CaliforniaKid wrote:Sweet mother of mercy. Who would have thought the origins of the fairboard could have been so ignoble?
Anyone who has been sideways of Juliann. We didn't know we were making history, or at least, I didn't. We were just trying to get to the bottom of another neener-neener thread by the apologist crew. It wasn't like they were defending some great and noble event that would go down in the history books as the Galileo event they mocked Murphy about. On the contrary, they were defending some pretty damning allegations (the Echohawke and Midgley comments) based on what they knew was a fabrication. They all lied defending Juliann's lies. The whole episode showed the baseness of the underbelly of Mormon apologetics.
My personal disappointment was further compounded when they tried to foist the demise of ZLMB onto me (citing the WAZing episode) when in reality, they themselves were the guilty parties. It was just one more example of their continual inability to take personal responsibility for their actions.
CaliforniaKid wrote:Sweet mother of mercy. Who would have thought the origins of the fairboard could have been so ignoble?
Anyone who has been sideways of Juliann. We didn't know we were making history, or at least, I didn't. We were just trying to get to the bottom of another neener-neener thread by the apologist crew. It wasn't like they were defending some great and noble event that would go down in the history books as the Galileo event they mocked Murphy about. On the contrary, they were defending some pretty damning allegations (the Echohawke and Midgley comments) based on what they knew was a fabrication. They all lied defending Juliann's lies. The whole episode showed the baseness of the underbelly of Mormon apologetics.
My personal disappointment was further compounded when they tried to foist the demise of ZLMB onto me (citing the WAZing episode) when in reality, they themselves were the guilty parties. It was just one more example of their continual inability to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Please excuse my denseness - but while I can tell that something important is being discussed here, i find it pretty hard to get a grip on what exactly happened back on ZLMB. Could someone post an executive summary that will make it plain (inter alia) what the missing letters is supposed to have been about?
Chap wrote:Please excuse my denseness - but while I can tell that something important is being discussed here, I find it pretty hard to get a grip on what exactly happened back on ZLMB. Could someone post an executive summary that will make it plain (inter alia) what the missing letters is supposed to have been about?
We're discussing the ZLMB episode that led to the rise of the FAIR board, which eventually morphed into the MAD board. On another note, we're also discussing board personalities, particularly FreeThinker, Juliann, Jan, and Cal. Another topic of interest is Tom Murphy, Mike Quinn, and by extension, Lou Midgley and Larry Echohawke. A topic we may get to in the near future is the discussion about how the very-middle-of-the-road moderation at ZLMB eventually morphed into the armed-camp moderation at MAD.
It's a typical thread about another not-quite-typical thread from 3 years ago.
CaliforniaKid wrote:Sweet mother of mercy. Who would have thought the origins of the fairboard could have been so ignoble?
Indeed. I don't think it is going to far to say that the transformation of FAIR into the MADboard came about as a result of decent-minded folks waking up and realizing that they'd laid down with some really dishonest and immoral individuals.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .
At any rate, I freely admit to having posted under the moniker of "Freethinker." I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue. But I soon tired of the charade, and, anyhow, I think my style gives me away. To try to disguise it would be too much work, and would involve a degree of cunning that strikes me as ethically problematic and unpalatable.
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.
My name and address are in the telephone book. I don't hide.
OK, A Light in the Darkness.
Doesn't anyone else smell that? Has a bull made a mess in here?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .
At any rate, I freely admit to having posted under the moniker of "Freethinker." I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue. But I soon tired of the charade, and, anyhow, I think my style gives me away. To try to disguise it would be too much work, and would involve a degree of cunning that strikes me as ethically problematic and unpalatable.
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.
My name and address are in the telephone book. I don't hide.
OK, A Light in the Darkness.
Doesn't anyone else smell that? Has a bull made a mess in here?
Don had this to say:
Don Bradley wrote:by the way, why on earth would any fool insist that A Light in the Darkness is Daniel C. Peterson? Professor Peterson is a political conservative and very probably would not find it "sexist" to believe that there are cognitive differences between men and women that are not socially constructed.
ALITD sounds like a more socially liberal (and therefore typical) academic. I would surmise that he has more 'post-modern' academic influence on him, and is therefore probably more recently educated than Professor Peterson.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Daniel Peterson wrote:Perhaps it's not fair to judge somebody by the quality of his fans . . .
At any rate, I freely admit to having posted under the moniker of "Freethinker." I was tired of my name and personality becoming the issue rather than the issue itself remaining the issue. But I soon tired of the charade, and, anyhow, I think my style gives me away. To try to disguise it would be too much work, and would involve a degree of cunning that strikes me as ethically problematic and unpalatable.
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.
My name and address are in the telephone book. I don't hide.
OK, A Light in the Darkness.
Doesn't anyone else smell that? Has a bull made a mess in here?
Don had this to say:
Don Bradley wrote:by the way, why on earth would any fool insist that A Light in the Darkness is Daniel C. Peterson? Professor Peterson is a political conservative and very probably would not find it "sexist" to believe that there are cognitive differences between men and women that are not socially constructed.
ALITD sounds like a more socially liberal (and therefore typical) academic. I would surmise that he has more 'post-modern' academic influence on him, and is therefore probably more recently educated than Professor Peterson.
This is a good observation. Also, ALitD seemed genuinely shattered by the portraits that were revealed via this old ZLMB thread. So, to revise, I would guess either Ben McGuire or Jerubaal.
Don Bradley wrote:by the way, why on earth would any fool insist that A Light in the Darkness is Daniel C. Peterson? Professor Peterson is a political conservative and very probably would not find it "sexist" to believe that there are cognitive differences between men and women that are not socially constructed.
ALITD sounds like a more socially liberal (and therefore typical) academic. I would surmise that he has more 'post-modern' academic influence on him, and is therefore probably more recently educated than Professor Peterson.
Hey, when you're suffering from multiple personalities, it makes sense that they wouldn't always be consistent with each other. Any fool should know that.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Ray A wrote:My guess is that Quinn would be above direct, personal and prolongated attacks like this.
I agree. Mike Quinn would not engage in the type of rumor mill directed towards him and his personal life.
A subtle nuance here. Rollo's sarcasm. But we will get to the bottom of this. I want to know what Quinn thinks of you and Scratch's smear campaign. If Quinn agrees with this quasi-Inquisition, it will lower him. I don't believe he will do that. I think, rightly or wrongly at this stage, that whatever "issues" he has with the leaders, he will not go as low or mean as you and Scratch have.