FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_the road to hana]

You now have the link. Please stop pretending that there has been no mention of this on MADB. Orpheus shut the thread down. You now know where it is. Stop being disingenuous.

CKS

It is a shut down thread! It isn't on the front page. No, I really don't consider inactive threads to exist in the practical sense. That's sort of like the little old lady who calls to complain that the neighbors are sunbathing nude in their own backyard. The police arrive, and looking out the window can only see the neighbors 10 foot high fence. The little old says, "but when I get my step ladder out, and perch on the very top and hang onto the chandelier to keep from falling, I can see over the fence!"

Oh, yes, and the "free speech" issue. Is that the best argument you have? We can bring up a person's peccadillos as long as we say we are unhappy that somebody else is doing and what we are doing isn't wrong because we have free speech!

Charity, you're the one who made the claim that there wasn't a thread on it over there. Now, you're a smart woman. You know that the reason there isn't a thread on it (currently) over there has only to do with the fact that the mods shut it down.

[_charity]

It should also be noted that Bob McCue himself posted the threads on RFM (which was taken down) and postmormon.org, as he stated:

I am posting this message here in large measure to counter the negative effect of the FAIR article on my reputation. I have received enough messages from people in the post-Mormon community during the past few days to know that the FAIR article has widely circulated. When people google to find it, or stumble across it, I want this piece to come up as well.

So those, including Charity, Bob Crockett and others who are suggesting that others should not be posting on this, and that it somehow distresses Bob McCue that we are, should keep that in mind.

Bob shouldn't have to counter the attack on his reputation from FAIR by posting on other boards. Those who continue to justify FAIR in this regard and criticize others are completely upside down on this issue.

Nobody is justifying the FAIR article. But where was the FAIR article "widely circulated?" On the anti-Mormon boards! That is what I have been saying all along. It is you guys who are doing that. You can't get the article at FAIR, but you can get it here.

[_the road to hana]

Nobody is justifying the FAIR article. But where was the FAIR article "widely circulated?" On the anti-Mormon boards! That is what I have been saying all along. It is you guys who are doing that. You can't get the article at FAIR, but you can get it here.

No, Charity, it isn't us doing that. It's Bob McCue. Get your facts straight. And he did it for the reasons he stated, so he could attempt to clear his name and reputation.

Anyone can read a FAIR Wiki article, just like anyone can read a post here, or on MADB, or on RFM.

[_cksalmon]

It is a shut down thread! It isn't on the front page. No, I really don't consider inactive threads to exist in the practical sense.

I really didn't know that Charity would be so compliant with what I sincerely hoped was merely a hyperbolic mischaracterization--to be corrected. Not so.

I wrote:

Evidently, Charity means to suggest that if something is not on the front page of MADB, then it doesn't exist. I don't know how else to take her suggestion here, as the thread is manifestly still in existence on MADB, albeit in closed form. Below, I've pointed her to the relevant thread, with hyperlink.

And Charity responded:

It is a shut down thread! It isn't on the front page. No, I really don't consider inactive threads to exist in the practical sense.

It's as if Charity intends to present herself as an idiotic, brain-dead, caricature of her online persona.

Again, even when Charity is wrong, she's just not actually wrong.

Forgive me while I adduce Charity's bosom buddy, jwhitlock:
I think that [Charity] has the ability simply to dismiss evidence that disagrees with [her] preconceived notions. It seems to be a very common trait that virtually all [TBM's] develop. It becomes second nature to them. --Jwhitlock (MADB) Feb 1 2008

So, Charity has been undeniably shown that she is wrong, yet she still maintains that she is not wrong, because a thread doesn't "practically" exist on MADB unless it's on the first page and has not been shut down by FAIR-ite mods.

Note to all: When responding to Charity: Please don't use the English language, English grammar, or English syntax, unless and until it has been duly processed through Charity's "I can't even recognize contrary information; I don't care; I'm always right--even when I'm wrong; I don't give a crap" filter.

You'll save yourselves a lot of time.

Charity's responses here suggest that Charity-as-poster is merely a bitter joke--a joke on the rest of us.

I'm done with her here. Best of luck to you.

CKS

[_charity]

It is a shut down thread! It isn't on the front page. No, I really don't consider inactive threads to exist in the practical sense.

I really didn't know that Charity would be so compliant with what I sincerely hoped was merely a hyperbolic mischaracterization--to be corrected. Not so.

I wrote:

Evidently, Charity means to suggest that if something is not on the front page of MADB, then it doesn't exist. I don't know how else to take her suggestion here, as the thread is manifestly still in existence on MADB, albeit in closed form. Below, I've pointed her to the relevant thread, with hyperlink.

And Charity responded:

It is a shut down thread! It isn't on the front page. No, I really don't consider inactive threads to exist in the practical sense.

It's as if Charity intends to present herself as an idiotic, brain-dead, caricature of her online persona.

Again, even when Charity is wrong, she's just not actually wrong.

Forgive me while I adduce Charity's bosom buddy, jwhitlock:
I think that [Charity] has the ability simply to dismiss evidence that disagrees with [her] preconceived notions. It seems to be a very common trait that virtually all [TBM's] develop. It becomes second nature to them. --Jwhitlock (MADB) Feb 1 2008

So, Charity has been undeniably shown that she is wrong, yet she still maintains that she is not wrong, because a thread doesn't "practically" exist on MADB unless it's on the first page and has not been shut down by FAIR-ite mods.

Note to all: When responding to Charity: Please don't use the English language, English grammar, or English syntax, unless and until it has been duly processed through Charity's "I can't even recognize contrary information; I don't care; I'm always right--even when I'm wrong; I don't give a crap" filter.

You'll save yourselves a lot of time.

Charity's responses here suggest that Charity-as-poster is merely a bitter joke--a joke on the rest of us.

I'm done with her here. Best of luck to you.

CKS

As I have said before, when you start to get insulting it shows you have lost the argument. I am glad you are not going to post to me, CKS. I really prefer posts about the subject, not ad hominem attacks.

[_the road to hana]

As I have said before, when you start to get insulting it shows you have lost the argument. I am glad you are not going to post to me, CKS. I really prefer posts about the subject, not ad hominem attacks.

No doubt this will end up becoming someone's signature line.

Charity, your posts are noteworthy for their ad hominems, and generally, you get them out straight out of the gate.

[_Jersey Girl]

It should also be noted that Bob McCue himself posted the threads on RFM (which was taken down) and postmormon.org, as he stated:

I am posting this message here in large measure to counter the negative effect of the FAIR article on my reputation. I have received enough messages from people in the post-Mormon community during the past few days to know that the FAIR article has widely circulated. When people google to find it, or stumble across it, I want this piece to come up as well.

So those, including Charity, Bob Crockett and others who are suggesting that others should not be posting on this, and that it somehow distresses Bob McCue that we are, should keep that in mind.

Bob shouldn't have to counter the attack on his reputation from FAIR by posting on other boards. Those who continue to justify FAIR in this regard and criticize others are completely upside down on this issue.

Nobody is justifying the FAIR article. But where was the FAIR article "widely circulated?" On the anti-Mormon boards! That is what I have been saying all along. It is you guys who are doing that. You can't get the article at FAIR, but you can get it here.

Where is it? Where is the article?

[_Yoda]

Cluck cluck cluck. A bunch of prurient old anonymous hens circulating by email and board chit chat the malicious talk of a known person's private woes. You're sick -- all of you.

And if a board posted a Wiki site on you and your life? You'd be OK with that?

Somehow I doubt it.

I'd recommend, Bishop Crockett, that as long as you're sitting in that glass mansion in ****** you stop throwing stones at those who chose to post anonymously.

Really, now, is it necessary to continue to post personal information about me? What possible thrill do you get out of stalking me in this way? First it is defamation about my resume and now it is more and more posting of personal information?

Why can't you all just leave McCue alone -- continuing to circulate personal information about him under the guise of criticizing FAIR -- how hypocritical is that? McCue is a decent individual. He doesn't deserve what you, Blixa, etc. etc. are doing to him. You all want to know what the original Wiki piece is which says the nasty things about him, and you ask for it and circulate it? You're perverted.

Your anonymity is sheer cowardice. You use it to throw around trash about somebody, McCue, who is a known practicing attorney. You and your friends justify your behavior because FAIR posted it? (Unfortunately, I can neither condemn or condone it because I haven't seen it nor should I). Your internal circulation of the old WIKI FAIR piece is libelous.

Moderator Note-

The personal information has been removed.

Although Bob deplores the idea of anonymity, we do protect the right for anonymity here. It is against board rules to post personal information about other posters without their permission. I understand Hanna's point that because Bob has given his real name, anyone can look up his information. However, it is in bad form to post that information here without receiving his permission to do so. Liz

[_cksalmon]

As I have said before, when you start to get insulting it shows you have lost the argument. I am glad you are not going to post to me, CKS. I really prefer posts about the subject, not ad hominem attacks.

This is ridiculous, Charity, like the rest of your posts here, frankly.

You lost the argument when you stated "facts" that were completely, unequivocally false. You've been shown that they are false. You continue to behave as if your false statements are true. If I'm insulting, it's because you have been demonstrated to be disingenuous. Now: you have been demonstrated to be a liar. Charity: You're a liar. You lie.

That's insulting, granted. And, unfortunately, it's true. You are a liar.

You lie.

You've lied about there being no mention of this situation on MADB: There has been: You've lied.

More importantly:
You lied when you stated: "I really prefer posts about the subject, not ad hominem attacks."

This thread is filled with posts about the subject, rather than ad hominem attacks. So, you lie when you say you prefer such posts, since you've done nothing but denigrate such posts.

Charity, you're a liar. You lie. Let it sink in: You're a liar.

CKS

[_charity]

This is ridiculous, Charity, like the rest of your posts here, frankly.

You lost the argument when you stated "facts" that were completely, unequivocally false. You've been shown that they are false. You continue to behave as if your false statements are true. If I'm insulting, it's because you have been demonstrated to be disingenuous. Now: you have been demonstrated to be a liar. Charity: You're a liar. You lie.

That's insulting, granted. And, unfortunately, it's true. You are a liar.

You lie.

You've lied about there being no mention of this situation on MADB: There has been: You've lied.

More importantly:
You lied when you stated: "I really prefer posts about the subject, not ad hominem attacks."

This thread is filled with posts about the subject, rather than ad hominem attacks. So, you lie when you say you prefer such posts, since you've done nothing but denigrate such posts.

Charity, you're a liar. You lie. Let it sink in: You're a liar.

CKS

I'm sorry you are feeling so defensive. I can see I really hit a nerve. I think for your mental health I will refrain from posting any more in this thread. But if you care to engage in substantiative discussion on another thread I will post back to you there.