The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Who Knows]

You 3 (DCP, Scratch, and Rollo) should just go get a hotel room, have a ménage à trois, and get it over with.

Jeez!

[_Daniel Peterson]

You 3 (DCP, Scratch, and Rollo) should just go get a hotel room, have a ménage à trois, and get it over with.

Jeez!

Don't worry. I go out of town tomorrow for several days, and will deliberately have no internet access. (This has long been on the calendar, and, so, has always been part of my self-limitation plan.)

Scratch and Rollo Tomasi will be able to smear me with perfect impunity while I'm away, but I would imagine that the quantity of posts on the topic of my mythical villainy will drop substantially. You can only repeat a malicious slander to the same audience so often before the thrill begins to fade. (I should know. According to Scratch and his alter ego I practically do it for a living.) And I'm guessing that that will even prove true of Scrollo.

[_Some Schmo]

You 3 (DCP, Scratch, and Rollo) should just go get a hotel room, have a ménage à trois, and get it over with.

Jeez!

Don't worry. I go out of town tomorrow for several days...

So are you going to tell them where to meet you or leave them hangin? You don't plan on actually meeting at a rest stop, do ya?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't want Scrollo to know where I'm going because they'd probably trail after me, waving slanderous placards. Nor do I want Madame de la Tourette to follow me, screaming obscenities while boasting of her superior kindness. So I'll just keep my whereabouts to myself.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The SP's discussing a stake member's private life with your friend was an incredible breach of propriety.

The fact that a friend mentioned to a friend something that was widely known is no breach of "propriety" at all. The stake president hadn't even met Quinn at the time, and had just learned that the inactive Quinn was living within the boundaries of his stake. He passed on no confidential information because he had none.

This makes it even worse, in my opinion. He didn't even know Quinn and he's spouting off about his private life to your friend (who, in turn, tells you). The fact you continue to defend this behavior boggles the mind.

Add to this the concerted effort by BKP and Loren Dunn to have the same SP boot Quinn out

Which may or may not have occurred, but which, in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Never said it did -- you were asking about my comment of Church leaders giving "horrible treatment" to Quinn; this was it (along with your friend and Quinn's SP).

and, yes, you've got yourself a nice recipe for "horrible treatment."

Only if you consider excommunication, in and of itself, to be "horrible treatment."

I don't.

I think it depends on the case. If one is accused and disciplined based on gossip, then it very much is "horrible treatment."

Our disagreement here is not that I regard vile gossip as a good thing while you, the moral paragon, think it bad. (If anything, I think your absolute determination to paint me, anonymously, as an unethical person demonstrates quite the opposite to be the case, but I'll let that pass for the moment.) Our disagreement stems from the fact that you accuse me of viciously gossiping about Mike Quinn, while I absolutely deny having done so.

I "accuse you," based on your own words, of having gossiped about Quinn's sexual orientation among your "circles" and behind his back. That's it.

A few people mentioned Quinn's homosexuality briefly in my presence and I didn't deck them.

This is certainly not how you presented it on the FAIR thread in April 2006.

Yet, on that basis, you seek to publicly damage my character?

Your own words did that -- my "basis" was your words.

In the name of Christianity and righteousness?

No, in terms of right and wrong.

No smear -- just the truth, my dear man.

Then present the evidence.

I have -- read my posts above.

And please drop the Scratchian terms of endearment. If you regarded me as "dear" in any sense, even as a human being deserving of minimal respect, you wouldn't be continuing this crusade to blacken my character.

I hold no malice toward you. Rather, it's more like a "love the sinner, hate the sin" type of situation. You made a mistake, so 'stand for something' and be accountable.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Scratch and Rollo Tomasi will be able to smear me with perfect impunity while I'm away ....

We haven't and won't, whether you are here or not.

... but I would imagine that the quantity of posts on the topic of my mythical villainy will drop substantially.

That (thanks to your 20-post a day habit) will happen in your absence.

Have a nice trip.

[Guest]

This makes it even worse, in my opinion.

Of course, it does, Scroatch.

You need help.

He didn't even know Quinn and he's spouting off about his private life to your friend (who, in turn, tells you). The fact you continue to defend this behavior boggles the mind.

The fact that you claim to be able to see no distinction between the mere mention of a widely-known fact about somebody, on the one hand, and vicious, damaging gossip, on the other, suggests either that you're a utopian fanatic or a reclusive hermit and a misanthrope or a phony, malicious, agenda-driven poseur. I incline to the latter diagnosis.

and, yes, you've got yourself a nice recipe for "horrible treatment."

Only if you consider excommunication, in and of itself, to be "horrible treatment."

I don't.

I think it depends on the case. If one is accused and disciplined based on gossip, then it very much is "horrible treatment."

Do you have any reason whatever to believe this to be the case? Were you there at the church court? I wasn't.

I "accuse you," based on your own words, of having gossiped about Quinn's sexual orientation among your "circles" and behind his back. That's it.

Then you lie about what I said. It's that simple.

Yet, on that basis, you seek to publicly damage my character?

Your own words did that -- my "basis" was your words.

You lie.

In the name of Christianity and righteousness?

No, in terms of right and wrong.

In the name of malice and dishonesty, rather.

Then present the evidence.

I have -- read my posts above.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that "Freethinker" engaged in the kind of smear campaign that you favor. Nor, indeed, in any other kind.

But then, as you've demonstrated at hyper-redundant length, you don't really need evidence to pursue your agenda of anonymous character assassination. So why bother?

I hold no malice toward you.

You lie.

Rather, it's more like a "love the sinner, hate the sin" type of situation. You made a mistake, so 'stand for something' and be accountable.

You lie.

You're either a crank or a conscious slanderer, Scroatch. Either way, you need help.

[_rcrocket]

Communication isn' t gossip if it is public-knowledge discussion of a public figure. Quinn had outed himself long before his excommunication in 1993, and his resignation from BYU in 1988, and his divorce in 1984. Just ask him yourselves; write to him in care of Signature Books.

I don't know why anybody would bother with malicious anonymous attacks. Such courage. Identify yourselves.

rcrocket

[_dartagnan]

I don't know why anybody would bother with malicious anonymous attacks. Such courage. Identify yourselves.

So what are you saying? That Dan was a coward when he posted as Fritz, FreeThinker, and the number of other names he has used online?

I don't think that is cowardice Dan, even if one of your own does.

[_Tarski]

this is all just nuts