell you are talking about?

Perhaps that you referred to in real life information in the belief that it accurately referred to the in real life identity of Doctor Scratch.

[_Kishkumen]

And yet somehow you can't help yourself.

Yes, that is what hardly means, bonehead.

You are overlooking the fact that the worthless Scratch has relied upon his anonymity as a shield for his relentless campaign of harassment for the last six years.

And I'm sure you're just fine with that. It's not as if questions of right and wrong matter to you at all.

When Daniel Peterson grows a conscience about his participation in the Review is the moment I will care about the inevitable blowback.

His two-decade crusade against people who disagree with him about Mormonism was indeed shameful. He more than looked on serenely while people like the shiftless Greg Smith tarnished the name of Laura Compton and others; he made it possible. I frankly don't feel sorry for him. It would be like trying to feel sorry for Lee Atwater for his political smear campaigns. I just can't bring myself to sympathize with the man's bad reputation, well-earned as it was.

The fact that the highlighted portion comes from the fellow who is proud to be Scratch's number one lackey, minion and all-around lickspittle is even more hilarious.

Hey, you're Daniel Peterson's personal Inspector Clouseau. Clearly you have no room to talk. I don't believe I have ever committed that kind of time to helping Doctor Scratch. I merely join in conversations in which he participates and have a fun time doing it. The day I behave like you do, that is when I will start to worry about myself.

[_Yoda]

I just saw this. Would you mind explaining exactly what the hell you are talking about?

Perhaps that you referred to in real life information in the belief that it accurately referred to the in real life identity of Doctor Scratch.

It sounded to me that Everybody Wang Chung was referring to something else. If I am being accused of something other than the current issue, I would like to know about it.

[Guest]

@pahoran

given DCP's history using personal identification to engage in the politics of personal destruction, one need not wonder why Dr Scratch's anonymity bothers you or why you long for his in real life identity so or what you'd do with it. for those reasons, I do what I can to help preserve his anonymity, and do so proudly.