A Cassius CFP: The Organizational Structure of FAIR

[_Doctor Scratch]

I doubt that it will succeed with the vocal participants here. I'm not really concerned about them, though. It's more important to me that lurkers understand, when Scratch levels his accusations against me of unethical behavior, viciousness, and the like, that he lacks even minimal credibility.

Your means of "attacking" my credibility is to have Simon Belmont start on thread on whether or not I correctly said that you implicitly or explicitly made a prediction about the number of testimonies that would be posted to MST by year's end? Are you serious?

And how, I want to ask, does this stack up with your comments about the 2nd Watson Letter, or getting paid for apologetics? What do you suppose that lurkers think about that? How sympathetic do you think lurkers will be to your endless secrecy---a secrecy which parallels the Church's own?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh, so now you're a proven liar. Got it.

Channeling Young Joseph Antley tonight, are we? In any case, it's amusing to be labeled a "liar" by the guy who lied about having everyone's IP addresses. (Among other things.)

Why don't you tell us what you know about Skinny-L, Simon?

[_Simon Belmont]

Your means of "attacking" my credibility is to have Simon Belmont start on thread on whether or not I correctly said that you implicitly or explicitly made a prediction about the number of testimonies that would be posted to MST by year's end? Are you serious?

Actually, not at all. Dr. Peterson didn't ask me to do anything. The thread was mine, and it proved you wrong and destroyed your credibility because you wouldn't man up to your mistake.

And how, I want to ask, does this stack up with your comments about the 2nd Watson Letter, or getting paid for apologetics? What do you suppose that lurkers think about that? How sympathetic do you think lurkers will be to your endless secrecy---a secrecy which parallels the Church's own?

Scratch, who cares about the Watson letter (s)? So the secretary to the FP sent a letter to someone at BYU... That person at BYU, understanding how trivial a letter of that nature is, didn't think to lock it up in a safe in anticipation of Scratch and Cam going to great lengths to look for it. SO WHAT? I never understood the big deal about a stupid letter.

[_Simon Belmont]

Why don't you tell us what you know about Skinny-L, Simon?

I'm sure you'd love to know.

Unfortunately for you, you are unwilling (or unable) to admit you made a mistake in the other thread.

So, no dice.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, not at all. Dr. Peterson didn't ask me to do anything.

Oh, really?

The thread was mine, and it proved you wrong and destroyed your credibility because you wouldn't man up to your mistake.

Credibility is really in the eye of the beholder, Simon. You claiming that my credibility was "destroyed" is therefore going to be a matter of whether or not readers are willing to believe you. Do you think they are, all things considered?

And how, I want to ask, does this stack up with your comments about the 2nd Watson Letter, or getting paid for apologetics? What do you suppose that lurkers think about that? How sympathetic do you think lurkers will be to your endless secrecy---a secrecy which parallels the Church's own?

Scratch, who cares about the Watson letter (s)?

You do, obviously.

So the secretary to the FP sent a letter to someone at BYU...

You've got your facts mixed up, I'm afraid. Oh, dear! There goes your credibility! I hope you'll own up to your mistake!

That person at BYU, understanding how trivial a letter of that nature is, didn't think to lock it up in a safe in anticipation of Scratch and Cam going to great lengths to look for it. SO WHAT? I never understood the big deal about a stupid letter.

Actually, a copy of the letter was later obtained by FAIR and published. You are so totally misguided on this topic that it's laughable.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why don't you tell us what you know about Skinny-L, Simon?

I'm sure you'd love to know.

Unfortunately for you, you are unwilling (or unable) to admit you made a mistake in the other thread.

So, no dice.

Well, I'm actually undecided on the matter. Which would be more beneficial? To know your Skinny-L involvement? Or to have you guys carry on with the bizarre, paranoid, Area 51-style secrecy? Which do *you* think is best?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

As a Mr. James Rome might say, "The coverup is always worse than the crime."

Doctor Scratch generally only acts this way when a Mopologist or his ilk have something to hide, and engage in typical obfuscation of the facts. The Skinny-L, as it is known, was most definitely created to coordinate efforts amongst trusted Mopologists to attack critics. What's amusing is watching Mr. Simon "Oxygenadam" Belmont desperately derail this thread into yet another personality conflict, or to see Mr. Peterson bend over backward (if such a thing were possible) to avoid telling the audience the true purpose of the Skinny-L.

Once again we observe the maestro at work, skillfully and adeptly waving the baton as the Morchestra bleats and bloops in response.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Kishkumen]

By your logic, you invited and chose this and far worse to happen. You built your trailer in tornado alley. You and Quinn and Grant Palmer were asking for it, and just happen to get off far easier than half a decade of relentless character assassinations. Be honest, you crave public riticule and are jealous that you don't warrant a constant deluge of anti-social abuse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, what on earth are you talking about?

I don't participate in LDS apologetics.

[_Beavis Christ]

Darth J. If the Church has nothing to hide, then there is no reason for its refusal to disclose its finances to the members from whom it demands tithing.

Oh, I can think of several, and none of them have anything to do with hiding anything. Providing details at the demand and behest of howler monkey echo chambers, like this forum by and large is (which surely even many of the established presences here can see is the feel of this place), would be an unnecessary and poor idea. Faithful Latter-day Saints have no concerns about the uses the Church puts tithing and other money towards, while to disgruntled members (those who anonymously demean, deride, and mock the Church and faithful members) and ex-members, the Church can do no right in the uses the Church puts tithing and other money towards. This raises the (to me) interesting question of the specific limits and parameters malcontents and apostates would actually propose for legitimate Church spending. Are they able to even articulate this, and if so, what would they be? What uses and expenditures would these critics give their sanction and blessing to? Anything at all? When you come down to it? And why should/would faithful members of the Church take seriously how people who want the Church not to prosper (and in fact, delight in setbacks for the Church) recommend or insist the Church handle its finances?

Look at the flip side: how many here would have no problem with SHIELDS or FAIR having full and open access to their finances? <wait for the howler monkeys to die down> Or just Lou Midgley and Will Schryvver? <renewed howler monkey eruption> Why not, you have nothing to hide, right? Isn’t refusal to allow instant and unrestricted access to your finances de facto admission of guilt, or at least suspicious? The fact is that it is unnecessary and unwise to give people who mean you no good the potential to harass and obscure.

And harassment and obscuring are the actual aim of the “open-up-the-finances” mantra.

You are painting with such a broad brush here. Do you really mean to say that there are no full TBM members who would not want access to at least some financial transparency? There are plenty who would, I assure you.

Mormonism does no favors for itself by being so ultra-secretive about its finances. Other churches DO provide their members with spending information and even clergy salaries. It helps to instill loyalty and respect for the organization.

Your analogy of private individuals opening up access to their finances is a complete failure also. Private individuals are not at all the same thing as corporate non-profit entities which have to pay ZERO taxes and who can give out tax deductions to anyone who donates money or services to it. As a religion, churches are even further shielded by tax law in the U.S. (though not in other countries) which is why there are more than a few shady businesses which have managed to convert their assets into religions to avoid taxes and public scrutiny of the balance books.

There is not a single transparency organization which wants to have private citizens' finances be open to the public. Your comparison is false and utterly disingenuous.

[_Simon Belmont]

Well, I'm actually undecided on the matter. Which would be more beneficial? To know your Skinny-L involvement? Or to have you guys carry on with the bizarre, paranoid, Area 51-style secrecy? Which do *you* think is best?

Who are "you guys?"