The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Quinn's SP had been gossiping about it.

Not that I'm aware. Perhaps you have better sources of information? (You're the guy with the massive dossiers of "dirt" on your enemies.)

Why not just admit that you did wrong?

Because I didn't.

Bob Crockett was able to, about his fudged MMM article (which managed somehow to slip through that rigorous peer-review process of yours), and he felt much better afterwards. Further, I haven't felt the need to give him a hard time about it anymore.

First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about. Secondly, I've seen you allude to this several times, so I find it difficult to credit the notion that you've let the matter drop.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Quinn's SP had been gossiping about it.

Not that I'm aware. Perhaps you have better sources of information? (You're the guy with the massive dossiers of "dirt" on your enemies.)

You wrote on the Quinn thread at FAIR in April 2006:

"A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council." (bold added for emphasis).

[_Daniel Peterson]

You wrote on the Quinn thread at FAIR in April 2006:

"A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council." (bold added for emphasis).

Lots of people "discussed Quinn." You and I are "discussing Quinn" right now. That doesn't mean that they were "gossiping" about Quinn's homosexuality. After all, we're not. (Or, at least, I'm not.)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You wrote on the Quinn thread at FAIR in April 2006:

"A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council." (bold added for emphasis).

Lots of people "discussed Quinn." You and I are "discussing Quinn" right now. That doesn't mean that they were "gossiping" about Quinn's homosexuality. After all, we're not. (Or, at least, I'm not.)

If you see no difference between the discussion here and the SP's discussion of Quinn's private life with your buddy (which you termed as "considerable"), then I can certainly see why you are in denial.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you can't read English any better than your post suggests, I can certainly see why this question causes you problems.

I said that they had discussed Quinn considerably prior to the disciplinary council. That means "quite a while before."

It doesn't mean that they spent a lot of time discussing the details of Quinn's sex life.

I never said that they did. I don't believe that they did. I have no reason to suspect that they did.

[_Mister Scratch]

You wrote on the Quinn thread at FAIR in April 2006:

"A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council." (bold added for emphasis).

Lots of people "discussed Quinn." You and I are "discussing Quinn" right now. That doesn't mean that they were "gossiping" about Quinn's homosexuality. After all, we're not. (Or, at least, I'm not.)

I'm curious what you think distinguishes "gossiping" from "discussing." My handy-dandy dictionary supplies this definition for "gossip":

Second Amendment: a rumor or report of an intimate nature

It seems to me that this was precisely what you offered up in that now-infamous April 2006 FAIR thread. Or do you want to somehow claim that discussing a person's sexuality is somehow "not intimate" in nature?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm curious what you think distinguishes "gossiping" from "discussing."

Let's cut to the real issue: Why do you imagine that "discussing Quinn" means "discussing Quinn's homosexuality"?

Quinn's a historian, an intellectual, and a writer, among many other things. He's not just a homosexual. I don't reduce him to his sexuality. Why do you?

Shame, Scratch. I'm aware of your passion for collecting "dirt" on your enemies. I didn't realize that you sought to reduce everybody to the lowest possible level. Shame.

[_Mister Scratch]

If you can't read English any better than your post suggests, I can certainly see why this question causes you problems.

I said that they had discussed Quinn considerably prior to the disciplinary council. That means "quite a while before."

It doesn't mean that they spent a lot of time discussing the details of Quinn's sex life.

I never said that they did. I don't believe that they did. I have no reason to suspect that they did.

Oh my goodness! Is this really what you are resorting to now? I can hardly believe what I'm seeing. You are actually trying to accuse Rollo of misreading you? Come on, Prof. P.---you are too careful of a writer for me to believe that! Let's take a look at your original sentence again:

A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council.

What, did you "accidentally" slip those parentheses in there? There is no way that the above sentence, as written, can possibly interpreted to mean "quite a while before." You could maybe get away with trying to tell us that their "considerable" discussion of Quinn had to do with things other than "the details of [his] sex life," but given the context in which this sentence was written (i.e., you explaining why you thought that Paul Hanks was aware of Quinn's homosexuality), even that is a stretch.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm curious what you think distinguishes "gossiping" from "discussing."

Let's cut to the real issue: Why do you imagine that "discussing Quinn" means "discussing Quinn's homosexuality"?

Quinn's a historian, an intellectual, and a writer, among many other things. He's not just a homosexual. I don't reduce him to his sexuality. Why do you?

Shame, Scratch. I'm aware of your passion for collecting "dirt" on your enemies. I didn't realize that you sought to reduce everybody to the lowest possible level. Shame.

Again: What do you think distinguishes "gossiping" from "discussing"? I really would like to know.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh my goodness!

Please don't address me as "your goodness." We both know that you regard me as a "mean-spirited liar."

Is this really what you are resorting to now? I can hardly believe what I'm seeing. You are actually trying to accuse Rollo of misreading you?

I'm not merely "trying." I did it.

Come on, Prof. P.---you are too careful of a writer for me to believe that!

As one of the corollaries to Murphy's Law says, "It's impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."

Let's take a look at your original sentence again:

A good friend and former colleague of mine was a good friend of the then-stake president. They had discussed Quinn once or twice (considerably) prior to the disciplinary council.

What, did you "accidentally" slip those parentheses in there?

No, it was quite deliberate. It's a little stylistic thing that I favor. If you search through the massive files that you maintain on me, you'll find that I do it fairly commonly.

There is no way that the above sentence, as written, can possibly interpreted to mean "quite a while before."

Are you perhaps not a native speaker of English?