The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_beastie]

Hmmm, a thread is created that goes into detail on at least part of the impetus for creating FAIR, and notable FAIR posters are exposed as making fallacious assertions, and when the fallacious nature of those assertions were undeniably demonstrated, the same posters engaged in blame shifting BS behavior.

Yet MAD, so far as I can see, is completely silent on this thread.

Why no rebuttals? Clarifications? Corrections of all the supposed lies we're telling about the event?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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."

Thanks for clarifying.

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

Perhaps, but according to you they did discuss his sexual orientation (see your quotes below).

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

Really? Well, this is surely odd, since this is what you wrote on the April 2006 FAIR thread about Quinn's sexuality being so well known:

"There was no 'rumor-mongering.' Mike Quinn's homosexuality was well known to many of us for a number of years before he came publicly out of the closet. It was a wide open secret. The stake president was violating no confidences (Quinn evidently wouldn't talk with him, and he didn't even attend the disciplinary council), but merely mentioned something of which very many people were well aware -- something that was disputed by nobody." (bold added for emphasis).

And in your "boring clarification" in the same FAIR thread, you wrote:

"Just to be clear: When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier in the thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated." (bold added for emphasis).

Care to try again?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

You may want to quickly edit the above post in light of the quotes in my prior post. You're just digging the hole deeper, my friend.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Trying to dodge the embarrassing fact that you've been caught reducing Michael Quinn to his homosexuality alone? I can hardly blame you. It was, no doubt, so unconsciously reflexive that you didn't even realize that you were doing it.

But here's a clue, anyway (I'm an inveterate teacher):

The sentence Sigmund and Albert were discussing Gottlob Frege's theory of mathematics makes perfect sense. In contrast, the sentence Sigmund and Albert were gossiping about Gottlob Frege's theory of mathematics is just a tad . . . well, odd. "Gossip" inescapably focuses on narrative and on personal characteristics. "Discussion" covers a far wider range of conversation topics.

Verstehst?

[_Daniel Peterson]

according to you they did discuss his sexual orientation (see your quotes below).

I would never think of denying it.

How long they "discussed" his sexual orientation, however, I can't say. (Perhaps you have independent sources that are not accessible to me.) I, personally, can't imagine that there would be too much to discuss. I mean, I suppose that they might have gone into the mechanical details of homosexual practices, or something of that sort. But I rather doubt it. And it surely doesn't take very long to say "Mike Quinn is gay."

in your "boring clarification" in the same FAIR thread, you wrote:

"Just to be clear: When I mentioned that Mike Quinn's sexual orientation had come up during a conversation between a friend and former colleague of mine and his friend, Quinn's former stake president, I did so only to indicate, contrary to something implied earlier in the thread, that Quinn's stake president was aware of Quinn's sexual orientation prior to the Church disciplinary council in which Quinn was excommunicated." (bold added for emphasis).

Care to try again?

Sure! (Teaching is a passion of mine.)

The fact that a topic "came up" doesn't mean that it was a focus of substantial "discussion." All I know about that conversation is that the subject of Quinn's homosexuality was mentioned. How many hours they may have spent on it -- or minutes, or seconds -- I have no idea. You'll have to tell me, I'm afraid.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

How long they "discussed" his sexual orientation, however, I can't say. (Perhaps you have independent sources that are not accessible to me.)

Nope. You're my only source on this one.

I, personally, can't imagine that there would be too much to discuss. I mean, I suppose that they might have gone into the mechanical details of homosexual practices, or something of that sort. But I rather doubt it. And it surely doesn't take very long to say "Mike Quinn is gay."

However long and detailed it was, apparently it was enough for your friend to remember to tell you about it.

The fact that a topic "came up" doesn't mean that it was a focus of substantial "discussion." All I know about that conversation is that the subject of Quinn's homosexuality was mentioned.

Quite a different story than you gave in your post above, when you said you didn't even know if Quinn's sexual orientation had been discussed between Quinn's SP and your friend.

You're not having a good day, are you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nope. You're my only source on this one.

Then, um, in that case, er, well (how to put it gently?) . . . you can't know things about it that I don't.

However long and detailed it was, apparently it was enough for your friend to remember to tell you about it.

I just said the sentence "Mike Quinn is gay" to myself, rather slowly, with clear enunciation. It came to a bit less than two seconds.

Quite a different story than you gave in your post above, when you said you didn't even know if Quinn's sexual orientation had been discussed between Quinn's SP and your friend.

I said from the beginning that the topic came up. (I'm your only source. Remember?) I've never said that they engaged in some sort of multi-hour gabfest about it. That's a contribution to the subject from you and Scratch, even though I'm your only source. (Remember?)

You're not having a good day, are you?

I'm having a fabulous day. Lots and lots of fun. Not too productive, though. Gotta stop this. I feel my IQ dropping. If I don't stop soon, I'll start calling myself by the name of a Wasatch Front beer, for heaven's sake.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Nope. You're my only source on this one.

Then, um, in that case, er, well (how to put it gently?) . . . you can't know things about it that I don't.

I never claimed to. I simply quoted your statements from April 2006 and contrasted them with what you've been writing today.

However long and detailed it was, apparently it was enough for your friend to remember to tell you about it.

I just said the sentence "Mike Quinn is gay" to myself, rather slowly, with clear enunciation. It came to a bit less than two seconds.

Are you claiming that this was the extent of the conversation you had with your friend about his conversation with Quinn's SP?

Quite a different story than you gave in your post above, when you said you didn't even know if Quinn's sexual orientation had been discussed between Quinn's SP and your friend.

I said from the beginning that the topic came up. (I'm your only source. Remember?) I've never said that they engaged in some sort of multi-hour gabfest about it. That's a contribution to the subject from you and Scratch, even though I'm your only source.

Gossip doesn't have to be a "gabfest." That's what is scary about it. Very brief comments can do damage just as well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I simply quoted your statements from April 2006 and contrasted them with what you've been writing today.

And then, weirdly, you apparently intuited some sort of contradiction between them.

However long and detailed it was, apparently it was enough for your friend to remember to tell you about it.

I just said the sentence "Mike Quinn is gay" to myself, rather slowly, with clear enunciation. It came to a bit less than two seconds.

Are you claiming that this was the extent of the conversation you had with your friend about his conversation with Quinn's SP?

No. The relevant portion of that conversation was a bit longer, as I recall. Something on the order of "Whatever-His-Name-Is is aware that Quinn is gay." That's fifty percent longer. About three seconds.

If there was any more than that, it was precious little.

Did our conversation go on beyond those three seconds? Yep. And it had already been underway for several minutes. But not on that topic. (I may have responded with something like "Huh." But I can't really remember.)

Gossip doesn't have to be a "gabfest." That's what is scary about it. Very brief comments can do damage just as well.

I'd be interested to know what "damage" you imagine may have been inflicted on anybody by that horrific conversation of indeterminate length. The stake president already knew of Quinn's sexual orientation, apparently. And so did my friend. And so, I'm guessing, did Quinn.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I simply quoted your statements from April 2006 and contrasted them with what you've been writing today.

And then, weirdly, you apparently intuited some sort of contradiction between them.

And you didn't?

However long and detailed it was, apparently it was enough for your friend to remember to tell you about it.

I just said the sentence "Mike Quinn is gay" to myself, rather slowly, with clear enunciation. It came to a bit less than two seconds.

Are you claiming that this was the extent of the conversation you had with your friend about his conversation with Quinn's SP?

No. The relevant portion of that conversation was a bit longer, as I recall. Something on the order of "Whatever-His-Name-Is is aware that Quinn is gay." That's fifty percent longer. About three seconds.

If there was any more than that, it was precious little.

And yet you're much more 'talkative' when you visit here. ;)

Did our conversation go on beyond those three seconds? Yep. And it had already been underway for several minutes. But not on that topic. (I may have responded with something like "Huh." But I can't really remember.)

Sure.

Gossip doesn't have to be a "gabfest." That's what is scary about it. Very brief comments can do damage just as well.

I'd be interested to know what "damage" you imagine may have been inflicted on anybody by that horrific conversation of indeterminate length. The stake president already knew of Quinn's sexual orientation, apparently. And so did my friend. And so, I'm guessing, did Quinn.

If you don't 'get' the damage inherent in gossip (particularly about one's private sex life), then I give up.