The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm kind of bored with the continual Quinn rehashing

You think you're bored!

DCP was quite heated and involved in that thread, even declaring it an example of why ZLMB was dead, and I wonder if his opinion on the event is unchanged.

But that would entail my having to reread it. Blech.

[_Tarski]

I haven't been watching this too closely but can I ask for some clarification?
Let me use a personal example. I have coffee with a friend almost everyday. The other day he mentioned that a well known professor was gay. I said "hmm. really?". Then he said, "yes, it is well known and he is more or less openly gay".
I then yawned, we changed topics, and that was it.

Now am I to understand that Rollo thinks that my friend committed an immoral act of viscious gossip? I am loath to think so.
If you do think so then the next question is "how long should I badger him about it?"

My gut reaction is that it would depend upon whether or not the revelation could do the person harm in some way.

I see. I guess it also depends on what one thinks is likely to happen and also, amusingly, on what one considers harm.
My friend did not intend to harm anyone but I guess its possible that some harm may come to pass somehow if he tells certain people (but I doubt it).

by the way, just for kicks here is a senario: If I mention to the grand wizard of the KKK that someone in his organization named Bill is 1/4 black then they might kick him out of the KKK. But it's not clear that they didn't have the right to kick him out and it also isn't clear that Bill was harmed. Indeed, it may be a favor (being kicked out of the KKK).

I don't think the Mormon church is like the KKK of course, so lets try another one; Lets say that I mention to someone in the club "lefties for Jesus" that their member Rick is right handed. It might get him kicked out of the club. I don't know how sad Rick should feel but I think the club has the right don't they. I also think that mentioning that someone is right handed isn't exactly viscious nor is mentioning that someone is gay.

OK, those were just cartoon examples for kicks. I don't own them so don't go on about it.

But here is what I do own; gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.

Even if I were to be convined that Dr. Peterson had done a serious wrong I would not go on about it for too long since I have done much worse in my life. But that's just me.

I suppose now that I will be labeled as a traitor to the exmo cause or something. But all I am is a guy who thinks that the Mormon church is not true (or however you want to put it) and I am willing to debate the issue.

[_beastie]

But here is what I do own; gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.

I agree with this, and it is what I meant by doing harm. I'm not expecting people to be psychic in figuring out what harm could be done, but sometimes it's obvious.

I don't know enough about the Quinn situation to really comment in particular about that. I did hear Quinn give a talk at a conference in DC years ago, and the impression I had was that he didn't really want to be excommunicated, because he still believed, in his own way. I have no idea if he was open about being gay, if he was, then it was naïve to expect it wouldn't impact his membership, particularly given the nature of his research.

I doubt that anyone is going to view you as some sort of traitor, Tarski. If they do, I will start telling everyone they're gay as punishment. ;)

[_beastie]

But that would entail my having to reread it. Blech.

I'll give you a quick synopsis.

A couple of assertions were made to demonstrate that Murphy was of poor character and viewed with derision by serious scholars. One was that, in the middle of an academic conference, in front an entire room of people, Murphy accused Midgley of having ratted him out to his SP. Another was that more serious scholars actually laughed at Murphy during the Q/A portion of his presentation. Another was that he took a statement by a Native American LDS believer out of context to make it sound like he disapproved of the Book of Mormon.

These assertions were made by several people, including some who actually did not attend Murphy's session. The accuracy of these assertions was repeatedly defended by references to having read a "court like" transcript, with a tape to back it up.

Skeptical critics repeatedly asked questions designed to obtain more detailed information about the transcript, who actually attended, etc. This was obviously very annoying to the posters making the accusations. But eventually it transpired that there was no formal transcript at all, merely informal notes taken by two people, who then met with others, some of whom were not in the session, and shared their impressions, then typed them up. One of the people who actually was in the session taking notes admitted that Murphy, in fact, never mentioned Midgley, and his wife may have mentioned him later, in a smaller group (someone remembered hearing the name and thought it was her). The laughter that supposedly was evidence that Murphy was viewed by derision by real scholars turned out to be in responses to funny comments made that were not actually derogatory towards Murphy at all. And the actual essay that Murphy's (different) powerpoint was based on actually included the entire quote from the Native American, which included a statement of his own faith.

It took 28 pages of persistent questioning to get this information, and through it all, the accusers insisted that the skeptics were engaged in ridiculous shenanigans, which were of the type that was ruining ZLMB. Juliann ended by issuing invitations to serious folks to go to FAIR.

Your comment about the thread, at the end, was:

It has been an extraordinarily disgusting performance, and I find it difficult to believe that it has been done in good faith. Such studied and long-winded absurdity threatens to ruin ZLMB, if, indeed, it hasn't already done so.

Is it really disgusting and absurd to ask questions designed to determine the reliability of serious accusations?

[_skippy the dead]

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?

Indeed! I've wondered the same thing. Maybe they've silently joined me in a vow of board-war pacifism? Somehow I doubt it, so the question remains.

Maybe they haven't noticed. For my part, I'm not interested. I had nothing to do with the founding of the FAIR board, and essentially nothing to do with the transition to the MA&D board, and I just don't care.

Anyhow, I'm happy to see Daniel over here taking it head-on, instead of lobbing things from the safety of his home-board as usual. It's exactly the courage one hopes for in a heroic personage, whether it all ends in victory, tradgedy, or stalemate -- who cares! At least our hero has the bravery (and time) to battle Scratch the Dragon in his own lair.

It won't last long. I'm very fragile, and I need protection.

The mere thought of certain posters here and of their all-conquering arguments (I'm thinking particularly of PP, Schmo, and the dreaded Mercury) fills me with such terror that I have to resort to my smelling salts and my lovely little folding Chinese paper fan.

Mostly, though, I'm going out of town shortly. That'll probably do it for me. At least by and large. (I hope so, anyway. I probably won't leave altogether, though, because I think it will be useful -- not to mention amusing -- to announce new publications here.)

Okay, I must confess that the good professor has now officially grown on me. The picture of smelling salts and the fluttering fan made me laugh aloud. Thanks for the grin.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I appreciate the effort you put into writing up a synopsis, and I read it with interest.

But I really would prefer not to comment on a synopsis. And especially not on a synopsis of a selection, which is what I believe your synopsis is.

Your comment about the thread, at the end, was:

It has been an extraordinarily disgusting performance, and I find it difficult to believe that it has been done in good faith. Such studied and long-winded absurdity threatens to ruin ZLMB, if, indeed, it hasn't already done so.

Is it really disgusting and absurd to ask questions designed to determine the reliability of serious accusations?

I scarcely remember the thread, but I doubt very much that my "extraordinarily disgusting performance" comment was directed at what I knew to be an obvious act of "ask[ing] questions designed to determine the reliability of serious accusations." Some will no doubt be shocked to hear it, but I'm not opposed to asking questions, I don't favor false accusations, and I don't approve of deliberately spreading untruths. Some people even think I'm a relatively decent human being.

[_Bond...James Bond]

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?

I was just wondering the same thing......I'm quite suprised this didn't set off another major board war (almost immediately). Maybe the MAD folks are gathering their forces preparing for an organized counterattack, or maybe they don't read this board anymore.

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

I was just wondering the same thing......I'm quite suprised this didn't set off another major board war (almost immediately). Maybe the MAD folks are gathering their forces preparing for an organized counterattack, or maybe they don't read this board anymore.

Uh, there's almost 3000 views on this thread. Someone's reading it. Hmmm...I think the more likely scenario is a planned invasion.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Uh, there's almost 3000 views on this thread. Someone's reading it. Hmmm...I think the more likely scenario is a planned invasion.

Awesome....for my missionary work I did re-invite consiglieri to come back to the dark side. But surely Juliann wouldn't set foot on this board...

(She sure would....and stop calling me Shirley ;)

[_Jersey Girl]

Uh, there's almost 3000 views on this thread. Someone's reading it. Hmmm...I think the more likely scenario is a planned invasion.

Awesome....for my missionary work I did re-invite consiglieri to come back to the dark side. But surely Juliann wouldn't set foot on this board...

(She sure would....and stop calling me Shirley ;)

Are we supposed to be doing missionary work? Geez! Okay, I know exactly who I'll invite.

;-)