Mister Scratch wrote:Who are these horrible, evil, internet boogie men, Pah? Would you like a side of black helicopters to accompany your paranoia? It seems more likely that you are just trying to avoid being made accountable for the way you have long been treating others on the MBs.
Not only is that not the case, I fail to see how you can plausibly claim to believe that it is so. I am here in the same user name as I usually use. How does that "avoid being made accountable?"
Mister Scratch wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:4) Your obsessive hate blog contains a number of libellous falsehoods.
What are they? And this is about the fourth time I've asked you this, too. I'm open to discussing corrections. But you have to let me know what they are.
I did, in the "comments" section of your blog, and you deleted them.
Probably so that you could pretend that I never told you what they were.
But so that you have no excuse, here are a few again, in no particular order:
1) I am not Kemara.
I haven't received clear evidence from you on this.
Yes you have. I clearly and unequivocally said so. How much clearer could it be?
Tell us, Scratchy: what, if anything, would you accept as "evidence" in this case? Inquiring minds want to know!
Mister Scratch wrote:I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara.
Really? Who are they? Will I have the opportunity to confront my anonymous accusers, or do you conduct all your trials in the Inquisition style?
Mister Scratch wrote:You're the only one claiming otherwise.
I'm also the only person here with first-hand knowledge thereof.
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, there is pretty good reason to believe that you would lie about this, especially given all the lecturing you do to others about sockpuppets.
Actually there is no good reason to believe that I would lie about this. Unlike some others, I have no lies on record.
Mister Scratch wrote:2) Kemara never claimed to be female, but rather explicitly says he is male.
Hey, provide me with evidence, and I'll change it. No problem. My sources have told me otherwise, but if you give me a quote from FAIR, I'll change this.
I've already done so. How many times do I have to post the same supporting data before you realise you cannot claim not to have seen it?
Here it is again:
On your obsessive hate blog, your "dossier" on me includes the following lie:
Ironically, Pahoran himself has reportedly engaged in what can only be described as a form on online minstrelsy, when he posed, via a sockpuppet, as a Maori woman named Kemara.
I posted a reply in the which I pointed out that I am not Kemara, and added:
I also think you will find Kemara is male.
In response, you smarmily sneered:
Finally, I have little doubt that "Kemara" is actually male, but thank you very much for clearing that up for us!
In other words, reiterating your baseless accusation that I am Kemara.
However, on the FAIRBoards, in the thread "Are you more than 'just a Utah Mormon?'" Kemara, on Apr 11 2006 at 12:04 pm wrote:
Sure do, I have got myself, my wife and my children - all Maori.
Thus, not only is the claim that I am Kemara false, but the claim that Kemara claims to be a woman is proven to be false.
Scratchy, you should probably check your sources before trusting them with idiotic rumours. No-one with an IQ above room temperature actually believes I am Kemara, and only the most brazen liars claim that I am.
Now, thank me for helping you get your blog right.
And so much for the reliability of your "sources."
Mister Scratch wrote:3) The SCMC is not "orwellian." That is an absurd piece of paranoid propaganda. Having said that, I can see why the idea of anonymous people collecting dossiers on their ideological opponents might seem "orwellian" to some.
Well then, if you agree, there's really no reason to change it.I just think it's rather ironic for you to be using that characterisation, especially in your anonymously compiled dossiers on your ideological opponents.
The difference being, of course, that the SCMC's dossiers deal with real people's real identities. The SCMC's activities also have real-life consquences. I doubt that anyone is going to be held up for four hours in an interrogation on account of Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR.
Just as nobody was ever "up for four hours in an interrogation on account of" the SCMC. That is a consciously counterfactual spin.
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, I don't really get the whole apologetic uproar over my reportage on the SCMC. The institutional Church has provided a scriptual justification for it. Why don't you?
I am perfectly happy with the Church's justification for what the committee actually does.
Mister Scratch wrote:But I don't expect either you or your cheer squad to notice the irony. As Tal Bachman recently quoted Bob McCue, fanatics never seem to have much of a sense of irony.
And evidently both of them said that without the least sense of irony.
I have no problem with seeing it as ironic. The blog is for information and entertainment. That it might be ironic is no big deal, imo.
Great. In this instance, the joke is on you.
Mister Scratch wrote:Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.
Mister Scratch wrote:It also conducts surveillance of speeches,
"Surveillance?" Pure rubbish. You should keep the black helicopter slides yourself, along with your foil helmet.
Mister Scratch wrote:and collects and shares data with other arms of the Church bureaucracy, including Church Security. It also provides "ammo" for ecclesiastical leaders in disciplinary hearings.
Consisting of what, precisely?
Clippings of what people have published. That's what.
Mister Scratch wrote:Your obsessive hate blog extends to personal information, private conversations, gossip and innuendo. Thus, it is not only more "orwellian" than the SCMC's files, it is even more "orwellian" than you assume them to be.
Not sure why you think this. All of the material in the blog has been drawn from FAIR, which is publically viewable on the Internet.
Just like all of the SCMC's material has been drawn from publicly available sources. Your distinction is...?
Mister Scratch wrote:Since I don't plan on later hauling anybody into a four-hour interrogation, and since I don't work for a powerful, authoritarian organization, I hardly see why the label of "Orwellian" is appropriate.
And since no-one was ever "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation" at the behest of the SCMC, and since the allegedly "powerful, authoritarian organization" has neither the power nor the authority to detain anyone against their will, I hardly see why that label is any more appropriate for the SCMC.
But then, you have always been immensely proud of your double standards, haven't you?
Mister Scratch wrote:4) There was no "interrogation." Professor Peterson met with a member who was bothered by anti-Mormon propaganda, to try to help resolve his concerns. The member had requested that someone address his questions.
It sounded an awful lot like an interrogation to me. I would be interested in hearing the member's account of the story. Would you care to explain why the meeting lasted for four hours?
I wasn't there; no doubt because of the number of issues discussed. Dan's report--which is your only source for this story anyway--concluded with:
Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.
Since he didn't think he'd been "hauled... into a four-hour interrogation," your claim that he was is a pure fabrication in the finest anti-Mormon tradition.
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, why mention legal counsel at all, then? You were making a threat. Moreover, your initial post makes it sound very much like you were asking about "what you could do" (i.e., file a lawsuit).
Not really. It was purely a casual off-board discussion with a friend, who happens to be a lawyer about another subject; some time before your obsessive hate blog had come into being, in fact. It just so happens that his expert advice pertained to your blog, not that it was about it.
Mister Scratch wrote:But I have to hand it to you, you really outmaneuvered me here. Here I was thinking that you were actually intending to put my name up, and it turns out that all you were trying to do was to manipulate me into giving you an excuse to accuse me of "threatening [you] with legal action." Well done.
Yes, I did outmaneuver you. What a pity you couldn't see it.
Take a pat on the back then. You are a skilful manipulator who got what you wanted.
Mister Scratch wrote:So... You just want to try and control the blog, then? You want to be in the blog, and yet you also want to tell me how to write it? Why not just start your own? You are negotiating, Pahoran. You keep coming back in order to try and get me to change things.
As you perfectly well know, that is false. You keep demanding that I tell you what is wrong with your blog, and (falsely) promising to correct it; so I have. You will not keep your promise, as usual.
But I have done my part, as you asked.
Mister Scratch wrote:Now there is something I would like to discuss with you via PM. However, before I do, I wish to be sure that what is discussed in PM stays there. This is a well-known point of netiquette, but since you have shown yourself to disdain all such conventions, I am asking you to give an undertaking, right here in front of the forum, that you will respect this one.
Are you prepared to give such an undertaking?
Frankly, Pahoran, I don't really feel like extending *any* courtesies to you. I can't see that you deserve it.
So, once again, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon arrogance, you decree that you will flout the rules of engagement based upon your own personal warmth of feeling.
I understand completely.
Mister Scratch wrote:Go ahead and send the PM. If it seems worth keeping private, I will. But I am not going to keep it private simply because you tell me to.
No, you ought to keep it private because that is the understanding upon which PM's--i.e. Private Messages--are sent.
You refuse to agree to behave like a civilised person, so no, I won't be sending it.