The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_beastie]

Ray,

I wasn't asking whether or not you agree with the statement. I know you don't. I wanted to know what your reaction would be to an exmormon making the exact statement you made, except about Mormons.

I think you would use it as evidence of their evil character and bigotry, frankly.

As far as my own experience, on the internet, on these sort of boards, Mormons have called me mentally ill, a liar, a plagerist, and b**ch, and many other names. So, yes, Mormons will go pretty low, when they decide you are "the enemy". You've just never been - completely - "the enemy". You've always defended certain truth claims of the LDS church.

[_Ray A]

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

And so the charges of "Quinn gossip" are true? I saw Tarski tipping in to have his say, more than once. Where were you? Contrarily, you expressed some doubts, and were still open to Scratch's pure innuendo, with only ONE source of real evidence, the man he accused, who explicitly denied it. Even Don's objective observations were completely ignored.

[_beastie]

And so the charges of "Quinn gossip" are true? I saw Tarski tipping in to have his say, more than once. Where were you? Contrarily, you expressed some doubts, and were still open to Scratch's pure innuendo, with only ONE source of real evidence, the man he accused, who explicitly denied it. Even Don's objective observations were completely ignored.

I haven't the vaguest idea of whether or not they were true, which is why I've limited my comments. I have no idea how open Quinn was about his sexuality - when I heard him talk about his excommunication, he certainly did not make it sound like he was being open about it. And I'm sure Dan doesn't believe he was gossiping in a harmful way. That doesn't mean the gossip wasn't harmful. I really don't know.

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I wasn't asking whether or not you agree with the statement. I know you don't. I wanted to know what your reaction would be to an exmormon making the exact statement you made, except about Mormons.

You may or may not have noticed that I edited my post to read some exmos, before you posted.

I think you would use it as evidence of their evil character and bigotry, frankly.

Some of them, most definitely. Too many for my liking.

As far as my own experience, on the internet, on these sort of boards, Mormons have called me mentally ill, a liar, a plagerist, and b**ch, and many other names. So, yes, Mormons will go pretty low, when they decide you are "the enemy". You've just never been - completely - "the enemy". You've always defended certain truth claims of the LDS church.

Someone finally gets it right.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Scratch, for one, has absolutely zero doubt that I'm a "mean-spirited liar" and a smear-meister.

Which may explain why he's lately been expressing his admiration for me.

[_beastie]

Additional comment - As Dan knows, and which I reiterated on this thread, I don't agree with his judgment in regards to things he's said - or rather, hinted at - in the past. I think it does more harm to say something like this:

"If you knew what I know about this individual, you would not trust what he says. I cannot reveal what I know, but just trust me, it would undermine this individual's credibility."

Than to say something like

"Dan Palmer once wrote critical articles about the church using a pseudonym".

So do I think it's possible that Dan could have said things, using this same judgment he's already demonstrated (and defended here) that did real harm to Quinn? Yes, it's possible. But we just don't have enough evidence to know for certain. It's also possible that everyone knew about Quinn's sexuality already.

But from the LDS I know, most of the time when comments are exchanged about someone being homosexual, it's not in the same non-judgmental fashion that more liberal people would make the comment.

[_Ray A]

So do I think it's possible that Dan could have said things, using this same judgment he's already demonstrated (and defended here) that did real harm to Quinn? Yes, it's possible. But we just don't have enough evidence to know for certain. It's also possible that everyone knew about Quinn's sexuality already.

Everyone didn't know, but as Don said many in "LDS circles" did, and were not surprised when he "came out" officially.

But from the LDS I know, most of the time when comments are exchanged about someone being homosexual, it's not in the same non-judgmental fashion that more liberal people would make the comment.

And I've not only never defended those comments, but sometimes spoken out against them. In the thread about the GA who outlined the Church's position on gays, I made some remarks that would have even made a bald LDS man's hair grow back and stand on end.

[_beastie]

Someone finally gets it right.

Finally? I've always said that about you.

So you haven't experienced "how low" Mormons can go, because you've never been fully perceived as "the enemy".

[_Ray A]

So you haven't experienced "how low" Mormons can go, because you've never been fully perceived as "the enemy".

I have experienced how low one Mormon has gone, as I mentioned. If you feel that calling someone a "b****" is "low", how many times here, and how many people here, have called Juliann a "B****"? Including male exmos. Were they ever chastised?

[_beastie]

I have experienced how low one Mormon has gone, as I mentioned. If you feel that calling someone a "b****" is "low", how many times here, and how many people here, have called Juliann a "B****"? Including male exmos. Were they ever chastised?

Yes, calling someone a name is low. Lying is low. I've seen believers do both, and exbelievers do both.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea of exmormons chastising other exmormons? This goes back to your notion of holding all of us responsible for the worst of RfM, simply because we don't, somehow, magically, control other people's behavior. If I wanted the job of chastising people for bad behavior, I'd sign up to be a moderator. I only chastise when I just can't take it anymore.

I don't recall seeing you be the behavior police over on MAD. Then again, if that's what you want to do, go for it. It's not what I want to do. Fussing at other people like that rarely has any effect, so when I do it, it is simply venting.