The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_enigm0]

ahhhh...the good old days. What a mess that discussion was. I've only read scratch's initial posts, but I remember the original ZLMB thread quite clearly. The entertainment value was immense watching the initial claims of these apologists crumble and in the end, contradicting each other and even essentially admitting they lied. Do you think any of these clowns have figured out the accepted definition of the word "transcript"?

Thanks scratch...

E-0

[_Doctor Steuss]

this is all just nuts

I would probably go with "silly" for a descriptive.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The fact that you claim to be able to see no distinction between the mere mention of a widely-known fact about somebody, on the one hand, and vicious, damaging gossip, on the other, suggests either that you're a utopian fanatic or a reclusive hermit and a misanthrope or a phony, malicious, agenda-driven poseur. I incline to the latter diagnosis.

Sounds as if you're having a meltdown, my dear professor.

Do you have any reason whatever to believe this to be the case? Were you there at the church court? I wasn't.

Quinn had someone there and the details can be read in his account in Sunstone.

I "accuse you," based on your own words, of having gossiped about Quinn's sexual orientation among your "circles" and behind his back. That's it.

Then you lie about what I said. It's that simple.

Nope -- you said what you said; it's that simple.

Yet, on that basis, you seek to publicly damage my character?

Your own words did that -- my "basis" was your words.

You lie.

Nope, again.

In the name of Christianity and righteousness?

No, in terms of right and wrong.

In the name of malice and dishonesty, rather.

Stop talking to yourself.

But then, as you've demonstrated at hyper-redundant length, you don't really need evidence to pursue your agenda of anonymous character assassination. So why bother?

Your own words assasinate your character.

I hold no malice toward you.

You lie.

Nope.

Rather, it's more like a "love the sinner, hate the sin" type of situation. You made a mistake, so 'stand for something' and be accountable.

You lie.

Nope, again.

You're either a crank or a conscious slanderer, Rollo.

Perhaps cranky, but no slanderer; you, on the other hand, are a gossip.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Communication isn' t gossip if it is public-knowledge discussion of a public figure. Quinn had outed himself long before his excommunication in 1993, and his resignation from BYU in 1988, and his divorce in 1984.

He didn't 'out himself' until March 1996 (and wasn't divorced until 1986).

I don't know why anybody would bother with malicious anonymous attacks. Such courage. Identify yourselves.

Are you speaking of those who engaged in gossip and rumor-mongering behind Quinn's attack (and with his SP) about his sexual orientation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sounds as if you're having a meltdown, my dear professor.

I'm tired of your counterfactual malice, and have decided to deal with the falsehoods you peddle in a more efficient way.

I see, though, that you intend to continue not merely to lie but to debauch the English language by using transparently disingenuous terms of address. Truth means nothing to you.

Quinn had someone there and the details can be read in his account in Sunstone.

And when Mike Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done.

you said what you said; it's that simple.

Quite so.

And you lie about it.

Your own words assasinate your character.

Only when twisted by malicious and anonymous cowards such as yourselves.

Perhaps cranky, but no slanderer; you, on the other hand, are a gossip.

Flatly false.

You lie.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would probably go with "silly" for a descriptive.

I might be tempted to agree -- except that it's my moral character that's being publicly maligned by Scratch I and Scratch II on this point.

I go by my own name. That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers. Suppose that I or somebody else wanted to destroy the reputation of a Scratch or a Rollo Tomasi. The taint of unethical behavior, if it stuck at all, wouldn't cling to either of them beyond one or two message boards. Nobody knows who they are. They could easily change their monikers or log off, and it would be gone. If, however, they succeed in their goal of branding me as an unscrupulous smear-master, that taint, to some greater or lesser degree, will cling to me in real life.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’t is something, nothing;
’T was mine, ’t is his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
(Shakespeare, Othello, III.3)

I'm aware of no obligation on my part to let their false charges go unchallenged.

[_enigm0]

I go by my own name. That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Speaking of silly...from your initial post in this thread attacking scratch for using a nickname to your latest quote above...this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames. It's interesting that I skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread and encounter the same "silly" obfuscation. How about addressing the actual topic of this thread if you are going to post here? What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts? And just to be clear, I'm not asking if you wrote or edited anything using their name...I'm asking if you know what the word "transcript" means or if you buy their contention that a transcript "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" make are usually in the form of a few notes jotted down after the fact?

E-0

[_Daniel Peterson]

this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames.

But who has spent probably 95% of his time on the net posting very forthrightly under his own name, and has never, whether anonymously or under his own name, maligned anybody on any message board in the way the Scroatches have been smearing me.

It's interesting that I skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread and encounter the same "silly" obfuscation. How about addressing the actual topic of this thread if you are going to post here? What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?

Having skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread, you've skipped my explanation for my lack of interest in commenting on Scratch's carefully selected and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread, which, coupled with my merely vague memory of the thread in question and my complete lack of interest in re-reading the entire twenty-eight-page original itself, leaves me right where I am: Contented with life as it is.

I'm asking if you know what the word "transcript" means

I try to answer serious questions. I try to ignore the others.

[_harmony]

Todd and I certainly didn't raise the issue

See? I knew we had connections you weren't aware of. Todd's part of the family. No doubt you will now treat me with the utmost respect. Or not.

[_Daniel Peterson]

God is able of these stones to raise up kinsmen unto Todd.