FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_beastie]

Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies.

Oh, please, are you really so little able to discern between supportive comments and spreading rumors and gossip? No one (aside from Ray possibly) discussing this on the "anti-mormon" boards has suggested that bob was really guilty of what the FAIR article claimed. All the criticism has been aimed at FAIR, which is, of course, exactly why you think we should shut up.

Why in the world would MAD discuss it??? It makes them look horrible.

[Guest]

Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies.

Charity, do you view MDB as an anti-Mormon board?

This board? Of course it is. The majority of posters are ex-mormons at the most mild end of the spectrum and flaming apostates at the other. You only keep people like the Nehor and Ray A and Gaz and Wade and Coggins and me around because otherwise you would get bored out of your minds talking to each other. and patting each other on the back.

[_Ray A]

Oh, please, are you really so little able to discern between supportive comments and spreading rumors and gossip? No one (aside from Ray possibly) discussing this on the "anti-mormon" boards has suggested that bob was really guilty of what the FAIR article claimed. All the criticism has been aimed at FAIR, which is, of course, exactly why you think we should shut up.

I need to clarify this immediately before I answer your other post. I have not suggested it. I put the question as a hypothetical to people who think Bob McCue, or anyone else, is above human frailty, and every word should be hung on to as gospel.

I do not and would not accuse him of adultery. Frankly, I have far more important things to think about than Bob's personal life, and I have said before it's no one else's business what he does in his private life.

[_charity]

Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies.

Oh, please, are you really so little able to discern between supportive comments and spreading rumors and gossip? No one (aside from Ray possibly) discussing this on the "anti-mormon" boards has suggested that bob was really guilty of what the FAIR article claimed. All the criticism has been aimed at FAIR, which is, of course, exactly why you think we should shut up.

Why in the world would MAD discuss it??? It makes them look horrible.

I just came across an following article, in an e-mail from a friend. "Difficulty in Debunking Myths Rooted
in the Way the Mind Works," by Shankar Vedantam.

It describes a study where a flier from the CDC debunking myths about the flu vaccine is given to subjects to study. When the subjects were tested 30 days later, the findings were chilling. Most subjects believed even more firmly in the myths, and now they thought the myths had been substantiated by the CDC itself.

There follows a lot of psychological explanation of why this is so.

So, every time anyone reads that Bob McCue has been accused of such and such, even if you are being supportive, you are hammering it home even harder. 30 days from now, more people will be convinced there was truth in the rumor, and they will believe it came from his friends.

I admit I am shocked at these findings. (That's why I didn't mention what a specific rumor was. I didn't want to further confirm any unsubstaniated stories in anyone's mind.)

[_beastie]

Charity,

On the off (and very minor) chance that you are genuinely concerned about people believing the rumors about bob, you can rest assured that the chances that an exmormon - knowing the disposition of defenders of the faith to malign apostates - would give any credence to it whatsoever are just about nil. And, of course, believers are only too happy to believe it. Nothing we say is going to change any of that.

[_beastie]

I need to clarify this immediately before I answer your other post. I have not suggested it. I put the question as a hypothetical to people who think Bob McCue, or anyone else, is above human frailty, and every word should be hung on to as gospel.

I do not and would not accuse him of adultery. Frankly, I have far more important things to think about than Bob's personal life, and I have said before it's no one else's business what he does in his private life.

Well, that's why I said "possibly", because I really couldn't tell what your point was. Thanks for clarifying.

[_BishopRic]

You only keep people like the Nehor and Ray A and Gaz and Wade and Coggins and me around because otherwise you would get bored out of your minds talking to each other. and patting each other on the back.

LMAO! I didn't know there was any effort by Shades to "keep" anybody around! Seems we all do this voluntarily.

[_Nightingale]

charity:
"Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies."

I have looked at three exmo-related boards on this topic, none of which have "repeated" the FAIR article, as of the last time I checked them. The only points I brought up, and only because Bob McCue chose to make a public response on this, are the points that Bob himself mentioned in his posts. I have not discussed any other content from the FAIR article or any specific statements not included in the topics Bob himself highlighted.

Discussing this incident, with its attendant ongoing issues for exmos, surely does not fall into the category of "gossip". I'd be interested to know what you consider "rumors" that exmos have spread about this. All I see is the acknowledgement that the FAIR article was published and withdrawn and some limited discussion about its content. What has been stated that is "rumor" and/or untrue?


Mister Scratch:
"RfM deliberately deletes old posts, precisely so this sort of thing won't happen. These "saved" posts were taken despite the clear intent that they not be left around."

For the record, I have not heard this given as the reason for RfM's deletion of old posts. I was under the distinct impression that it is purely a bandwidth issue, or something like that. I'm fairly sure it is not about trying to "shred" old posts. They do keep an "archive" of sorts in that the Story Board bios are left up indefinitely as are the Short Topics. It is true, however, that the vast majority of posts are dispensed with after a short period of time (again, due to bandwidth considerations).

Mister Scratch:
"To use those posts is akin to taking personal documents destined for the shredder and using them to score rhetorical points."

I can see what you mean here although again, I see it differently. I think that once you make a post and send it onto the Net you no longer have absolute control over what happens to it. Many people copy many posts for a variety of reasons. What is to say that you can never use them again. I occasionally see people repost someone else's post even years later. I don't think you could possibly expect to write something on the Net and then completely control it for all time. All that the world is constrained by, perhaps, is good manners and integrity and the rules of copyright, libel, etc. That isn't a guarantee that something you wrote won't be refloated some time.

Mister Scratch:

"...anyone can go and look at those old posts of yours. Can we do the same with Bob McCue's posts? No; we cannot. FAIR is thus guilty of using faulty/unverifiable support."

It is true that some of the footnotes given in the article cannot be checked at source (specifically the old RfM posts). It could be worth noting that some of the footnotes refer the reader to sources that *can* be checked.

Ray A.:
"This is the argument being made, that four or five year old posts should NOT be used against people. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant."

In general, I agree with this although it wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original comment. I think we should rigorously strive to preserve context. It would be the honest approach to note that while a person said such and so five years ago their viewpoint has changed, etc., if we know that to be true. We should say anything that needs to be said to be fair about using someone else's comments to try and make a point. Especially if we know that people's positions have changed, it's fairly ludicrous to keep on haranguing them about something that was done or said prior to the present. However, it is quite subjective to determine what is or is not pertinent and fair about a person's past actions and words.

Ray A.:
"I don't need consideration and an allowance for circumstances, but Bob deserves it because he "was extricating himself from Mormonism at the time". He can be vulnerable, I can't!"

I realize that this is a topic apart from the main point of this thread and my comments are particularly directed towards the FAIR/Bob article and not this apparent history between Ray and Scratch, of which I know little. But as Ray used a direct quote from my post, I'd like to respond by saying that I didn't mean to imply that Bob's transition is an excuse or that he should be given allowances for that fact alone. I was thinking more of the way that he is so analytical and forthright in baring all (much more so than I could be in public about my personal life and thoughts and emotions and shortcomings, etc) and that it is well understood, it seems to me, from reading some of his essays on his site and his posts on several boards that what he is describing is a process and an ongoing one so that what he thought when initially leaving Mormonism is absolutely not what he now thinks. It's like looking at snapshots of certain periods in his life. I think it is very possible, at that point, to find places where he contradicts himself or places where he sounds confused or places where he did or said things that he may now regret or at least has now changed, etc.

I think it is unfortunate that a lot of our discussion is characterized as "anti" and that many LDS seem to think of ex-members as rabid antis/critics. That is not just a phenomenon of the Net as it does occur in real life, from the many life stories people share. With such a strong negative mindset going in, people on both sides may be more than usually inclined towards such a strong bias that they literally cannot comprehend what the other party is saying and are bound to fail to communicate even the most simple of concepts.

harmony:
"And I really want to know who these "doctors" were and what their doctorates are in, and whether their field of expertise has anything to do with what they were supposedly dissecting?"

They were referred to as "medical doctors" and "FAIR physician consultants" who apparently could conclude from some comments Bob made throughout several posts/articles that he was "emotionally abusive" towards his wife and the FAIR Wiki writer used excerpts from a Health Canada publication to back up these physicians' assertions. There were at least two references made to these medical consultants that were approached by FAIR and it was in the plural, as in consultantS and physicianS.

I didn't see any attempt anywhere in the article to refute any of Bob's positions. Perhaps that was not the purpose of the article?

[_Ray A]

Ray, I agree that sharing your private email to the Zmods was an unusual act that, under most circumstances, would be entirely unacceptable. But the fact is that you had set yourself up as some sort of "judge in Israel" over exmormons, and, in particular, you were damning people who threaten LDS missionaries, while never mentioning the fact that you had done so yourself. I think this constituted extraordinary circumstances that justified sharing the email. And even this is still different than what has occurred here. Someone had read the email and remembered it - hard to forget, I imagine. That person then read your sermons about exmormons and anger, and, after enduring the hypocrisy for a while, finally spoke out. That's different than making a conscious decision to start monitoring and saving someone's posts from RFM.

A few things to remember here. Yes, it was hypocritical in light of what I wrote five years ago. I owned up to that email, and I realise it was hypocritical. Point taken. I think I still have the ability to repent. I have also said that my anger at angry exmos was overboard (before the contents of the email were made known, and I deleted my blog before then).

The point is, as Charity just made:

So, every time anyone reads that Bob McCue has been accused of such and such, even if you are being supportive, you are hammering it home even harder. 30 days from now, more people will be convinced there was truth in the rumor, and they will believe it came from his friends.

Scratch hammered, and hammered, and hammered on things that happened five years ago until everyone would think I was nothing but a knave and a sexual predator who "took advantage of young women" when this was a million miles away from the truth. Repeated attempts to portray the real life situations failed! And you can only imagine how sensitive this was for me, because I new the truth, and it was being twisted with innuendo, and I had to defend myself day after day, week after week. I don't have a great problem with the Z. email, and I've said this before, even though it was private. It exposed hypocrisy for which I could justly be condemned, even though I could have lied and denied it. So let me make it clear, it's not the Z. email in particular, it was the continuing innuendo about my private life FIVE years ago, and bringing it up all the time.

We don't do this in Australia. Many Americans (not just Mormons) seem obsessed about people's private lives, and especially their sex lives. Frankly, I couldn't care less who's bonking who. It's fine by me to make general points about morality, or a lack of morality, or what people think is right or wrong, but when you dig into someone's private life and start a campaign of innuendo that's a very different matter. Some real ironies here, but it will be lost on some. So, I admitted in ONE post on Z about some of my private life, and the molehill became a mountain. Do you think I like seeing any of this over, and over, and over?

I understand how Bob McCue feels. And though I'm not a fan of his either, I support his right to feel outraged.

[_Blixa]

Now, in 2008, they drag out four/five year old posts, made while he was in the process of extricating his life from Mormonism, and dissect them, with the apparent help of "FAIR physicians" to blacken his character.

That rings a bell.

How do you figure, Ray? There are significant differences here. For one thing, RfM deliberately deletes old posts, precisely so this sort of thing won't happen. These "saved" posts were taken despite the clear intent that they not be left around. To use those posts is akin to taking personal documents destined for the shredder and using them to score rhetorical points. Here you are, still sore over the "Many Faces of Ray A" thread, or whatever else, and yet you seem unable to see the rather obvious differences. For example, anyone can go and look at those old posts of yours. Can we do the same with Bob McCue's posts? No; we cannot. FAIR is thus guilty of using faulty/unverifiable support.

Another point, Ray: Where have I ever hauled in baloney "Doctors" in order to do the postmortem on your volatility? Where have I ever posted anything flatly false, as the FAIR folks have done? Further, how was your "character blackened"? You yourself claimed to be proud of your visits to prostitutes, and of your flip-flopping behavior. Your really do yourself a disservice in trying to use this flagrantly unethical act on the part of FAIR to your advantage.

Greg Smith (who seems the likely author), or whomever else, has got a lot of repenting to do.

Can we stick to McCue... please? Please? Please?????

And I really want to know who these "doctors" were and what their doctorates are in, and whether their field of expertise has anything to do with what they were supposedly dissecting?

The article said that physicians with family relationship problem expertise had been consulted by FAIR and were "astonished" at McCue's "cold blooded account." No references were given for who these experts were. These "consultants" "pointed out" a Health Canada document on domestic violence. Sections from Bob's post were sandwiched with quotations from the Health Canada document and other articles on domestic abuse, with comments like, "Sadly, to someone with training in marital counseling or therapy, this appears to be an enactment of a classic abusive cycle." This makes it sound like a therapist had reviewed the posts and offered "diagnosis," when it was the author of the wiki essay who was specifically making the call on whether anything "appeared" to be abuse as it was described in the quotation.

The notes appended cited these sources:

Health Canada,''Emotional Abuse: Information From the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence,'' April 1996, 1.
Lenore Walker, ''The Battered Woman'' (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 55–67.
Irene Matiatos, PhD (Psychology), “Cycle of Abuse: Time Is Not On Your Side,” <www.drirene.com/cyclesof.htm> (accessed 14 October 2004).
Cheryl Champagne, ''Wearing Her Down: Understanding And Responding To Emotional Abuse'' (Toronto, Ontario: Education Wife Assault, 1999)

As a wiki article, the essay was obviously a work in progress (which it still may be despite being closed to public viewing), and hopefully sloppy in its argumentation, to give the benefit of doubt. The mishmash of appeals to clinical authority coupled with contextless quotes from several years of RfM posts makes the piece look not like something written from the perspective of someone with a great deal of background and knowledge on the subject of domestic and emotional abuse, but something written for the purpose of pairing quotes for sheer sensational value.