Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Trevor]

That's right. Nothing. Utterly and absolutely nothing. Terrible and frustrating, isn't it?

As a historian, there are times when I allow myself to speculate as to what likely or possibly happened in a certain situation where the evidence is fairly sparse. On that standard, it is perhaps reasonable to wonder whether there was such a meeting. And, one might be tempted to take Gordon's silence as a kind of evidence that one's speculation was right.

But, it really isn't evidence that such a meeting occurred. It just isn't. Now, if one could find numerous witnesses from the stake that Gordon and Oaks had some kind of meeting, then that would be one thing. Indeed, it seems to me that this is not an insurmountable obstacle. But, of course, one would still not know what the meeting regarded. So, in other words, there is nothing that would constitute strong evidence of a meeting between Gordon and Oaks to discuss the future of FAIR (i.e. the issues concerning that future as supplied by his alleged informant).

An anonymous informant's unconfirmed word does not weigh very heavily in the scales of evidence for or against.

[_Nimrod]

Let's see, there are three possibilities for Scott Gordon:

a-Deny meeting with Oaks. If SG did not meet with Oaks, the denial is true, no betrayal of any confidence, and triggers beastie's revealing her source. There would be only upside for SG, no downside. So one must wonder why SG doesn't do this, if in fact he did not meet with Oaks.

b-Admit meeting with Oaks, but deny that it had anything to do with FAIR. If true, then SG has not betrayed any confidence of the meeting and triggers beastie's revealing her source. There would be only upside for SG, no downside. So one must wonder why SG doesn't do this, if in fact he did not meet with Oaks.

c-Admit meeting with Oaks and discussing FAIR. SG's hesitation in admitting in the face of beastie's challenge would be due either to being asked by Oaks not to mention it or SG personally or for the sake of FAIR not wanting to discuss what he and Oaks discussed about FAIR. So strong is SG's motivation, he will forego finding out from beastie who her source was in order to keep mum.

Since there is nothing holding SG back from #a or #b, SG's silence points at #c.

Now, the fact that Professor Dan denies the meeting between SG-Oaks seems to be Professor Dan giving cover to SG in the same way that Professor Dan did to the source-inflating Bill Hamblin regarding the '2nd Watson Letter'. Professor Dan might once again be an innocent dupe for the person being covered (this time SG rather than Hamblin). Professor Dan's strong loyalties make him an easy tool for his conniving co-horts.

Are you following this, Droop, or do I need to slow down and bring out the crayons?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Oh my. I suppose the Mormons are fine with their representative being a vile, pro-rape antagonist as Mr. Droopy has self-represented. Oh. My.

I can barely muster the energy to type in the face of such abject evil.

So, so sorry, Ms. Beastie that you were subject to such vulgarities and Satanic metaphors.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[Guest]

Let's see, there are three possibilities for Scott Gordon:

a-Deny meeting with Oaks. If SG did not meet with Oaks, the denial is true, no betrayal of any confidence, and triggers beastie's revealing her source. There would be only upside for SG, no downside. So one must wonder why SG doesn't do this, if in fact he did not meet with Oaks.

It might be because its none of the business of anyone here, let alone Beastie, whether or not he did or didn't. That possibility went right over your head, didn't it?

b-Admit meeting with Oaks, but deny that it had anything to do with FAIR. If true, then SG has not betrayed any confidence of the meeting and triggers beastie's revealing her source. There would be only upside for SG, no downside. So one must wonder why SG doesn't do this, if in fact he did not meet with Oaks.

Still none of your business, regardless.

c-Admit meeting with Oaks and discussing FAIR. SG's hesitation in admitting in the face of beastie's challenge would be due either to being asked by Oaks not to mention it or SG personally or for the sake of FAIR not wanting to discuss what he and Oaks discussed about FAIR. So strong is SG's motivation, he will forego finding out from beastie who her source was in order to keep mum.

This assumes the meeting took place or that Beastie has any source at all other than Scratch's fevered imagination.

Since there is nothing holding SG back from #a or #b, SG's silence points at #c.

You might want to attempt that freshman logic class just one more time. There is some things that could be holding Scott Gordon back that come readily to mind, those being that it is none of anyone here's business, and that he is not required to come to the trailerpark, or anywhere else, and disclose anything said in a meeting, if such occurred, with a general authority. He may simply not be interested in answering Beastie and Scratch's provocations.

Now, the fact that Professor Dan denies the meeting between SG-Oaks seems to be Professor Dan giving cover to SG in the same way that Professor Dan did to the source-inflating Bill Hamblin regarding the '2nd Watson Letter'.

Or, Daniel might know for a fact that the meeting didn't occur.

Professor Dan might once again be an innocent dupe for the person being covered (this time SG rather than Hamblin). Professor Dan's strong loyalties make him an easy tool for his conniving co-horts.

Try your hand at screenwriting for Oliver Stone nimrod (how appropriate this), you'd do well.

Are you following this, Droop, or do I need to slow down and bring out the crayons?

I'd think a Krell brain boost would, in your case, be the first step before graduating to crayons.

[Guest]

An anonymous informant's unconfirmed word does not weigh very heavily in the scales of evidence for or against.

Objectively, in the sense of publically available evidence to progress history or science? Sure, you are 100% right.

But let's say rather than being a historian, you are a reporter or a detective. Let's say that someone gives you a tip. This tip might be enough to conduct an investigation. Imagine if a detective could never follow up or engage in questioning based on a tip but rather had to prove the case before any questions are asked. We'd never get anywhere.

Beastie, however it happened, got information that seemed to register with her enough to ask a question. I don't know who her source is and though I've tried in my own mind to figure it out, there are problems with various scenarios I've ran by myself and I just don't know. I don't want to know either (from others telling me, that is)

As far as the significance of such a meeting? Well, bottom line, the significance is that the apologists are wrong on a significant matter, namely, that "informants" never provide real-world information to members of this forum. They have a lot invested now in their belief that any allegations made about the world of apologetics are sheer fantasy. To have it demonstrated that there are those out there "in the know" who are willing to educate the rest of us on matters the apologists would rather not discuss is pretty significant.

Further than that, what specific win is it if Oaks really did tell FAIR to "tone it down" on certain matters? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For you, apparently, it's not interesting in the least. But that might not be true for me, or others.

Seriously, in the long wrong it's not in my interest or any critic's interest for the GA's to tell the apologists to tone it down, such a meeting would be a hollow point scored and far short of a "win". Allowing the apologists to engage in their work without constraint or guidelines does far more for our cause.

[_Nimrod]

Wow, Droop, I did not think you'd so easily betray Professor Dan. If the question of a meeting between Oaks and SG, and if it happened what was discussed, are held back by SG because it is none of my business, why did Professor Dan betray SG's confidences so easily? Good to know your allegiances, Droop, are stronger for SG than Professor Dan. Poor Professor Dan. Not only has Bill Hamblin so easily abused Professor Dan's loyalty over the 2nd Watson Letter fiasco for FARMS, but now it seems Professor Dan cannot even be trusted to keep SG's secret.

[_Droopy]

Oh my. I suppose the Mormons are fine with their representative being a vile, pro-rape antagonist as Mr. Droopy has self-represented. Oh. My.

Could there by anyone here willing to dive even deeper into the sludge than Scratch himself? Why, yes, there is.

I can barely muster the energy to type in the face of such abject evil.

Then go back to smoking your blunt and exit the discussion.

So, so sorry, Ms. Beastie that you were subject to such vulgarities and Satanic metaphors.

She wasn't, but you may be about to live the experience yourself.

[_Droopy]

Wow, Droop, I did not think you'd so easily betray Professor Dan. if the question of a meeting between Oaks and SG, and if it happened what was discussed, it held back by SG because it is none of my business, why did Professor Dan betray SG's confidences so easily? Good to know your allegiances, Droop, are stronger for SG than Professor Dan. Poor Professor Dan. Not only has Bill Hamblin so easily abused Professor Dan's loyalty over the 2nd Watson Letter fiasco for FARMS, but now it seems Professor Dan cannot even be trusted to keep SG's secret.

All that Mary Jane finally getting to you Nimrod? Your not even writing grammatical sentences that this point, and your conspiracy theories regarding the inhabitants of the FAIR boards carry about as much weight as Jesse Ventura's beliefs regarding 9/11.

Its late at night, do you no where your exmos are?

[_Nimrod]

Wow, Droop, I did not think you'd so easily betray Professor Dan. if the question of a meeting between Oaks and SG, and if it happened what was discussed, it held back by SG because it is none of my business, why did Professor Dan betray SG's confidences so easily? Good to know your allegiances, Droop, are stronger for SG than Professor Dan. Poor Professor Dan. Not only has Bill Hamblin so easily abused Professor Dan's loyalty over the 2nd Watson Letter fiasco for FARMS, but now it seems Professor Dan cannot even be trusted to keep SG's secret.

All that Mary Jane finally getting to you Nimrod? Your not even writing grammatical sentences that this point, and your conspiracy theories regarding the inhabitants of the FAIR boards carry about as much weight as Jesse Ventura's beliefs regarding 9/11.

Its late at night, do you no where your exmos are?

[_Nimrod]

Wow, Droop, I did not think you'd so easily betray Professor Dan. if the question of a meeting between Oaks and SG, and if it happened what was discussed, it held back by SG because it is none of my business, why did Professor Dan betray SG's confidences so easily? Good to know your allegiances, Droop, are stronger for SG than Professor Dan. Poor Professor Dan. Not only has Bill Hamblin so easily abused Professor Dan's loyalty over the 2nd Watson Letter fiasco for FARMS, but now it seems Professor Dan cannot even be trusted to keep SG's secret.

All that Mary Jane finally getting to you Nimrod? Your not even writing grammatical sentences that this point, and your conspiracy theories regarding the inhabitants of the FAIR boards carry about as much weight as Jesse Ventura's beliefs regarding 9/11.

Its late at night, do you no where your exmos are?

Not denying that in your zealous defense of SG you threw Professor Dan under the bus, now are ya, Droop?