Doctor Scratch wrote:So, it means they met, and that my informant's "intel" was correct.
Please read the underlined portions again. You indicated that they "had a meeting" specifically about FAIR, and that elder Oaks was "forced" to deliver the "bad news." So, your "informant's" intel was absolutely not correct, unless you can say the same thing about my meeting with elder Oaks (we shook hands at a stake conference, after all.)
If it hadn't been for this "intel," I doubt that any of us would have known that Oaks and Gordon "met."
Nor would anyone care. General Authorities meet hundreds of people each week. Why not begin a thread about all of them?
Plus, as I think I indicated, I'm not convinced that Gordon was telling the truth about their encounter. I know for a fact that GAs have come to speak to the FAIR people from time to time.
I do not think you know this for a fact. You're putting your TMZ spin on it again.
What are you talking about? The portion of my post that you've quoted here was merely in response to your denial that the "intel" had any merit. My point was that you couldn't possibly Elder Oaks's orders/motivations without knowing him personally.
The intel had no merit whatsoever, unless you also consider my meeting with elder Oaks all those years ago the same situation: i.e. Elder Oaks was "forced" to deliver "bad news" to me about "FAIR" and "toning it down."
I've shared some of the evidence--more than the apologists, I daresay.
All of your supposed intel -- this particular one, in fact -- is so inane and moonstruck that most serious people do not even take the time to present "evidence" because it would be like devoting time to presenting evidence that aliens are taking over the planet and we need to wear tinfoil hats to protect ourselves. Consider apologists' silence on your TMZ intel evidence that whomever is providing this intel should really invest in that tinfoil hat. And you seem to be so gullible as to post it without questioning it, as if the thinking had been done!
Part of the reason I post them is in an effort to verify the claims.
Perhaps you should use your sense of reason in order to determine whether something completely cuckoo (as 95% of your threads are) is verifiable or even remotely true.
And not a single one of them has *ever* been "completely, verifiably, utterly" falsified. As I said earlier, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to falsify many of the allegations. And yet, the apologists never do that. Ever.
Hint: apologists do not care to engage with you in such stupid claims. It would be like devoting time to the Illuminati (granted, some people do that).
It matters because it supplies further evidence in favor of the allegations.
That was what I was led to believe, yes.
You know, if you are continually duped by your "informants" like this, and gullibly repost whatever they say without a second thought I can't help you. You need a professional.
Because they're remarkably interesting,
They are remarkably conspiracy-theorist material.
I mean, think about it: if the MI's budget was drastically slashed by the Brethren, wouldn't you want to know about it? That's a really interesting development, after all.
No, I do not care. I also do not care about other organizations that restructure, or reduce or expand their budgets. Why is that interesting?
I don't know where you're getting your figures,
My figures are very lenient. I only counted threads while in your "doctor" incarnation. I did not go back to the "mister" days. You have started 146 threads. one of them might have some truth. I figured I would give you the benefit of the doubt. You're batting 0.6%.
There has been a good deal of evidence. A lot of it has been circumstantial and/or based purely on "witness" testimony, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, indeed, evidence.
Oh, okay, here is some more evidence for you.
None of it is true.
There.
