The Origin of FAIR/MAD

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:56 am

500 posts!!!

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:25 am

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Pokatator wrote:It is obvious that the reason you have "Zero Zip Zilch Nada" interest in reading the 28 pages and responding is because all that the 28 pages contain is deliberate deception and in which you participated in but I agree your participation was to a lesser degree than your cohorts.

Since you believe that you already have the obvious truth, I wonder why you demand that I spend time studying those 28 pages of moss-covered internet posts and formulating a response. It seems quite plain that doing so would be a redundant waste of effort, from your point of view.

The irony here is that you demand that people read the entire, lengthy Mitton/James article, without proffering any commentary of your own, and yet you cannot be bothered to read this ZLMB thread. Hmmm.....

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:25 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:
beastie wrote:You know, Daniel, if you had spent half the time rereading the original linked Z thread that you have going back and forth with scratch, you could perhaps help some of us understand why you viewed that thread as typifying all that was so wrong with Z.

True. But, you see, I have no interest whatever in re-reading that thread. None. Not the slightest smidgin. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. (Did I mention my lack of interest before? I think maybe I did. I also have no interest in re-runs of I Love Lucy.) Whereas I do (or, at any rate, did) have some small but powerful interest in defending my reputation against Scratch One's perpetual-motion smear campaign.

Awww...you're missing out!

Lucy is awesome!

;)

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:27 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Pokatator wrote:It is obvious that the reason you have "Zero Zip Zilch Nada" interest in reading the 28 pages and responding is because all that the 28 pages contain is deliberate deception and in which you participated in but I agree your participation was to a lesser degree than your cohorts.

Since you believe that you already have the obvious truth, I wonder why you demand that I spend time studying those 28 pages of moss-covered internet posts and formulating a response. It seems quite plain that doing so would be a redundant waste of effort, from your point of view.

Wait....didn't Dr. Peterson already say that he felt that if people(a.k.a. Juliann et. al.) acted dishonestly, then he wasn't supportive?

That happened several pages back....What did I miss?

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:53 pm

Wait....didn't Dr. Peterson already say that he felt that if people(a.k.a. Juliann et. al.) acted dishonestly, then he wasn't supportive?

That happened several pages back....What did I miss?

yes, he said that on THIS thread. However, this statement doesn't gel with his comments on the Z thread, wherein he was very supportive of Juliann, et al, and stated that the critics were engaged in such horrible behavior on the thread that it was destroying Z. This is why I have pressed him to reread the thread to figure out what in the heck he was thinking. By the end of the thread, it was clear that several believers had been making adamant claims that turned out to be not supported by actual facts. Now whether they were acting dishonestly, which I think some were at least on some level, or were just acting in response to their own confirmation biases and poor memories, I don't think we can know for certain. However, we can know for certain that false claims were being made, and being aggressively supported by several believers. So Daniel's fervent support of Juliann et al on the thread does seems contradictory with his statements here. I would really like clarification and think we owe it to him to hear those clarifications, but he refuses. This refusal to clarify leads me to believe that what he found so offensive about the critics' behavior on the thread was their repeated, dogged, determined questioning that eventually unraveled the falsehoods. The fact that one of FAIR's primary, sacrosanct rules - although applied with extreme bias - is the "ask and answer" policy also leads me to this concluson. This thread would never have survived long enough on FAIR for the eventual truth to come out. Without clarification, and given other factors (such as the fact that critics did not misbehave more than believers on Z), I am concluding that certain believers prefer to operate in a climate that would allow them to make the type of assertions they did on this Z thread, and never have to face repeated questioning about these assertions that would eventually allow falsehoods to be revealed. Again, I don't know whether this is deliberate or not. Human beings are too hard to figure out, and too good at fooling themselves, for me to feel comfortable drawing that conclusion.

Post by **_harmony** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:07 pm

I think what's he's saying now is that he doesn't give a damn. It's water under the bridge, and he's completely uninterested in discussing ancient history of an LDS board that is 'way past its prime, nor does he care how that history led to the current LDS board environment, policies, or apologists' arguments.

Maybe he's going to take up a new hobby. Whale watching, or snipe hunting.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:59 pm

How surprising that someone who defended Julian et al and attacked the critics on that thread would now find it uninteresting!! Apparently, the MADdites who follow this board regularly and start threads regarding conversations here are also completely uninterested in this particular "water under the bridge". I think that means that none of them can think of any way to spin this particular event. And given their aptitude and fondness of spin, that is quite a damning situation.

I mean, really - what else can DCP do? He can't reread the thread and be forced to openly admit that Juliann was dishonest.

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:30 pm

beastie wrote:Apparently, the MADdites who follow this board regularly and start threads regarding conversations here

They do that? I thought that was considered akin to starting a board war over there.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:37 pm

harmony wrote:I think what's he's saying now is that he doesn't give a damn. It's water under the bridge, and he's completely uninterested in discussing ancient history of an LDS board that is 'way past its prime, nor does he care how that history led to the current LDS board environment, policies, or apologists' arguments.

Right again. (Harmony's on a roll.)

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:38 pm

hey do that? I thought that was considered akin to starting a board war over there.

That was FAIR. MAD deliberately decided to allow posters to create posts about topics being discussed on other boards. Juliann has started several, and since her claims are the main problem in the Z thread, if she could think of any way to spin it at all, I'm certain she would have started a thread to do so. After all, look at how DCP has been attacked on this thread. That's the type of thing Juliann and a few others glory in sharing. "See how stupid and mean our critics are? Just LOOK at what they said to DCP!!"