DiscussMormonism.com

charity wrote: And FAIR will have all kinds of really shart pro bono support.

Shart? Like Mr. Crockett?

charity wrote: He will end up looking as silly as the Tanners in their suit agaisnt FAIR.

FAIR had dirty hands in that one and cried foul when they were caught.

beastie wrote:

Yeesh! Is anyone reading the thread over at MAD? Bob McCue must be a bad mother...

Edit: They just shut it down...before I got to respond :(

Up to the point where it was shut down, basically the believers seemed to be saying "ATTABOY" to greg smith for accusing mccue of adultery and abuse.

Is anyone surprised? The church teaches that people who leave the church and openly teach against it are "satan's minions", to use charity's phrase.


And, by the way, when the mod shut the thread down he/she insinuated chris may have also engaged in libel by starting the thread itself. :O

The replies by Mormons to that thread on MAD were by and large disgusting, at least to me.

As far as I can see, there were no board rules broken by posting that thread, but it doesn't surprise me that it was closed anyway. MAD certainly isn't fair.

KA

dartagnan wrote:

I hope McCue doesn't decide to sue, but not for the reasons you might think. For his own good. He can't win.

This, coming from a woman who bases her legal knowledge on drama sitcoms.

Yeah...she should take legal advice from comedies such as Ally McBeal (like me!).

charity wrote:IF there was anything libelous or slanderous, I never can remember which is written and which is oral

Libel rhymes with Bibel--it's the one that's in print.

charity wrote:I hope McCue doesn't decide to sue, but not for the reasons you might think. For his own good. He can't win. He can't prove that he was damaged in any way. It seems maybe 3 people saw the article before it was taken down. The only play it got was among his friends. IF there was anything libelous or slanderous, I never can remember which is written and which is oral, there has to be damage. Just saying it hurt your feelings isn't enough. You have to lose a job or a client, etc.

And FAIR will have all kinds of really shart pro bono support. He will end up looking as silly as the Tanners in their suit agaisnt FAIR.

I would be interested to know if McCue could sue under Canadian law, which has been described at common law to be "any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public". Intent is always presumed. And there's no application of the "public figure" reasoning of NY Times vs. Sullivan. Just wondering.

by the way - As one who is opposed to frivolous litigation, in this case I would think it justified, even for a moral victory. FAIR should not ever use such shoddy attack methods in their defense of Mormonism. I'm still appalled at the consultation with physicians to get a diagnosis. Those physicians need to be identified and dealt with by their respective medical boards.

skippy the dead wrote: FAIR should not ever use such shoddy attack methods in their defense of Mormonism.

Out of interest, what do you think of Steve Benson posting his grandfather's personal letters, and revealing private information in regard to family, to make his grandfather look almost evil, like the time he (ETB) killed a rat (no doubt a capital offence). He often gives out "insider information" about his family, often to put them in a bad light in regard to their beliefs. This is not directly related to McCue, but I wonder how you feel about the posters on RFM who can hardly wait for the next family expose?

To be fair, some on RFM have criticised Benson, but most seem to lap this up with great delight. Would agree that both sides resort to less than desirable actions?

Ray A wrote:

skippy the dead wrote: FAIR should not ever use such shoddy attack methods in their defense of Mormonism.

Out of interest, what do you think of Steve Benson posting his grandfather's personal letters, and revealing private information in regard to family, to make his grandfather look almost evil, like the time he (ETB) killed a rat (no doubt a capital offence). He often gives out "insider information" about his family, often to put them in a bad light in regard to their beliefs. This is not directly related to McCue, but I wonder how you feel about the posters on RFM who can hardly wait for the next family expose?

To be fair, some on RFM have criticised Benson, but most seem to lap this up with great delight. Would agree that both sides resort to less than desirable actions?

Most people have pretty much tired of those perpetually recycled Benson stories, but the fact is, he's talking about his own family when he does that, for better or worse.

skippy the dead wrote:I would be interested to know if McCue could sue under Canadian law, which has been described at common law to be "any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject
in the minds of ordinary members of the public". Intent is always presumed. And there's no application of the "public figure" reasoning of NY Times vs. Sullivan. Just wondering.

That sort of thing frightens me. Can I be prosecuted under, say, Iranian law despite being a US citizen? I'll have to be extra sure not to say anything bad about the Koran (not that I would, but I'm just sayin').

Ray A wrote:

skippy the dead wrote: FAIR should not ever use such shoddy attack methods in their defense of Mormonism.

Out of interest, what do you think of Steve Benson posting his grandfather's personal letters, and revealing private information in regard to family, to make his grandfather look almost evil, like the time he (ETB) killed a rat (no doubt a capital offence). He often gives out "insider information" about his family, often to put them in a bad light in regard to their beliefs. This is not directly related to McCue, but I wonder how you feel about the posters on RFM who can hardly wait for the next family expose?

To be fair, some on RFM have criticised Benson, but most seem to lap this up with great delight. Would agree that both sides resort to less than desirable actions?

I'm not familiar with all of Steve Benson's postings - I've seen a few that describe how incapacitated his grandfather was for the last little while, but that's about it (and I've seen my mom kill a couple mice - is that bad? *puzzled*).

To be honest, I'm not as interested in what one individual does on his or her own. While I would like to see overall civility, I'm much more concerned when an organization with the following mission statement:

Our Mission Statement

FAIR is dedicated to standing as a witness of Christ and His Restored Church.

Our mission is to address the charges leveled at the doctrines, practices and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) with documented responses that are written in an easily understandable style.

FAIR will use current scholarship, scripture, Church doctrine, historical literature and sound logic in constructing faithful, well-reasoned answers.

ostensibly in furthering the church's reputation, resorts to such base tactics. What part of the McCue essays used "current scholarship" or "constructed faithful, well-reasoned answers"? I think it devalues FAIR's overall purpose, and they should be held accountable.

Besides, wouldn't we like to see a Christian organization practice Christian values? I don't think there's really a good excuse for what they've done.

By the way, if someone really did frighten his wife into things, I don't care how nice he was about it. I consider that to be manipulation. I hate manipulation with a passion whether that manipulation consists of physical threats, threats of loss of affection, divorce, or what have you. Parents manipulate their kids all the time by being "disappointed" or "hurt" at their choices. It's a big pet-peeve of mine when people manipulate others that way. I certainly hope Bob didn't do and didn't advocate any sort of manipulation whether it is an overt threat of divorce, or a more subtle threat of "disappointment".