FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_harmony]

If the FAIR WIKI article is down, can he still sue, if he was quick enough to copy the original article?

Yes.

Does the FAIR WIKI article say who is the author?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Does the FAIR WIKI article say who is the author?

If it functions like other wikis you can go into the "history" tab at the top and see all changes made on a given article.

Here's an example of a history tab (on an article I got by hitting random article):
http://en.fairmormon.org/wiki/index.php ... on=history

Here's the main page by the way:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page

[_charity]

And those of you who are confabulating the Church with FAIR are being nonsensical. FAIR quite plainly states it is not owned, operated, told what to say or do, or not say or do by the Church. I guess that is too hard a concept for the most rabid among the ex-es and critics to get.

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

If they church knows what FAIR is doing, then it seems to me that the church should either shut them down (like they shut down the neighborhood discussion groups in the 80's), or else rein them in. FAIR doesn't do the church any favors, as evidenced by this latest debacle.

Gosh, harmony, as a faithful, temple attending Mormon, you should know that the Church doesn't do that sort of thing. I think it sticks in the craw of the exes and critics that the Church doesn't. Kind of ruins their little strategy of telling everyone how controlling the Church is. So which side of the critic's fence do you want to sit on? The Church controls every thought, idea and action members take and is totally repsonsible for it all. OR why doesn't the Church reign in it's free thinking, free acting members. Can't have it both ways.

By the way, are you going to answer my question. If McCue uses his family stories to attack the Church, then aren't his family stories fair game to be refuted? Open the door theory, and all that.

[_harmony]

Does the FAIR WIKI article say who is the author?

If it functions like other wikis you can go into the "history" tab at the top and see all changes made on a given article.

So could Blixa find out who the author(s) is, or has that disappeared with the disappearance of the article itself?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

If the information used to refute his arguments is untrue, then it should be out of bounds.

[_harmony]

And those of you who are confabulating the Church with FAIR are being nonsensical. FAIR quite plainly states it is not owned, operated, told what to say or do, or not say or do by the Church. I guess that is too hard a concept for the most rabid among the ex-es and critics to get.

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

If they church knows what FAIR is doing, then it seems to me that the church should either shut them down (like they shut down the neighborhood discussion groups in the 80's), or else rein them in. FAIR doesn't do the church any favors, as evidenced by this latest debacle.

Gosh, harmony, as a faithful, temple attending Mormon, you should know that the Church doesn't do that sort of thing.

Doesn't do what? Shut down neighborhood discussion groups? Oh, yes, it does. Or rather, it did back in the early 80's. I was in one that was summarily shut down by the High Council of our stake.

I think it sticks in the craw of the exes and critics that the Church doesn't. Kind of ruins their little strategy of telling everyone how controlling the Church is. So which side of the critic's fence do you want to sit on? The Church controls every thought, idea and action members take and is totally repsonsible for it all. OR why doesn't the Church reign in it's free thinking, free acting members. Can't have it both ways.

When free thinking free acting members are misrepresenting the church, it's in the vested interest of all the rest of the free thinking free acting members to have the church ask them to shut the hell up (politely, of course). I sure as hell don't want more of my tithing money spent to buy the church out of another lawsuit.

And incidently, I think you're wrong about that. Seems to me like Daniel made mention of something similiar, but I may be misattributing that comment. I'm sure Scratch could look it up in his extensive collection of Daniel quotes, if he was so inclined.

By the way, are you going to answer my question. If McCue uses his family stories to attack the Church, then aren't his family stories fair game to be refuted? Open the door theory, and all that.

Nope. Not my area of expertise.

[Anonymous]

Does the FAIR WIKI article say who is the author?

If it functions like other wikis you can go into the "history" tab at the top and see all changes made on a given article.

So could Blixa find out who the author(s) is, or has that disappeared with the disappearance of the article itself?

Not sure...depends on if the entire page was deleted or if only the text was deleted (leaving the history intact). But it appears that there aren't many editors of the Fairwiki, and some of them look to be FAIR figures people would recognize (awyatt, scottgordon, lynch, etc). I'm not saying those guys were involved with this McCue article! Just some names I noticed when looking at a few articles!

The editor GregSmith seems to be the major writing force (jfyi). (Again...not saying he was involved with the McCue article in question...just another name that comes up often when looking at the fairwiki).

[_charity]

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

If the information used to refute his arguments is untrue, then it should be out of bounds.

Truth is always a defense against the charge of slander and libel.

[_charity]

Doesn't do what? Shut down neighborhood discussion groups? Oh, yes, it does. Or rather, it did back in the early 80's. I was in one that was summarily shut down by the High Council of our stake.

If something is done as a Church discussion group, with the Church's name on it, then yes. If some "enrichment" group was causing problems, then they could be shut down today. Of course, that would not stop any woman from starting her own whatever group, just not associating it with Relief Society, announcing it in the Relief Society Chatter, or putting it in the ward bulletin. FAIR does not belong to the Church. You keep forgetting that.

I think it sticks in the craw of the exes and critics that the Church doesn't. Kind of ruins their little strategy of telling everyone how controlling the Church is. So which side of the critic's fence do you want to sit on? The Church controls every thought, idea and action members take and is totally repsonsible for it all. OR why doesn't the Church reign in it's free thinking, free acting members. Can't have it both ways.

When free thinking free acting members are misrepresenting the church, it's in the vested interest of all the rest of the free thinking free acting members to have the church ask them to shut the hell up (politely, of course). I sure as hell don't want more of my tithing money spent to buy the church out of another lawsuit.

And only an idiot would name the Church in any suit against FAIR. I take that back. Only the greedy would. And just like what happened when the Tanners sued the Church and FAIR for that domain thing, the Church was released immediately from the suit. And I would hate to see the Church have to spend a penny agaisnt an apostate who, as a lawyer, will know that the Church has no responsbility in anything he sues for. The only reason a lawyer brings a frivolous suit is in the hopes of getting an out of court settlement. Which didn't the Tanners a whole lot of good since neither the Church nor FAIR would roll over and play dead.

And incidently, I think you're wrong about that. Seems to me like Daniel made mention of something similiar, but I may be misattributing that comment. I'm sure Scratch could look it up in his extensive collection of Daniel quotes, if he was so inclined.

Wrong about what?

By the way, are you going to answer my question. If McCue uses his family stories to attack the Church, then aren't his family stories fair game to be refuted? Open the door theory, and all that.

Nope. Not my area of expertise.

Nice sidestep. YOu don't need to be a lawyer. Ever watch "Law and Order?" or Court TV?

[_Blixa]

Does the FAIR WIKI article say who is the author?

If it functions like other wikis you can go into the "history" tab at the top and see all changes made on a given article.

So could Blixa find out who the author(s) is, or has that disappeared with the disappearance of the article itself?

The page that this discussion is about was called "McCue: Marital Manipulation." It no longer has a history tab with which to read who made changes, etc. An earlier version of it still has its history tab and there the only writer listed as working on it is Greg Smith.

There is another long McCue article about a letter Bob wrote to Elder Holland (I'm not that familiar with Bob McCue's oevre, others may know more about how these things relate to specific things Bob has written online and/or published offline). There the principal writer appears to be Alan Wyatt, with a few Greg Smith changes listed.