Church Surveillance

[_Mister Scratch]

Who has done more of this, more effectively and more diversely, than Quinn? I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

Which of his books have been published in peer-reviewed organs?

We've already had this discussion, Bob. Feel free to re-read the thread entitled "Mike Quinn" which was begun by Jason Bourne. You fled the scene before responding to a rather plangent question posed to you by Dr. Shades.

[_The Nehor]

Not projection....retaliation. Note the difference. I'll make a deal Moksha.

Pokatator.

Protecting the rights of spuds and penguins alike.

Sorry, fixing.

[_TAK]

How would anyone know if a visitor was from Church Security? I mean, do they wear a badge? Do they identify themselves as from LDS church security?

Crew cuts, speaking into their black name tags, the smell of Amway aftershave.

.. and most likley washed out ex-FBI Agents..

[_Mister Scratch]

rcrocket is not feeding you the truth, why me. Dallin Oaks himself admitted that the Church was using unethical tactics in order to ferret out homosexuals and other "dissidents." These unethical tactics included electronic surveillance and unwarranted searches of dorm rooms, etc.

Cite please, for all these assertions.

You can find accounts of the Oaks-related debacle in the following:

SLT Trib, Mar. 22, 1975, in an article entitled, "Ex-BYU Security Officer Tells of Intrigue, Spying."
NY Times, Sept. 27 1979, article "Brigham Young U. Admits Stakeouts on Homosexuals."

[_Mister Scratch]

But why? Have you not heard DCP and others state that Church publications on Church subjects are well-regarded in academe? I mean, FARMS Review is a perfectly reputable journal, no?

This doesn't make any sense at all. If you are hunting for an Egyptologist, you'd want someone who's published extensively in Egyptology. Likewise, if you are looking for a historian of Mormonism, you'd want someone who has published extensively in Mormon history. Who has done more of this, more effectively and more diversely, than Quinn? I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

If Mike was overweighted in church publications it would not go well for him. It does not have anything to do with respect but with variations outside one source. The church link would color the publications.

I would want someone who just isn't published by church sources. Rather, I would want someone who has a varied academic past with publications in independent channels. For example, in independent historical academic journals.

Quinn published repeatedly in "independent historical academic journals," including those sorts of journals that use a legitimate peer review process.

[_Mister Scratch]

Not projection....retaliation. Note the difference. I'll make a deal Pokatator. If Scratch alters his blog entry with the corrections I gave him (and that he was just speculating on) I'll stop. Until then, Uncle Creepy seems a fitting title for a lonely man on the Internet who spends his time speculating and researching people's masturbatory habits.

There is nothing "incorrect" about the dossier, Nehor. Let's pause a moment to review your complaints:

1) You stated that the tidbit about you seeing/speaking to a "God" or "Jesus" was somehow incorrect. The blog entry itself does not seem wrong. Thus, no correction is needed.

2) You claim that the Belial sockpuppet was not deleted due to any "embarrassment." This seems highly questionable. When asked about it, you got very touchy and defensive. Is this rock-solid evidence of "embarrassment"? Well, no... But it is good enough evidence as far as I'm concerrned. Thus, no correction is needed.

3) You complained at being labeled "nebbish," and in fact this appears to have bothered you so much that you fired up a thread inquiring into the accuracy of the term. Unfortunately for you, other posters (such as Blixa and Liz) did indeed concur that you are "nebbish." Thus, no correction is needed.

I'm terribly sorry, my dear Nehor, but I just can't see any good reason to change what is quite a solid and accurate dossier, though if you can concoct some better argument for changing it, I'm always open to suggestions.

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way, I received the following account via PM this morning:

After Mike Norton's first annual ex-Mormon party, he told the few of us remaining hangers-out that he received a knock on the door one night. There stood a couple (or three?) guys in suits who identified themselves as being from church security. Mike said, "Which church?" The speaker smiled and said, "The Mormon church."

He proceeded to hand Mike some sort of legal document, then explained that Mike was hereby barred from all temple property, and if he attended the temple again, he'd be prosecuted for tresspassing.

So, this little story is meaningless, but I had it from an eyewitness that, at least in this case, church security does come to people's houses.

What is the most disquieting facet of this story? Why, the speaker's eerie smile, of course!

[_Blixa]

3) You complained at being labeled "nebbish," and in fact this appears to have bothered you so much that you fired up a thread inquiring into the accuracy of the term. Unfortunately for you, other posters (such as Blixa and Liz) did indeed concur that you are "nebbish." Thus, no correction is needed.

When I think of Nehor, I think of Jeff Daniels. When I think of Jeff Daniels, I think of Something Wild. I just googled reviews of it and found this description:

"In Something Wild, Melanie Griffith's bad girl was enticing, Jeff Daniels' nebbish was well-developed enough to empathize with."

Just sayin'.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I sometimes think I'm nebbish. :/

[_Blixa]

I sometimes think I'm nebbish. :/

If you did a quick Google of literary and film characters who are described as nebbishes, I think you'll find some very likeable and even charming examples. Its not the worst thing to be called by a long shot. While I'm not smitten with arch-nebbish Woody Allen, there are plenty who fall within that category that I find appealing.