FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_Coggins7]

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.

This is because the truth is not Scratch's forté. Scratch has never been about ideas, only about personalities. He will never have to actually engage in a critical appraisal of evidence while he feels he can circumvent the entire process of debate by assassinating character.

His cheerleaders here are, as far as I'm concerned, no better.

[_harmony]

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.

No wonder they wouldn't post the names of the doctors. Allowing one's professional medical reputation to be connected to such an alledgedly libelous cockamamie article sounds like a career-ending act of sheer idiocy. Good grief.

[_skippy the dead]

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.

No wonder they wouldn't post the names of the doctors. Allowing one's professional medical reputation to be connected to such an alledgedly libelous cockamamie article sounds like a career-ending act of sheer idiocy. Good grief.

Were there to be a lawsuit for defamation, one of the first interrogatories in the discovery process should demand to know the name of those consulted to reach this "diagnosis."

[_Yoda]

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.

This is the Mission Statement for this board:

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

How does this constitute an Anti-Mormon board, Charity?

Also, I notice that you didn't include me, Harmony, or Jason into the little categories you created. That's because we are neither "mild end of the spectrum ex-Mormons" or "flaming apostates". All three of us are calling holding, active Church members. Are there Church policies we disagree with? Yes. Do we enjoy discussing these issues as well as learning new things? Yes.

I am not an anti-Mormon, Charity. I would not be actively involved in the administration of a board that is anti-Mormon.

[_Bond...James Bond]

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

This board? Of course it is.

If a thousand faithful LDS showed up here and decided to bear their testimonies I'm sure Shades would have the same policy. It would certainly be weird (surreal?) if this board had a majority of faithful LDS posters, but I don't think Shades would take the board behind the shed and shoot it. He'd probably continue on grammar nazi-ing (nazing?) the board either way. (I mean that with love Shades ;)

He's said repeatedly that the posters make the board what it is. He just wants to provide a free enviroment without the overbearing moderation policies of MAD (or RfM for that matter!) don't exist. What the posters do or don't do with it is up to them. Either way the Pats are going to win the Super Bowl and shutup those 1972 Dolphin punks!

[_beastie]

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).

Good.

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.

I understand. Feeling that one’s statements and behavior has been taken out of context and twisted on internet boards is not unusual, although this particular topic was unusual for obvious reasons. But I understand your feelings, I do. Now imagine that someone had posted these old posts of yours from a board without any archived material. This would mean that someone had targeted you years ago and started carefully watching for, copying, and filing your posts for just such a future use. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this escalates the creepy factor geometrically.

[_Some Schmo]

The McCues were friends of our family while we were growing up, and Bob is a close friend of my older brothers. The very idea that he is anything other than completely loving and devoted to his wife is outrageous, which is exactly why it's no surprise FAIR would stoop to that sort of fiction.

If I had to guess, I would say Bob will likely forgive and forget. It's just the kind of guy he is (I wish he'd be more exmo than he is... he still seems to be living in a bit of a false morality shell. It actually makes me feel a little queasy when I think about what a decent person he is).

Still, I'd love it if he sued (clearly, I'm not as nice as Bob is).

[_skippy the dead]

It would appear that all McCue related articles have been removed, unless I'm having some technical difficulties. I wonder if FAIR has decided that inflammatory and potentially defamatory articles aren't appropriate.

[_Blixa]

I'm kind of wondering why they were open to public view in the first place---the McCue documents (and many others that I perused in passing) were clearly not even finished wiki articles (which themselves are eternally open to reworking, correction and addition). I'm also suprised that McCue was on The List of Big Time Anti-Mormons they are working out articles on (ok the list wasn't called that specifically).

[_harmony]

It would appear that all McCue related articles have been removed, unless I'm having some technical difficulties. I wonder if FAIR has decided that inflammatory and potentially defamatory articles aren't appropriate.

Until an apology is posted in the same FAIR WIKI, we will know they are simply hiding, not repenting.