Pahoran wrote: Mister Scratch wrote: Pahoran wrote:
Very well, I shall give you five (5) reasons.
1) Because you purport to be outraged, offended, shocked and scandalised by Professor Hamblin naming an Internet message board participant, and you might not want to be a complete and utter hypocrite.
2) Because you want people to believe that I have misjudged you, and that you are an all-around stand-up guy and a man of your word. And on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 12:21 pm, in the "Mister Scratch, a word with you please" thread, you wrote:
As for Pahoran, I will happily remove his real name if he wants me to.
I want you to.
So are you a man of your word, or not?
Do you actually have integrity, or is your given word only to be relied upon as long as the person you gave it to is in your good graces?
All I asked is for you to provide me a reason. And yes---you being in my good graces certainly would help a lot.
So your word is only worth something as long as you still like the person to whom you have given it? Did you really
want to say that?
Mister Scratch wrote:
3) As I said before, I choose to post pseudonymously for a reason. When in the past I posted under my own name, I was subjected to a rather nasty bout of cyber-harassment. If such a thing were to happen again, I might not be able to trace the party who actually did it, but I will regard your obsessive hate blog as the source.
So you fear harrassment. Are you sure you're not just being paranoid, like you've accused people here of being?
That's right. It's happened before in fact
, but I'm just being paranoid when I suppose it could just as easily happen again.
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.
Mister Scratch wrote:
Also, you claimed elsewhere, via a long series of "bwahahahas!" that you weren't afraid of any of us on here. Are you renegeing? If you're afraid, just say so. That's a perfectly legitimate reason as far as I'm concerned.
No, I'm not afraid of you or any of you. I'd just rather not have to wade through and delete a whole pile of obscene, vituperative, impotent threats from my inbox on a daily basis. Thanks just the same.
So you are
afraid then. Not of "any of us," but afraid that you might have to delete some messages.... I see. Especially since you find it necessary to utterly grind these apparently "impotent" threats out with lables like "obscene" and "vituperative." You could have just said, "I get a lot of spam." Or, "I get a lot of hate mail." Why the extra stuff?
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. I've had multiple people tell me that you *are* Kemara. You're the only one claiming otherwise. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Incidentally, the maligned SCMC merely collects clippings of what a certain section of the Church's enemies publish.
No. It also conducts surveillance of speeches, 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.
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. 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.
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?
Mister Scratch wrote:
The legal advice I have received tells me that I can't do anything about that as long as you are referring to me only by my pseudonym. That would change if you were to put anything that would actually enable anyone to identify me in real life.
Are you sure those kinds of laws extend overseas, Pah? But since you are threatening me with legal action, I will refrain from putting up your name.
That's not quite what I'm doing here, Scratch. As you know, I'd be without any legal recourse of any kind if your allegations were strictly accurate.
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).
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.
Mister Scratch wrote:
5) _____ might not want his IRL information to be put up on this forum.
I'm not going to suck up to you or try to negotiate with you. Your obsessive hate blog is yours; your decision is yours, and will reflect upon nothing but your own character.
The blog was the reason you came here in the first place, Pah. Are you sure you don't want to try and win my "good graces"? I might even consider removing your entire dossier!
Oh, don't do that, Scratchy. I'd feel left out if I wasn't featured in one of your orwellian "dossiers."
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.
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. 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.