The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_beastie]

Wow. This was fascinating. I remembered this episode, but had not recalled that this was what began Juliann's FAIR proselytizing. You really did tie it together succinctly. Do you have a link to the thread on Z?

It is interesting that Juliann talked about the poor behavior of critics driving decent apologists away to FAIR on THIS thread, of all threads. We all know that critics can be as prone to bad behavior as believers, but this was a particularly bad thread for Juliann to use as an exemplar of sorts. Wow. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem to me that we can really learn something from this thread in terms of how believers often perceive these sort of debates. How can anyone follow that thread and NOT understand, by the end, that the critics were correct to be suspicious of some of the statements being made about Murphy? The critics turned out to be correct, and, while I'd like to read the original thread to be sure, it doesn't appear that critics were simultaneously engaging in bad behavior. They were just being persistent and pointed in their attempts to find out what really had transpired, and which recollections were reliable. But somehow, this felt like intolerable behavior to the believers on the thread.

I also want to put in my vote not to turn this thread into a referendum on DCP - there is something much more interesting and significant going on here.

[_Tarski]

I saw this

I think the point was that 3 different people spoke up to answer questions for Murphy at all in a lecture at an academic setting.

Huh? This is just weird. What is the point again? FYI, people are always speaking up in academic settings, especially lectures. Sometimes you can't get them to shut up.
Almost every lecture I have attended has an instance of someone chimming in to answer a question posed to the speaker (presumable because they want to show off or think they have a really neat why to put it). It is almost never the case that the person is trying to "cover" for the speaker.
I do it myself, especially if the speaker is in my field and pauses a bit when the question comes up. No one thinks this is strange or telling in any way.
It's hard to imagine that anthropology is any different.

This little comment and others likes it makes me think that certain people are,...well, sort of poseurs.

[_Dr. Shades]

Mister Scratch, THANK YOU for the walk down memory lane! I can't even imagine the effort that must've gone into that.

Do you have a link to the thread on Z?

Yes. It's here.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mister Scratch that that thread is the creme-de-la-creme of even Hall of Fame threads in the world of online Mormonism. There are and have been various and sundry LDS-oriented message boards over the years, whereupon nigh-innumerable threads have come and gone. Invariably, lots of great and truly archive-worthy threads have appeared from time to time at various places in cyberspace. Now I wouldn't dream of minimizing the impact or importance of those other threads, but even so, the thread Mister Scratch discusses is, in my opinion, the single greatest thread I've ever seen on any online forum at any time.

I mean, let's face it: That thread has EVERYTHING! It provides a better-than-textbook example of 1) Mopologists not only inventing slanderous accusations out of thin air but 2) posting them as gospel truth as well. It also provides solid, concrete, and innumerable examples of 3) the typical Mopologetic twisting and obfuscation. Not only that, it even displays 4) multiple contradictions not only amongst each other, but of themselves (i.e., many 5) self-contradictions), right in the same thread!

As Mister Scratch mentioned, it was also 6) the catalyst thread for the mass exodus of TBMs which destroyed ZLMB and 7) the thread which provided the inspiration for (by demonstrating the "need" for) the oppressive moderation style at FAIR and later at MAaD.

Now just how many threads anywhere, on any board, can claim all seven of the above?? And how many single threads have had such a profound continuing impact on the moderatorial style of an entirely different message board, over three years later (an eternity in cyber-time)?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem to me that we can really learn something from this thread in terms of how believers often perceive these sort of debates. How can anyone follow that thread and NOT understand, by the end, that the critics were correct to be suspicious of some of the statements being made about Murphy? The critics turned out to be correct, and, while I'd like to read the original thread to be sure, it doesn't appear that critics were simultaneously engaging in bad behavior.

That's a great summary of the implications of that thread.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Mister Scratch didn't give the following point enough emphasis (sorry Mister Scratch), to whit:

In that thread, it eventually came out, in the end, that:

• Murphy NEVER MENTIONED LARRY ECHOHAWKE at all.
• Murphy NEVER MENTIONED LOU MIDGLEY at all.

Think back on all the quotes compiled by Mister Scratch in his opening posts to appreciate the significance of those two points. Even so, at the top of page 21, Confidential Informant wrote:

Based on the evidence available, if I had to go to court and try to "prove" that the murphster was misrepresenting Prof. Echohawk, I'd be very comfortable doing so. Between the actual slide and the testimony of two independent witnesses, I'd fell pretty confident of being able to establish that fact.

If that's truly how he feels, then I weep for the American Justice System.

Although I highly appreciate Mister Scratch taking the (huge amount of) time to compile that information for our enjoyment, it seems that he gave me so much "screen time" that the contributions of other posters may not have been done enough justice. Specifically, Gadianton and Enigm0 made contributions just as significant as my own, and if you decide to look through that thread, you really ought to keep your eyes open for posts by those two people.

Here's a good example. At the bottom of page 13, Gadianton wrote:

Shades and Enigm0,

Thanks for solving the mystery! I wasn't able to be around much over the last day to participate.

Today I've learned that the tree fell because some people simply wanted it to while others believe that it must have since according to credible sources, it had done so on other occasions, in other forests. This time, in this forest, pictures were taken. But while no one has the nagatives, those inside the forest confirm that those outside know exactly what they show, because after all, some of those inside saw the tree fall with their own eyes, right after they had finished taking the pictures.

Before I wrap this up, I'd like to reference a little part which amply demonstrates just how desperate the apologists eventually became. It got so bad that Jan apparently tried to get us to just ignore the contradictions and continue as though the accusations were true! On page 22, she wrote:

"If Murphy used Echohawk out of context and if Murphy is claiming that someone from FARMS/BYU sent his article to his stake president and his wife later clarified this as being Midley -- if, for the sake of argument those two things are true, what do you think about it?"

Then I responded:

So now we're playing the "if" game? Okay, my turn:

If, for the sake of the argument, Midgley was a bicycle and Murphy was a tuna casserole, what do you think about it?

That little diversion was thereby nipped in the bud, thankfully.

In this thread, Gadianton writes:

Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vog[e]l, Dr. Shades, and others who get some notoriety as "anti-Mormons" are easy for me to back up and endorse because I never have to worry about getting sucked in to a situation where they compromise integrity in order to score points. Whether they succeed or fail, they do so with exceptional honesty.

Wow, THANK YOU, Gad!

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Huh? This is just weird. What is the point again? FYI, people are always speaking up in academic settings, especially lectures. Sometimes you can't get them to shut up.
Almost every lecture I have attended has an instance of someone chimming in to answer a question posed to the speaker (presumable because they want to show off or think they have a really neat why to put it). It is almost never the case that the person is trying to "cover" for the speaker.
I do it myself, especially if the speaker is in my field and pauses a bit when the question comes up. No one thinks this is strange or telling in any way.
It's hard to imagine that anthropology is any different.

This little comment and others likes it makes me think that certain people are,...well, sort of poseurs.

Snide insults from Tarski aside, I have attended numerous academic lectures and people speaking up and on occasion out of turn to answer questions posed to the panel/speaker is more the rule than the exception. I confess I have done it a few times to my recollection. Of course, people also speak up to "rescue" a comrade when they are struggling to articulate an answer. I've done that as well. Without more context, such as footage of the lecture, it's hard to tell what happened here.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Wow! That was indeed an amazing thread. Thank you, Mr. Scratch, for bringing it to this board and enlightening those of us who haven't had the privilege of reading it until now.

It's apparent from the exchange you just posted and my limited reading on MAD for the past few months that Juliann is at least consistent in her behavior, if nothing else.

Thanks again,

KA

[_Ray A]

I don't regard you with contempt, Prof. P. I regard you with fondness and respect.

Goodness me! Talk about a schizophrenic personality!! I hope you never become his enemy.

[_Blixa]

That was indeed a tour de force. Very fascinating and very instructive about a number of things.

And for the record, I too, think that the insinuation that there was something unprofessional and unheard of in the behavior of audience members at an academic panel ("I think the point was that 3 different people spoke up to answer questions for Murphy at all in a lecture at an academic setting") is downright bizarre.

My experience at surely as many if not more academic conferences as juliann or any poster is exactly what is claimed by Tarski:

FYI, people are always speaking up in academic settings, especially lectures. Sometimes you can't get them to shut up. Almost every lecture I have attended has an instance of someone chimming in to answer a question posed to the speaker (presumable because they want to show off or think they have a really neat why to put it). It is almost never the case that the person is trying to "cover" for the speaker. I do it myself, especially if the speaker is in my field and pauses a bit when the question comes up. No one thinks this is strange or telling in any way.

and A Light in the Darkness:

...people speaking up and on occasion out of turn to answer questions posed to the panel/speaker is more the rule than the exception. I confess I have done it a few times to my recollection. Of course, people also speak up to "rescue" a comrade when they are struggling to articulate an answer. I've done that as well.

[_Analytics]

A few thoughts.

Thought 1

Gadianton said,

It's too bad this thread has devolved into a fight about Free Thinker who wasn't one of the main characters in this story at all.

Just remember that it was Peterson who originally tried to change the subject by throwing these zingers at Scratch.

The obsession continues. The crusade goes on.

You're a real piece of work.

And an anonymous coward, to boot.

Of course what Peterson said deserves no more than an enthusiastic, “Great comeback Dr. Peterson!” But it raises the question, why did he bother to post this?

Peterson goes on to say,

But I don't specialize in spinning sources and twisting history in order to assault and malign the character of other people, and I certainly don't do it from behind the cover of anonymity. You, on the other hand, do.

Now, whether or not Scratch is guilty of doing that to Peterson is a topic for another thread; the topic of this thread is how a core group of ZLMB apologists span, twisted, and lied about recent history in order to malign the character of Dr. Murphy. Besides the irony of Peterson making this comment here, the question is why did he say it? Was it simply because he holds Scratch in contempt and looks for opportunities to hurl insults? Or was it because he wanted to change the topic away from the unscrupulous behavior of the apologists in question?

Thought 2
This is a case study in people lying in self-righteousness. Were these apologists aware that they were lying? In other words, did they have on really thick Murphy-is-a-sham glasses and were incapable of seeing what actually happened at the meeting and were recounting the events as they actually perceived them? Or were they deliberately being pious frauds by lying for the greater good of Zion? Was it a mixture of lies and self-deception? Did they believe their own lies after they told them?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue.

Thank you for stating perfectly the reason many of us post with a moniker.

[_Chap]

I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue.

Thank you for stating perfectly the reason many of us post with a moniker.

Having observed DCP's posting style, I think I have worked out why he posts in his own name. it is nothing to do with him being amazingly courageous and up-front, but rather the reverse.

In order to understand this, we have to realise that he normally posts in a highly protected environment at MAD, and nowhere else. If he posted there under a pseudonym, all he would have would be his arguments, which are often not very substantial, and his attempts at wit, which are usually rather boring and sophomoric.

Now if he posts as the amazing Dr Peterson, he can have a lot more fun. For a start, he gets special protection from the moderators, 'counta he is such a big cheese (I mean, he has a job at a UNIVERSITY!. OK, it is only BYU, but all the same...). Quite a lot of people are impressed by the fact he has a PhD ("call him DR Peterson, please"). He can suggest that he knows all kinds of stuff (e.g. about the Gee/Ritner debacle) that no-one else knows, and that simply would not wash if he was anonymous. He can talk about who he had dinner with, how he visited this or that country, etc. Most academics know what value to place on that kind of thing - but very few of the posters on MAD are academics. He can sneer de haut en bas whenever he feels like it, safe in the knowledge that he will never get anything back, since no respectable non-LDS academic would want to admit to posting on MAD.

So all in all it is a great ego-trip. The only downside is that he gets his girth and personal appearance mocked from time to time - but then, I think he is probably something of a masochist anyway, so it is a win-win situation. I think he really loves his "name and personality being the issue", and he does all he can to keep it that way.