FAIR goes too far.

[_Jersey Girl]

Can't believe you posted quotes from an email here. Heck.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Can't believe you posted quotes from an email here. Heck.

It's OK, I had permission. I would never, ever post something like this without full permission.

[_Jersey Girl]

Can't believe you posted quotes from an email here. Heck.

It's OK, I had permission. I would never, ever post something like this without full permission.

Thanks. I don't intend to be judge/jury, it's just that stuff like that creeps me out and I feel compelled to say something.

[_Paul Osborne]

Thanks. I don't intend to be judge/jury, it's just that stuff like that creeps me out and I feel compelled to say something.

It's OK to speak your mind, Jersey. That's how we learn to understand each other.

Paul O

[_Gadianton]

I'm sure it does come as a shock to Trevor that the muscle for the Oaks faction at the COB/SCMC would have an interest in how their shop is ran. I for one trust GP implicitly. I believe him that he received this intel in good faith. I finding it both shocking and intriguing. Of course, the question, is it ultimately true?

I'll admit that I'm a skeptic. This could be legit, or it could reflect the expectations of a sincere apologist not too deep in the system constructing his own reality of a ethical, upright institution. My expectation would be more along the lines of this: word reaches the COB that a "wolf" has been exposed and outed. The reviewers of the incident see how their "peer review" process ultimately exposed a threat to the sheep. A round of high-fives were enjoyed and word sent back to the leaders of FAIR to "keep up the good work."

But, it's also possible that the incident was reviewed and there were concerns about any one individual taking too much glory for himself, speaking too haughtily about his own standing within the organization as if he were a senior apologists when in reality, he is only a mid-tier apologist.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Listen, I know there are lots of fine folks in the COB, but I have a difficult time believing that my misadventures with Will became a topic of concern there. It makes little or no sense, really. Will's actions were bad for FAIR; they don't exactly reflect poorly on the LDS Church or pose some kind of problem for the institution as a whole. Why on earth would anyone at the COB get involved? Do people in the COB have a vested interest in the scholarly standards observed at FAIR? I don't get it.

With all due respect, Trevor, this seems rather naïve. I mean: why does the Church care about masturbation? Why would the Brethren be interested in obscure publications on post-manifesto polygamy? Why would the Church maintain a Strengthening Church Members Committee? Why would a BYU website boast about monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites"? The Church, its leadership, and its various bureaucracies care about all sorts of stupid and apparently meaningless and insignificant things. That someone at the COB (and I wonder if the "informant" actually meant the CAB?) might know about these FAIR misadventures seems perfectly plausible. After all, Scott Gordon admitted that Elder Oaks was well aware of the "work" that FAIR has been doing.

[_Nightlion]

I for one trust GP implicitly.

FDLMAO TTPMUOTF Why? I don't know.
T
trying
T
to
P
pick
M
myself
U
up
O
off
T
the
F
floor

[_Trevor]

IMy expectation would be more along the lines of this: word reaches the COB that a "wolf" has been exposed and outed. The reviewers of the incident see how their "peer review" process ultimately exposed a threat to the sheep. A round of high-fives were enjoyed and word sent back to the leaders of FAIR to "keep up the good work."

Yeah, you know, the thought did cross my mind that I might be called out as a wolf when I read that jwhitlock thread on MA&D. Of course, how many of us were not thinking we would fall under that rubric? It had me thinking about the situation with Will, and how Nevo had felt to blame me for not advertising my faith struggle when FAIR approached me about my paper. It certainly seemed possible that Will identified me to others as such a wolf. Maybe this is just my egocentrism getting the better of me.

But, it's also possible that the incident was reviewed and there were concerns about any one individual taking too much glory for himself, speaking too haughtily about his own standing within the organization as if he were a senior apologists when in reality, he is only a mid-tier apologist.

Yeah, who knows? I can't imagine Will's hollow revelations and self-advertizing were his most endearing qualities, no matter where one stands on the faithometer.

[_Trevor]

With all due respect, Trevor, this seems rather naïve.

If one were to have a cyber-epitaph, surely your suggestion for what would go on mine would include the word naïve.

Here lies Cyber-Trevor
a.k.a., Neoptolemus, Bellerophon, Julian Apostate, Hyrum Page, and other sockpuppets to remain undisclosed (hopefully).
Not a bad fellow, although he could fly into high dudgeon on occasion,
and he was perhaps a bit naïve.
1998-2010

[_Nightlion]

With all due respect, Trevor, this seems rather naïve.

If one were to have a cyber-epitaph, surely your suggestion for what would go on mine would include the word naïve.

Here lies Cyber-Trevor
a.k.a., Neoptolemus, Bellerophon, Julian Apostate, Hyrum Page, and other sockpuppets to remain undisclosed (hopefully).
Not a bad fellow, although he could fly into high dudgeon on occasion,
and he was perhaps a bit naïve.
1998-2010

I remember Hyrum Page

O DANNY BOY
THE PIPES THE PIPES
ARE CALLIN' YOU

FROM GLADE TO GLADE
(premature I am sure) {maybe it glen to glen...?}