Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR

[_Kevin Graham]

It was probably redirected to your junk folder as spam. Check it out. I will remove you as a member so you can try it again.

[_Yoda]

I see that you have found a new way to avoid saying that you banned me from your site. Calling it "released from psychiatric duty" is a little more clever than "denying user access" as Liz called it. Not that I am interested nor allowed to read your rationalization, but I am sure that you had your reasons for "releasing" me, and I am fine with that. I wish you all the very best at MTT.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade---It takes a lot to try Kevin's patience...and mine, for that matter. We both agreed that you were not contributing anything worthwhile to the board and that your diatribes were simply wasting bandwidth space.

If you had at least attempted to engage in civil, well-thought out conversation, you would have been more than welcome. There are plenty of conservative posters on MTT(BC, Paul, Alter Idem), and I would love to encourage more to post with us. These posters I mentioned all managed to do more than simply tear people down and complain about things. They actually consistently speak intelligently on different gospel issues, which is the main purpose of the board. The majority, if not ALL of your posts are in the Nepotism Unleashed section, where you took turns bashing Kevin, Scratch, me, and anyone else who had a beef with FAIR. The crazy thing was, you were also banned from FAIR, and it appeared that you were simply trying to make all of us out to be bad guys just for the hell of it.

[_asbestosman]

In common Book of Abraham polemic at FAIR, this type of rhetoric has been perfectly acceptable when coming from Brian, Will, Pacman, and especially the prick of pricks, Pahoran. You have all implied quite emphatically that Brent is dishonest, that he lies about how he got the photos that he manipulates the photos, that he is careful not to show photos that damage his argument, et cetera. Worse of all is the idiotic complaining about his “bias.”

So your defense is 1) Hauglid really was being disingenuous and deserved to be called on it, 2) other Fairites have often strongly implied that critics are being less than forthright

1 strikes me as no excuse and still blatently against FAIR rules.
2 strikes me as the Tu Quoque--or at least as making an excuse because of the faults of others. It may not be fair, but who has ever claimed FAIR is fair?

I'm not saying FAIR was right. I'm saying that your defense as I see it doesn't absolve you from possible guilt about saying Hauglid was dishonest. At best it might drag other people down with you.

[_harmony]

In common Book of Abraham polemic at FAIR, this type of rhetoric has been perfectly acceptable when coming from Brian, Will, Pacman, and especially the prick of pricks, Pahoran. You have all implied quite emphatically that Brent is dishonest, that he lies about how he got the photos that he manipulates the photos, that he is careful not to show photos that damage his argument, et cetera. Worse of all is the idiotic complaining about his “bias.”

So your defense is 1) Hauglid really was being disingenuous and deserved to be called on it, 2) other Fairites have often strongly implied that critics are being less than forthright

1 strikes me as no excuse and still blatently against FAIR rules.
2 strikes me as the Tu Quoque--or at least as making an excuse because of the faults of others. It may not be fair, but who has ever claimed FAIR is fair?

I'm not saying FAIR was right. I'm saying that your defense as I see it doesn't absolve you from possible guilt about saying Hauglid was dishonest. At best it might drag other people down with you.

When did Kevin say Hauglid was dishonest? I thought he said Hauglid fabricated his argument out of XYZ, as in: he fabricated the step out of wood, or he fabricated the building out of metal... meaning, he built his argument out of XYZ. Kevin didn't call Brian a liar; that was a misinterpretation by the FAIR mods that they perpetuated because they needed to fabricate a reason to ban Kevin.

[_wenglund]

But, contrary to Scratch's jealous denials and projections, and having myself spent not a few years on a private e-list with both Pahoran and Dr. Peterson, I can confirm that these two men are, in fact, friends.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Somehow I find this disquieting. Does this indicate Dr. Peterson has a more clandestine and darker side?

...only if one is prone to seeing the boogey man in every nook and cranny.

I hope the scope of that list goes beyond methods of attacking ideas or persons the list generator disagrees with.

It did. In fact, a large portion of the activity on the list was devoted to addressing attacks made against us and our ideas that the anti's disagree with.

Does the scope of your disquiting include them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

When did Kevin say Hauglid was dishonest? I thought he said Hauglid fabricated his argument out of XYZ, as in: he fabricated the step out of wood, or he fabricated the building out of metal... meaning, he built his argument out of XYZ. Kevin didn't call Brian a liar; that was a misinterpretation by the FAIR mods that they perpetuated because they needed to fabricate a reason to ban Kevin.

He didn't say dishonest. In context, Kevin appeared to be saying that Hauglid was looking for a pretense to leave. That implies an element of being less than forthright. It may not be semantically equivalent to "dishonest" or "lie", but it is closely related and certainly implies something less than being honest.

If Kevin meant fabricate as in "constructing" a reason to leave out of available evidence the way one constructs a logical argument, then why would Kevin complain about it? That just doesn't make sense to me. That is why I see an element of being less than forthright, especially in light of how he said Pacman et al do it too.

[_harmony]

He didn't say dishonest.

Wait a minute. Didn't you just say Kevin was dishonest here:

I'm saying that your defense as I see it doesn't absolve you from possible guilt about saying Hauglid was dishonest.

Now you're saying something different? here:

In context, Kevin appeared to be saying that Hauglid was looking for a pretense to leave. That implies an element of being less than forthright. It may not be semantically equivalent to "dishonest" or "lie", but it is closely related and certainly implies something less than being honest.

So now you're saying Kevin didn't say Hauglid was dishonest? Which is it?

If Kevin meant fabricate as in "constructing" a reason to leave out of available evidence the way one constructs a logical argument, then why would Kevin complain about it? That just doesn't make sense to me. That is why I see an element of being less than forthright, especially in light of how he said Pacman et al do it too.

Now that's a convoluted sentence if ever I saw one. Care to try again? Because my first and second response are both the same: huh?

[_Kevin Graham]

== He didn't say dishonest. In context, Kevin appeared to be saying that Hauglid was looking for a pretense to leave.

Thank you. It boggles my mind how so many people are having troubles understanding the word fabrication. It does not necessarily imply dishonesty. It simply means to create something. Hauglid was creating a reason to leave. This is perfectly clear to anyone who read the thread. The fact that he was looking for a reason to leave doesn`t mean he is dishonest at all. Shades explained it well on his blog:

Kevin meant "fabricating" as in "out of available materials," but the FAIR mods chose to interpret it as "fabricating" as in "out of thin air," i.e. lying. They labeled it a breach of ethics and dropped the hammer.

The thing is the rule about being rude at FAIR is weak because it is up to interpretation and the standard applied by the mods changes with the wind, depending on who they are trying to attack or defend. Recent to this incident was an incident where both Brian and the mods jumped on me for my change of "tone"(what the hell is that anyway?) Virtually everyone else disagreed with both of them, even the TBM onlookers like Schryver, Tomnosser and gtaggart. All I did was express disagreement with Brian's argument that the scribal anamolies noted by Brent could in any way be explained as copyist errors. I asked him nicely if he could explain a few examples. That is when he got huffy and the mods took over.

In response to his comments in the pundits forum, all I did was say Brian was looking for a way out of a dead-end discussion. He proved my point. He was. He was fabricating a reason for his departure based on his assumption that Brent was, for some weird reason or another, going to start being rude to him like I had allegedly been. Brent did nothing, absolutely nothing, to warrant such a suspicious accusation by Brian.

THAT IS WHEN THE TONE CHANGED.

Anyway, there is nothing about the word that requires an understanding inferred by the mods. They didn't ask for clarification because they didn't want any. They wanted to quickly jump on this opportunity to ban me and then to dictate to their audience what I meant by my comments. Something only Hitler or Castro could appreciate.

[Gadianton]

== So the much-touted MTT isn't that tolerant of divergent viewpoints either? Who'da thunk it!

Sorry but you have me confused with Shades’ board. I don’t have a telestial forum, and there are limits. My board was set up for critical discussion and it was originally by invitation only. Having said that, the forum is extremely tolerant of divergent viewpoints, as evidenced by the fact that wade has his plastered all over it.

But wade is a proven idiot, and it takes a tremendous about of effort land yourself in the unwanted category. But given that wade has been banned from FAIR and ZLMB on multiple occasions, he had proven experience in making himself utterly unbearable to be around. When he came to the forum I went against all recommendations, and gave him the benefit of the doubt. He said his purpose there was sincere. His goal was to prove I was bias and that my retelling of past FAIR events could be skewed.

I agreed with him. After all, we’re all bias. But don’t tell me I could be wrong; show me where I am wrong. That threw him off so he decided to tweak his purpose. His purpose morphed into a mission to not only show that I was capable of misrepresenting the FAIR stories, but that I indeed had. However, he admittedly refused to read up on any of the past discussions at FAIR - claiming disinterest (i.e. laziness) - choosing to remain blissfully ignorant while offering his unprofessional psychiatric therapy on subjects he refuses to read. His idea of proving my bias (which I already admitted having) was to try to catch me in rhetorical traps, and then go “Ah ha, Kevin just misrepresented what I meant to say, being the authority on what I meant I say he is misrepresenting me, therefore he is untrustworthy and you shouldn’t believe anything he says about FAIR.”

Again, an idiot.

When he tried to score points by correcting my spelling of the word agitation (wade: “Did you mean 'aggitation?'"), I let it slide.

When he tried damage control by claiming to have several learning disabilities, I let it slide.

When he failed to understand that the word “might” actually referred to possibility, and even when he argued about it in pig-headed fashion, I let it slide.

When he failed to understand that the word “challenge” had both noun and verb definitions, and even when he argued about it in pig-headed fashion, I let it slide.

When he said I was “wrong” to criticize people who refuse to come tell their side of the story, like DCP, Juliann and Scott Gordon, I let it slide.

When I informed him that I had stopped reading his diatribes and I would no longer respond to them, he then informed me that he would still continue on with his inexhaustible science project (anyone who knows wade and his science projects knows that they never end, and involve hundreds of questions that he never really expects his test subjects to answer anyway. His website is filled with more than a dozen of these aborted projects that have been online for nearly a decade).

I even let this slide since it made him a hypocrite beyond a doubt. After all, if it is “wrong” for me to criticize people who refuse to respond, it should also be “wrong” for wade to criticize me when I vowed never to respond (I felt like my IQ gradually dropped every time I read one of his mind-numbing rants).

What took the cake was when wade stated his purpose on the forum, which had nothing whatsoever to do with discussion. After all, nobody had discussed anything with wade, yet he was one of the top posters.

If he wants to include me in his silly experiments, he can add me to his website. I don’t take donations for my forum, so I am paying for bandwidth and the web space. I see no reason why I should allow some creepy guy with ridiculous spelling habits waste space on a forum where nobody wants anything to do with him. The fact that wade was willing to continue on, knowing perfectly well that nobody would respond, was proof positive that his purpose there was all about helping wade, not me, and not anyone else. He was helping his own creepy sense of gratification in validating himself as a defender of all things DCP.

Now he is your problem Shades. :wink:

That is certainly one highly selective, reactionary, and self-aggrandizing way of looking at what happened (and bears only a fragmentary resemblance to how I saw things). And, given your desparate need to justify your actions and get people to see things from your self-deluding point of view, I am sure you are glad that the internet in general, and Shades board in particular, provided that kind of outlet, while at the same time your website affords you much-needed protection from unwanted interventions and "challenges".

For my part, I am fine with leaving it at that, and I wish you well in spite of my concerns about your fundamentalistic, insulary dysfunctions. Carry on Don Quixote.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Poor spelling is clearly an indication of lack of education"--Kevin Graham
"But wade is a proven idiot, and it takes a tremendous about of effort land yourself in the unwanted category."--Kevin Graham

[_wenglund]

I see that you have found a new way to avoid saying that you banned me from your site. Calling it "released from psychiatric duty" is a little more clever than "denying user access" as Liz called it. Not that I am interested nor allowed to read your rationalization, but I am sure that you had your reasons for "releasing" me, and I am fine with that. I wish you all the very best at MTT.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade---It takes a lot to try Kevin's patience...and mine, for that matter. We both agreed that you were not contributing anything worthwhile to the board and that your diatribes were simply wasting bandwidth space.

If you had at least attempted to engage in civil, well-thought out conversation, you would have been more than welcome. There are plenty of conservative posters on MTT(BC, Paul, Alter Idem), and I would love to encourage more to post with us. These posters I mentioned all managed to do more than simply tear people down and complain about things. They actually consistently speak intelligently on different gospel issues, which is the main purpose of the board. The majority, if not ALL of your posts are in the Nepotism Unleashed section, where you took turns bashing Kevin, Scratch, me, and anyone else who had a beef with FAIR. The crazy thing was, you were also banned from FAIR, and it appeared that you were simply trying to make all of us out to be bad guys just for the hell of it.

Again, I understand that you have your rationalization for doing what you did. And I am fine with that, and I will respect your wishes, and I will leave leave it at that--with this one caveat:

I suppose it is the nature of certain "beasts" to be quite liberal with their criticisms of others while ardently eschewing being criticized themselves--and at the same time being blind to this nature in themselves while decrying it in others. Given your recent "releases" and "denial of user access", MTT seems well suited for enabling such "beasts".

I do wish you well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-