The Origin of FAIR/MAD

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:36 pm

[quote="Rollo Tomasi"][/quote]
Of course you will!

Your one "virtue" in this whole crusade has been your obsessive consistency.

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:37 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Of course you will!

Your one "virtue" in this whole crusade has been your obsessive consistency.

You missed my other "virtue" in this thread: truthfulness.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:38 pm

Rollo Tomasi wrote:You missed my other "virtue" in this thread: truthfulness.

You're right. I miss it completely.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:40 pm

For those in the viewing audience:

Is anyone else hoping this thread goes longer than the massive thread on which it was originally based?

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:40 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:You missed my other "virtue" in this thread: truthfulness.

You're right. I miss it completely.

It hasn't been the only thing you missed in this discussion.

Post by **_Tarski** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:43 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:For those in the viewing audience:

Is anyone else hoping this thread goes longer than the massive thread on which it was originally based?

Not me. I am hoping it will die -it's too embassing. I advise that a certain someone (hint hint) just stop responding. Rollo is not going to change his mind.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:45 pm

Tarski wrote:Not me. I am hoping it will die -it's too embassing. I advise that a certain someone (hint hint) just stop responding. No one is going to change their mind.

I'd be happy if they'd go back to arguing the merits of the original stuff. The Quinn stuff has been hashed over many many times. I thought the missing transcript would be sexy enough for discussion, but apparently not.

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:47 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:For those in the viewing audience:

Is anyone else hoping this thread goes longer than the massive thread on which it was originally based?

No I wish it would end. I think the half that deals with Quinn should be put in the off topic forum.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:49 pm

Dr. Peterson wrote:If witnesses claimed that something happened, or that a transcript existed, I assumed them to be telling the truth. If they weren't, that's their responsibility. Apparently unlike most here, I can't, and don't, independently verify everything asserted on the internet.

OK, Scratch. Going back to the original OP of the thread. You have Dr. Peterson on record stating that if Juliann and company lied about an existing transcript, then they should have taken responsibility for that action.

Also, in reading the portions of the thread that were posted here, I didn't find Dr. Peterson to be blindly, blatantly defending Juliann, Jan, or anyone else. His comments during that thread seemed rather benign to me.

As far as this whole case of what has and hasn't happened with Quinn.....I'm inclined to believe Dr. Peterson's side of the story. You and Rollo have yet to produce any real evidence that Dr. Peterson was intricate in the excommunication of Quinn. There is a lot of conjecture based upon pieces of conversation from second hand sources you have managed to glean.

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Tarski wrote:Not me. I am hoping it will die -it's too embassing. I advise that a certain someone (hint hint) just stop responding. No one is going to change their mind.

I'd be happy if they'd go back to arguing the merits of the original stuff. The Quinn stuff has been hashed over many many times. I thought the missing transcript would be sexy enough for discussion, but apparently not.

Well unless those that actually discussed the transcript are here there's not much meat in the discussion. It is obvious to anyone that read the thread (I actually read the thread and not the OP) that there was deceit there.