The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've seen things that you've written about me before. You pretty much think that I slander my own integrity with my existence.

Come up with a specific charge and a specific passage, and perhaps I'll think about maybe commenting, possibly. I'm not interested in going through 28 pages of old message board exchanges in order to try to figure out where somebody who really doesn't like me might be able to figure a way of accusing me of a lack of integrity so that I can attempt to formulate a defense of myself that six or seven people will want to argue interminably with me about and that won't make any real difference in his attitude toward me anyway.

[_Ray A]

I am glad to see that you admit that it is personal.

As to integrity...... you don't care to defend the integrity of your statements in the 28 page thread? Why? Because Scratch and Rollo didn't post on that thread?

I do commend you for coming over here and posting but I am disapointed that you can't address the OP, your comments on the 28 page thread and answer Beastie's questions. I think you slander your own integrity with your silence.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I spy with my little eye a contradiction. Or is it just a one-eyed parrot squawking and pooping while bawling for more attention? Clean out your cage, Poly, before you point your paw at some else's. Just glance down and look at the mess you've made in your own cage, Poly. Shame! Remember the days when the truck came to pump effluent out of backyards? They asked for tripple-time, danger money, and a $5,000 bonus to even go anywhere near Scratch's posts.

[_Pokatator]

I am glad to see that you admit that it is personal.

As to integrity...... you don't care to defend the integrity of your statements in the 28 page thread? Why? Because Scratch and Rollo didn't post on that thread?

I do commend you for coming over here and posting but I am disapointed that you can't address the OP, your comments on the 28 page thread and answer Beastie's questions. I think you slander your own integrity with your silence.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I spy with my little eye a contradiction. Or is it just a one-eyed parrot squawking and pooping while bawling for more attention? Clean out your cage, Poly, before you point your paw at some else's. Just glance down and look at the mess you've made in your own cage, Poly. Shame! Remember the days when the truck came to pump effluent out of backyards? They asked for tripple-time, danger money, and a $5,000 bonus to even go anywhere near Scratch's posts.

Is your little eye on your little head?

The 28 page thread does not belong to Scratch it belongs to Pentatach1. Scratch never posted on that thread but the Dr. did. And it seems that the Dr. only wants to defend himself against Scratch and Rollo but if they are not involved he doesn't care to defend his own words.

I'm wondering when the truck will be coming for you.

[_Ray A]

The thread *IS* about Murphy, Ray. Your post above is what Juliann at MADB would be calling a thread derailing. No, wait, she only does that if a critic makes a particularly effective post.

Quinn was mentioned several times, and some have attributed relevance to the "Murphy affair". Maybe you missed that?

Be that as it may, what do you think about Juliann's deliberate and documented lying in the Murphy thread?

I haven't heard from Juliann. I read the thread, but I don't share the same joy and ecstasy in the "most remarkable thread in online history", as I don't consider it such. MY threads obviously are. (chuckle)

And do you think Juliann will get Calmoriah (or whoever the ZLMB owner is) to delete the thread at ZLMB to destroy the evidence?

I'm sure they will. I'll keep checking to see when it disappears.

One wonders if they might refrain because it'd be so easy for people get curious and then log on here and read that spectacularly damning thread evidence. And THEN what would the readers think of Juliann and DCP?

It certainly hasn't changed my opinion of them, and DCP has already explained his position, which you conveniently overlooked. And I was on the "opposing team" on Z, which I'm sure Scratch will continue to "document", all to no avail.

This is nothing but a huge beat up. Even if Juliann and others were lying, let's not forget the Jenny Jo incident on Z. It goes both ways. And for the record, I do think Jenny was unnecessarily hounded by "apologists". She was clobbered for apparently lying, because she was a critic, just like Juliann is being clobbered here because she's an apologist.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

[_beastie]

Ray -

You've missed the entire point. If Juliann and DCP had not used this particular thread of the exemplar of why Z was dying or dead, and advertised the superior FAIR as an alternative, it would just be about somebody being caught lying, and the other side enjoying that spectacle.

But this thread, for at least DCP and Juliann, somehow represented all that was wrong with Z. What was it about that thread, in particular, that was so wrong? What were the critics doing that justified them being called "hucksters"?

[_Ray A]

Ray -

You've missed the entire point. If Juliann and DCP had not used this particular thread of the exemplar of why Z was dying or dead, and advertised the superior FAIR as an alternative, it would just be about somebody being caught lying, and the other side enjoying that spectacle.

But this thread, for at least DCP and Juliann, somehow represented all that was wrong with Z. What was it about that thread, in particular, that was so wrong? What were the critics doing that justified them being called "hucksters"?

Not quite, beastie. I will quote to you from Scratch's very opening paragraph:

On another thread, a week or two back, Dr. Shades made mention of "juliann" and a "transcript." Some of the people who are relatively new to the online Mormon scene might have wondered what he was talking about. It turns out that this a rich, detailed, and sordid story indeed---in fact, it may stand out to some as one of the most explosive and significant threads in all of Mopologetic history. Further, when one pairs this story with the more recent case of juliann using the sociology of David Bromley and et. al. as a brush with which to smear her opponents, one begins to see, very clearly, the dark edges which limn (sic) the world of Mopologetics.

I don't have much time now except for brief comments, but later I will go through this thread again and comment more (which I couldn't do because of work). The underlying motive Scratch has is to destroy the credibility of "Mopologists". What you point out may be true, and I do see the context, but Scratch's ultimate motive is character assassination! And later I'm going to pose some questions to Scratch in a separate thread.

As I said, this occurs on both sides. This may indeed be a form of payback for the "hucksters" remark, and the "superior alternative", but in my opinion it is also a HUGE self-congratulatory beat up. All we need now is a compere like Billy Crystal and Academy Awards for "best post", "best thread", "smartest comment", etc. Oh, critics are always so honest, always so right - according to some, anyway. (Not saying you)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Let me use a personal example. I have coffee with a friend almost everyday. The other day he mentioned that a well known professor was gay. I said "hmm. really?". Then he said, "yes, it is well known and he is more or less openly gay". I then yawned, we changed topics, and that was it.

Now am I to understand that Rollo thinks that my friend committed an immoral act of viscious gossip? I am loath to think so.

In Quinn's case it didn't sound so benign: among DCP's "circle" he tells us that Quinn's sexual orientation had been well known for years. How would he know it was so well known unless he had spoken to his "circle" about it? Then we have DCP's "friend" informing DCP that he had spoken to Quinn's SP about, among other things, Quinn's sexual orientation. Your hypothetical simply doesn't sound like the situation we are talking about, in my opinion.

[_Tarski]

Let me use a personal example. I have coffee with a friend almost everyday. The other day he mentioned that a well known professor was gay. I said "hmm. really?". Then he said, "yes, it is well known and he is more or less openly gay". I then yawned, we changed topics, and that was it.

Now am I to understand that Rollo thinks that my friend committed an immoral act of viscious gossip? I am loath to think so.

In Quinn's case it didn't sound so benign: among DCP's "circle" he tells us that Quinn's sexual orientation had been well known for years. How would he know it was so well known unless he had spoken to his "circle" about it? Then we have DCP's "friend" informing DCP that he had spoken to Quinn's SP about, among other things, Quinn's sexual orientation. Your hypothetical simply doesn't sound like the situation we are talking about, in my opinion.

Well it is a bit more convoluted but it still doesn't sound like an instance of viscious gossip to me. In anycase, as I said before
"gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.

Even if I were to be convinced that Dr. Peterson had done a wrong I would not go on about it for too long since I have done much worse in my life. But that's just me. "

[_harmony]

Let me use a personal example. I have coffee with a friend almost everyday. The other day he mentioned that a well known professor was gay. I said "hmm. really?". Then he said, "yes, it is well known and he is more or less openly gay". I then yawned, we changed topics, and that was it.

Now am I to understand that Rollo thinks that my friend committed an immoral act of viscious gossip? I am loath to think so.

In Quinn's case it didn't sound so benign: among DCP's "circle" he tells us that Quinn's sexual orientation had been well known for years. How would he know it was so well known unless he had spoken to his "circle" about it? Then we have DCP's "friend" informing DCP that he had spoken to Quinn's SP about, among other things, Quinn's sexual orientation. Your hypothetical simply doesn't sound like the situation we are talking about, in my opinion.

Well it is a bit more convoluted but it still doesn't sound like an instance of viscious gossip to me. In anycase, as I said before
"gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.

Even if I were to be convinced that Dr. Peterson had done a wrong I would not go on about it for too long since I have done much worse in my life. But that's just me. "

What exactly would you classify as "harmless"? Losing one's membership in one's church? Losing one's job? Losing one's professional status? Being unable to secure a position for which you were qualified?

[Guest]

In Quinn's case it didn't sound so benign: among DCP's "circle" he tells us that Quinn's sexual orientation had been well known for years.

You're attempting to blacken my reputation by making this sound really sinister.

My "circle" is simply people who interest themselves fairly deeply in Mormon studies. Some are believers, some are alienated ex-believers, some are non-Mormons altogether. I know some of them quite well, I know others in a casual way, and some I don't know at all. Back when a fairly prominent liberal member of the Mormon studies "community" mentioned Quinn's homosexuality to me and to Todd Compton (the first time either of us had heard of it, as far as I recall; I'm certain of this for myself, and pretty sure regarding Todd), neither one of us was any kind of a "player" in Mormon studies.

Remember, I'm your only source on this. You can't know more about this than I do.

How would he know it was so well known unless he had spoken to his "circle" about it?

I don't learn about things by speaking about them. I learn by hearing about them (or, as the case may be, by reading about them or by observing them). Learning new facts by listening to oneself seems to be the methodology that you and Scratch follow. It isn't mine.

I assume that it was well known from two distinct facts: First, I heard it mentioned on several distinct occasions in widely divergent situations at widely divergent times, and from widely divergent people. That seems to suggest that the idea was more or less broadly diffused, unless I happen simply to have encountered a weirdly skewed sample of unrepresentative people. Second, when Quinn publicly announced his homosexuality, I'm not aware of anybody who knew much about him who seems to have been surprised.

You yourself are aware that people as different as Bob Crockett and Don Bradley have said, here on this very board, that they were aware of Quinn's sexual preference quite early. Neither one of them claims to have heard it from me. I've never met Bob Crockett (although I met his son just today, as it happens), and Don Bradley has expressly said that I never mentioned it to him.

Then we have DCP's "friend" informing DCP that he had spoken to Quinn's SP about, among other things, Quinn's sexual orientation.

My friend is an old friend of Quinn's former stake president. They ran into each other and, as normal people are occasionally known to do, talked with one another. The subject of Quinn was mentioned -- Quinn was much in the news at the time, if I'm not mistaken -- and my friend's friend said something that led my friend to conclude that his friend was aware of Quinn's homosexuality. That's as much as I know about it, but I suspect there isn't much more to know.

And remember, I'm your only source on this.

When you say that my friend "informed" me that he "had spoken to Quinn's SP . . . about Quinn's sexual orientation," you make it sound much more deliberate, sustained, premeditated, and agenda-driven than I have any reason at all to believe it was.

And, if you recall, I'm your only source on this.

You're attempting to create a scandal where none exists. That's not a very honorable thing to do, and it puts your constant insinuations that I'm at best indifferent to damaging the reputations of others in a distinctly ironic light.