The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Blixa]

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.

The whole thread under discussion is also a glaring example, as well.

[_harmony]

An additional point, Shades:

1. No Echohawk reference
2. No Midgley reference
3. No transcript

In other words: they lied. They all lied, and when they were caught, instead of admiting it and repenting, they all ran away and have now been pouting for three years. They lay the blame for the demise of ZLMB on my head, but all I did was back Juliann into a corner and force her to admit that she lied.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You thought it was goodbye forever? No such luck. At least, not yet.

Besides the irony of Peterson making this comment here, the question is why did he say it?

I said it because Scratch has been maligning me for at least a year or two here, (ironically) accusing me of involvement in a sustained and deliberate campaign of character assassination against Mike Quinn (and others), of being a "mean-spirited liar," and other such things, and because I'm simply astonished by the unflagging zeal with which he collects dirt, or seeming dirt, on his chosen targets.

Was it simply because he holds Scratch in contempt and looks for opportunities to hurl insults?

I do, it's true, hold Scratch in contempt. He's been slandering me pretty diligently for a long time. But I don't "look for opportunities" to "hurl insults" at him. Other than the occasional short insulting quotation about me (of which I've collected maybe a dozen or two), I maintain no file or "dossier" on him. I don't blog about him, don't start threads about him, and don't comment on him (except, relatively rarely, to respond to something that he's said about me). By his successful design, I know nothing whatsoever about Scratch, although I'm entirely aware of his dedicated campaign to disgrace me publicly.

Or was it because he wanted to change the topic away from the unscrupulous behavior of the apologists in question?

The thought never entered my mind. (Of course, I'm probably lying.) I take no responsibility for anybody else's behavior, and I let them defend themselves to whatever extent they choose to do so.

[Guest]

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.

You misunderstand.

My problem is that I have an extensive paper trail and even, to some extent, a public persona, and, even if I post about my love for Schubert's Mass in G, somebody is likely to respond with something on the order "Oh yeah? Well, what about your smear campaign against Mike Quinn?" or "Peterson's a fat lying pig."

I reasoned, in that light, that it would be nice to create a name that had no identity except for its posting history. But, in the end, I decided that such a tactic was unlikely to succeed, too much work, and ethically compromising. So I gave it up. It didn't last long, anyway.

I have nothing at all against anonymous or pseudonymous posting. What I do object to, and find disgusting, is anonymous character assassination. It seems to me that a person bent on systematically and publicly maligning another person under that person's real name ought, in fairness, to disclose his or her identity, as well. (At an absolute minimum.) To do otherwise is low and cowardly.

[_beastie]

I doubt if any of these folks were deliberately lying. The human memory has been proven, over and over, to be notoriously unreliable and subject to our own biases and preconceptions. Add to that careless terminology, and voila: you have the demonstrated mess. Studies have also shown that the memory is the MOST unreliable in regards to situations that have emotional context (and it's a given "attacks" on LDS truth claims has emotional context for believers).

But what's instructive is how stubborn some of these folks were - just refusing, flat out refusing, to admit they had made misleading statements about the event, even past the time it became so painfully obvious.

PS -

This obsession about posting anonymously - it's almost like the new "Godwin's Law". I am at the point where, if one party begins to talk about the anonymous "issue", I take it as a sign of inability to deal with the primary issue at hand.

[_Analytics]

You thought it was goodbye forever? No such luck. At least, not yet.

For the record, I'd consider it bad luck if it were goodbye forever, and I wish you weren't treated rudely.

I do, it's true, hold Scratch in contempt. He's been slandering me pretty diligently for a long time. But I don't "look for opportunities" to "hurl insults" at him. Other than the occasional short insulting quotation about me (of which I've collected maybe a dozen or two), I maintain no file or "dossier" on him. I don't blog about him, don't start threads about him, and don't comment on him (except, relatively rarely, to respond to something that he's said about me). By his successful design, I know nothing whatsoever about Scratch, although I'm entirely aware of his dedicated campaign to disgrace me publicly.

You also occasionally comment on him in response to things he says about others.

Or was it because he wanted to change the topic away from the unscrupulous behavior of the apologists in question?

The thought never entered my mind. (Of course, I'm probably lying.) I take no responsibility for anybody else's behavior, and I let them defend themselves to whatever extent they choose to do so.

I have no reason to doubt you're telling the truth. To me, you come across as somebody who is very careful about what specific points he is willing to defend, but who will hint at things beyond that, and who has a misunderstood sense of humor. Scratch comes across as somebody who has way too much time on his hands, is a little too suspicious of insider Mormons, and is meticulous in what he puts together. I agree or disagree with various things he says from time to time, and on the current thread I think he hit it out of the park. Given your insider status and the way you hint at things, and given Scratch's suspicious nature, it isn't surprising that you guys aren't best friends.

It certainly isn't easy being you.

[_beastie]

I have nothing at all against anonymous or pseudonymous posting. What I do object to, and find disgusting, is anonymous character assassination. It seems to me that a person bent on systematically and publicly maligning another person under that person's real name ought, in fairness, to disclose his or her identity, as well. To do otherwise is low and cowardly.

DCP -

What I'm going to say shouldn't be new to you, since I used to say it on Z.

What I have found unethical about some of your past statements in regards to other people (like Grant Palmer, If I recall correctly) is when you insinuate or overtly claim to have insider knowledge that would discredit the individual in question, but you're not at liberty to divulge it. So people are left imagining, gee, what awful thing that individual did or said that would so discredit them. If you cannot divulge the accusation or the source of the accusation, then what business do you have in bringing it up in the first place? I think that is low, and perhaps an argument could be made that is is cowardly.

I think many of the statements made about you are juvenile, stupid, and petty. But this is an accusation I believe has merit, and is why I reserve judgment about your possible involvement with the Quinn episode. I think you have, indeed, demonstrated some poor judgment in the past about what you should and should not say about other people's characters or behavior, so it's not inconceivable to me that you did something similar in the Quinn situation. I do believe that you believe in your own innocence, but I think you may lack some judgment in this area so your own belief in your innocence isn't convincing to me, personally.

As I said, this ought not to be new information to you, since we had this conversation before on Z (I believe about the Palmer incident in particular). And, of course, I have no expectation that my opinion matters to you in the least.

[_Analytics]

I doubt if any of these folks were deliberately lying. The human memory has been proven, over and over, to be notoriously unreliable and subject to our own biases and preconceptions. Add to that careless terminology, and voila: you have the demonstrated mess. Studies have also shown that the memory is the MOST unreliable in regards to situations that have emotional context (and it's a given "attacks" on LDS truth claims has emotional context for believers).

But what's instructive is how stubborn some of these folks were - just refusing, flat out refusing, to admit they had made misleading statements about the event, even past the time it became so painfully obvious.

PS -

This obsession about posting anonymously - it's almost like the new "Godwin's Law". I am at the point where, if one party begins to talk about the anonymous "issue", I take it as a sign of inability to deal with the primary issue at hand.

What are your thoughts regarding Vogel's "Pious Fraud" theory? Do you think Joseph Smith started to believe his own stories? To me, it seems like its a blury line. If you think about the lie and don't think about the truth, don't you effectually forget what the truth actually was?

[_beastie]

What are your thoughts regarding Vogel's "Pious Fraud" theory? Do you think Joseph Smith started to believe his own stories? To me, it seems like its a blury line. If you think about the lie and don't think about the truth, don't you effectually forget what the truth actually was?

I think that's a very different situation. One cannot have a problematic memory about whether or not one possesses gold plates that were delivered by an angel. You either have them in your possession or you do not. So I think he definitely knew he was overtly lying about certain points, and could possibly have later come to believe SOME of them and view his lies as justified (by proving props for people to believe in what they really ought to believe in). Unless Joseph Smith was mentally ill, which I consider a possibility (bipolar) I do not believe he could ever convince himself he really had gold plates in his possession when he didn't. (this is how I understand Vogel's theory, anyway, that Joseph Smith did continue to lie even after he began to believe in his own "Mission", so to speak, but he was still lying)

But this is a different situation, people were recalling information about who said what. That is more open to problematic memory and confirmation bias, in my opinion. We have one person who was taking notes, which is still open to the bias process in the first place (which, as I understand it, impacts what you "hear" in the first place). So that's the most reliable source we have, and that isn't great.

Certainly people made very misleading statements. But was it deliberate? I think it's more likely just an overstatement of one's case out of confidence and hubris. The refusal to admit the misleading statements, after they've been demonstrated as such, and instead blame-shift and divert, is problematic behavior, and I guess it's a sort of lying. (but not normally what I would label lying)

Believers like Juliann are very eager to believe the absolute worst about any individual she perceives to be attacking LDS truth claims, so this inherent prejudice makes her memory automatically suspect in any discussion of this sort. Jan and cal are not quite that eager to believe the worst, but likely were influenced by the getting together of the group (and I still don't understand how, why, or even if, this took place).

[_gramps]

I just finished reading the whole 28 pages. Wow! I think Scratch didn't just hit it out of the park; there were also three other runners on base, and it was in the bottom of the ninth, seventh game of the World Series.

Both Scratch's thread and the original were truly fascinating. Really fun reads. Wow! I sure learned a lot from it and can now far better understand the main posters over on the MADness board.

Thanks Scratch.

Just my take on it: I think I am with Harmony. There is no way, after reading the whole thread, that Juliann could not have known she was flat out lying. That is the way I think of her now. And then all her other friends letting her get away with it.

I was very unimpressed with Free Thinker and really didn't find the cosmic ray stuff funny. I also felt he was slyly doing his best to malign Murphy, in a kind of high school (at best) way. I was quite disappointed to see his tactics when a man's character was at stake. He was playing a little too fast and loose for my liking. In fact, I lost some respect for him after reading this. Quite disappointing, really.

Just my .02.