The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_harmony]

Here, no one does the thinking for us. It's a painful process to learn, but some of us have worked out a pretty good system that works for us most of the time.

Golly. Some day I would like to be able to think for myself, too!

It takes some people longer than others.

For some of us, at least, that claim was shown to have merit.

I believe that I saw the claim. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence to back it up.

Yeah, well. Look up the thread. It's here somewhere.

The fact remains that I've been involved off and on with the Public Affairs Department of the Church, and that they plainly don't monitor or know much about such sites as this one; and that the Brethren themselves don't know about such sites as this (so far as I can tell, which is pretty far); and that the two committees that I've sometimes met with about issues where such sites as this might be relevant to the discussion pretty obviously knew nothing about such sites as this.

So who are the people who monitor such sites as this? And to whom do they report?

I propose that it's the Illuminati, or, perhaps, an international cabal of Freemasons.

Perhaps. More likely a bit closer to home.

I'll pass over in silence the latest manifestation of your zeal for judging my character. I've noticed in several of your prior posts that you like to pronounce me a very poor disciple of Christ. I'd say that that is your prerogative -- except that, of course, it's not.

And yet you have honored me with similiar zeal. Unlike yourself, I, however, am not now nor have I ever claimed any sort of insider privilege (see above for a classic example), made claims based solely on my expertise, nor do I need or seek protection from the masses. But that's likely because I'm not the church's chief apologist, a difficult task demanding much expertise and time.

I think it would be best if we didn't interact.

Well, you can always ignore me. I've been somewhat successful at returning the favor.

I find your arrogance and smug judgmentalism profoundly unappealing. Always have.

Lord, have mercy, but that's rich. I am arrogant and smug? I confess it's been years since anyone's said that about me. I suspect you were also that one, too. To one who takes arrogance and smugness to new heights, I bow before your greatness. Lead on, Oh Humble One. Thou art simply breathtaking.

[_Nightingale]

NG said: He is also not automatically a "cross-dresser" because he is gay.

harmony:
"Of course not."

Well, it sounds as though you thought they are synonymous. Is not the discussion about gays at BYU? How come the guy all of a sudden shows up in a dress?

harmony:
"But why is he not following the dress code? How is he not passing his review? And if he's celibate, why would his clothing worry anyone?

I am not intimately acquainted with BYU and its regs or reviews. I am saying that it sounds reasonable to me that the dress code at a conservative religious institution at least implicitly requires that its faculty attire themselves in what administration would see as gender-appropriate clothing.

harmony:
"He was professionally dressed, and he was celibate. Why was he not living according to BYU standards?"

I'm guessing gender-appropriate is an obvious requirement. I know that JWs are forbidden to cross-dress, even in drama, and If I recall correctly, there is a similar teaching within Mormonism (I stand to be corrected on that one but I vaguely recall a discussion about that where it was so stated).

Regarding being "professionally dressed" and celibate (as in, no gay sex in his hypothetical case), I'd say that cross-dressing and showing up in class that way would most likely contravene the spirit, if not the letter, of any number of BYU standards.

NG: Newsflash: BYU is not "liberal"!

harmony:
"What was your first clue?"

Oh. I thought it was you that needed the clue.

You said "Let's see how liberal BYU is".

I said, "It isn't".

Why do you expect it to be? Why are you surprised that it isn't? What does it prove that it enforces its standards?

[_harmony]

NG: Newsflash: BYU is not "liberal"!

harmony:
"What was your first clue?"

Oh. I thought it was you that needed the clue.

You said "Let's see how liberal BYU is".

I said, "It isn't".

Why do you expect it to be? Why are you surprised that it isn't? What does it prove that it enforces its standards?

My apologies. I keep forgetting you're new.

By way of explanation: I was being facetious. My opinion of BYU is inappropriate for the Terrestial forum, even on one of my best days, which this is not. I am well aware of BYU's policies, standards, and procedures. The proposed individual would not last a day in that setting, no matter how wonderful a professor he might be. One does not get sideways of BYU and have one's job survive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nightingale:

harmony knows extremely little about BYU, but she compensates for her ignorance on the subject by being very, very contemptuous.

[_Nightingale]

Oh. So now I feel clueless. I appreciate the free pass for being "new" though. (How many posts til you graduate?)

Obviously a lot of water has gone under the bridge that I didn't see flow by so I should just bow out.

Sarcasm and humour are twins when it comes to a venue like this, obviously, in that neither one is always obvious.

WHOOSH.

(I do tend to be very literal; boards like this enhance my communication difficulties in that regard).

Can I be forgiven for also being confused about who is the LDS around here? :)

[_Ray A]

As far as the enjoyment in exposing Juliann's deceptive maneuvering on the thread, one of the hard facts of life is that if you go around accusing other people of bad behavior that you actually engage in yourself, sooner or later someone is going to expose you, and really enjoy doing it. I've lost track of how many times Juliann accused me of lying and deception - and never had any justification for her accusations. And I'm far from her only target. You reap what you sow.

I don't put anything beyond exmos, nor do I underestimate how low some of them are prepared to go. That's why I will never trust them again. I have written nothing about Scratch that isn't true, either, as far as my thread "The many faces of Mister Scratch" is concerned. He is welcome to answer and give his version of what he stated. He was doing more than "revealing facts" on the other thread about Z. Go back and read his comments about the people involved. He even put a serious question mark over the character of Jan, and that I find despicable.

[_beastie]

I don't put anything beyond exmos, nor do I underestimate how low they are prepared to go. That's why I will never trust them again.

Gee, Ray, what you would say if a RfMer said:

I don't put anything beyond Mormons, nor do I underestimate how low they are prepared to go. That's why I will never trust them again.

Doesn't it strike you odd, on some level, maybe deep, deep down, that you're talking about not being able to trust exmormons when the topic of this thread was the deliberate deception of Juliann and her posse in their character assassination of Murphy?

[_Daniel Peterson]

their character assassination of Murphy

In one of his recent film appearances, Murphy explicitly called me a liar. It would be absolutely horrible if anybody were to say anything against his character. Perhaps a torchlight march through the streets of Salt Lake City is in order.

[_Ray A]

Gee, Ray, what you would say if a RfMer said:

I don't put anything beyond Mormons, nor do I underestimate how low they are prepared to go. That's why I will never trust them again.

The answer to that, for me, is no. Though I've tussled and argued with Mormons, and been called names, they have not gone as low as what I experienced on exmo forums. And I've tussled and argued with Mormons on FAIR. I can make one exception to that, and that was a poster on LDS Internet in 2000. He definitely went below the belt, but he's the only one I recall doing this, and he was chastised by his fellow LDS posters. Mind you, I gave as good as I got.

Doesn't it strike you odd, on some level, maybe deep, deep down, that you're talking about not being able to trust exmormons when the topic of this thread was the deliberate deception of Juliann and her posse in their character assassination of Murphy?

I refer you to Scratch's comment in his OP:

Is anyone still buying his claims about not wanting to smear Mike Quinn???)

This is what I was addressing. Are we not allowed to comment on comments in OPs? This is an another wild insinuation and more character assassination.

[_beastie]

In one of his recent film appearances, Murphy explicitly called me a liar. It would be absolutely horrible if anybody were to say anything against his character. Perhaps a torchlight march through the streets of Salt Lake City is in order.

It's not horrible if they say things against his character when the charges are actually true and can be demonstrated as such.

I know you just can't bring yourself to reread the thread, but the charges laid against him on that thread were false. Not only were the charges false, but there was an orchestrated manipulation of evidence.

I'd like to know more details about him calling you a liar, too. What film? What was the entire statement? What evidence and context can you provide?