Juliann: ZLMB is dead. When it comes to the point that putting up lecture notes is not allowed by the resident hucksters, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
Who on earth was "not allowing" this? If anything people were asking to see them (and trying to determine if they were the aforementioned courtroom-style "transcript").
Please note, for those who were not privy to this thread and who have not been privy to Daniel's behavior for literally years: I am guilty of requesting the transcript; I am guilty of pushing Juliann into a corner and forcing her to admit that no transcript existed. I am not guilty of sophistry or lying, as accused by Daniel. All I did was ask for the transcript... repeatedly, and I got nailed pretty hard for it.
That's clear from the thread, which is why I keep asking: what exactly was it about that thread that prompted both Juliann and Daniel to proclaim it as an example of everything that was wrong with Z?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Wow - this thread has almost 20 views per post. That must be a record.
Nah....there's a thread in the Telestial that has almost 100 views per post. It's subject: The Big M!
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I must say that I am quite amazed that the thread has endured and developed as it has.
Liz---
There appears to be some confusion pertaining to the DCP/Quinn gossipmongering story. For whatever reason, some people seem to think that either myself, or Rollo, or (apparently) both of us, have somehow implicated the Good Professor as a kind of "engineer" in a widespread campaign to smear Quinn. So far as I know, nobody ever said that. Here are the facts of the case as I understand them:
1. Quinn was publicly excommunicated in 1993, as part of the infamous "September Six"
2. Quinn "came out" publicly, and announced that he was gay, in 1996.
3. DCP has spoken, or "gossiped" about Quinn on a number of occasions, including telling the FAIRboard that Quinn's homosexuality was "known to his stake president". The Good Professor has also said that he felt "betrayed" by Quinn's historical writings, and that he (i.e., DCP views some of Quinn's work as "embarrassing" and "tendentious.")
These are the honest-to-God facts of the matter. There is no question whatsoever that DCP engaged in gossip, in the public forum of the ironically named FAIRboard. This is an incontrovertible fact. Nevertheless, there still seems to be some questions swirling about. The big question, and the reason this discussion is still ongoing, is principally this: Was DCP's gossiping about Mike Quinn done in a spirit of maliciousness? We can differentiate, after all, between normal, everyday, barbershop-type gossip vs. stuff that is meant to harm, or done in a spirit of condescension and/or hatred. Further, as both Tarski and Dr. Shades have said, "So what? Gossip is normal, social behavior, and pretty much no big deal. So what?"
My position as to this latter bit is that it is very difficult to conceive of discussions about homosexuality within a TBM context as being anything other than malicious. When you read over DCP's remarks on the Tom Murphy thread, do you think to yourself, "Ah, well, he's just a chummy fellow, who enjoys a good joke!" Or do you think, instead, that his little barbs are delivered in the hope that Mr. Murphy will suffer, and that the bogus charges will stick? (It should be noted that DCP persisted, to the end, in insisting that Murphy be taken to task for "twisting" Larry Echohawk's statement.) Carrying all this history over to the Quinn Fiasco, again, ask yourself: Was DCP telling the FAIRites about Quinn's homosexuality, in a normal, chummy, non-TBM way? Or was there some malice behind it? Was he secretly satisfied that Quinn suffered, and was ex'ed? (The Good Professor has winkingly insinuated on multiple occasions that he believed Quinn's sexuality was a major reason for his excommunication---a claim which stands in stark contrast to Quinn's understanding of the matter. Think, too, about the way the apologists dealt with Simon Southerton's ecclesiastical punishment.)
In the end, it all boils down to this: Do you think the Mopologists would pass along gossip about their enemies in a hunky-dorey, "barbershop" fashion? Or not?
Mister Scratch wrote:In the end, it all boils down to this: Do you think the Mopologists would pass along gossip about their enemies in a hunky-dorey, "barbershop" fashion? Or not?
That's what it boils down too? Well, OK. Are we crtitics to take it as a given that mopologists, all mopologists, consider Quinn an outright enemy and so much so that they hold personal animus toward him? So much so that they are willing to forgo ethics? So much so that we are justified in assuming the worst interpretations possible concerning the motivations of the dreaded mopologist??
Slightly black and white thinking I would say. Mopologist bad! Critic good!
I think we would do better to analyse what FARMS and FAIR has put into print in order to uncover bias, error and ad hominen argumentation.
There is plenty there to look at and there is no argument about what words were actually used in that case.
Mister Scratch wrote:In the end, it all boils down to this: Do you think the Mopologists would pass along gossip about their enemies in a hunky-dorey, "barbershop" fashion? Or not?
That's what it boils down too? Well, OK. Are we crtitics to take it as a given that mopologists, all mopologists, consider Quinn an outright enemy and so much so that they hold personal animus toward him?
No, Tarski---you're right. I should have clarified that I was speaking in particular about DCP, who has provided us with ample evidence that he, and indeed many of his "circle," regard Quinn with scorn. I did not take it as a "given"; rather, I have based this interpretation upon things he (i.e., DCP) and other Mopologists have said in a variety of places. Did you overlook the fairly recent postings from an admitted Mopologist using the nom de guerre, "Opie Rockwell"?
So much so that they are willing to forgo ethics?
I can't speak to that. Certainly, DCP has been more than willing to forgo ethics elsewhere.
So much so that we are justified in assuming the worst interpretations possible concerning the motivations of the dreaded mopologist??
Who is doing this? You? Me? I *do* think that some of DCP's remarks about Quinn on FAIR/MAD have been quite rotten indeed.
Slightly black and white thinking I would say. Mopologist bad! Critic good!
I think we would do better to analyse what FARMS and FAIR has put into print in order to uncover bias, error and ad hominen argumentation. There is plenty there to look at and there is no argument about what words were actually used in that case.
Tarski, you disappoint me. You are obviously well-educated and intelligent. Perhaps this is simply a case of lack of exposure? I cannot escape the feeling that you just simply haven't gotten fully up to speed here. I have documented and explored all of this material, in-depth and at length. You can read page upon page upon page of material, edited by none other than DCP, which displays the rather naked contempt that many of the Mopologists hold regarding Quinn. See, for instance, the lengthy review of Quinn's Same-Sex Dynamics book. Or any number of DCP's gossipy, disparaging posts on Quinn.
I cannot help but feel that you are weighing in here without having looked at all of the data. I will go ahead and top my earlier thread on the Quinn/Gossipmongering Fiasco for your benefit.
Happy reading!
Edited to add: I have also gone ahead and topped a second relevant thread which deals with DCP's defense of himself to Dr. Shades.