Ray A wrote:And whether it's done through systematic planning or spontaneous babble, discussing marital relationships based on Internet speculation and sporadic posts can be very distressing to a person.
Take that cause and champion it over at MADB. You're preaching to the choir here.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Jersey Girl wrote:Well, charity...you've caught me in a mood wherein I don't give a damn how anything looks right now. Lucky you. Here's the thing about the hysterectomy vs vasectomy and thank you for jumping to your wrong headed overly biased conclusions in public.
A "couple" weren't discussing hysterectomy vs vasectomy at all. Bob and his Bishop discussed it when Bob sought guidance regarding his wife's well being.
You really are in a foul mood. This is even worse. Talking to a bishop about private matters is supposed to stay private. And behind his wife's back posting on a message about such a thing. Disgusting.
Oh, yes, I didn't know that until you posted it. So who is defaming Boib?
beastie wrote: Of course this topic is of more interest on this board, because this board is more involved in FAIR/MAD in every way. The real topic here isn't mccue, it's the egregious behavior of the fair-wiki "manager", Greg Smith, and the fact that ad-hom attacks are frequent on the part of FAIR apologists in general. THAT'S why it's still alive here.
I have not defended FAIR at all. I haven't slavered over the "juicy" article, so I don't know what FAIR had to say. All you guys here have provided me with the gossip. Isn't that egregious behavior?
I've stayed out of this, and I haven't read the FAIR piece. However, I have known Bob McCue for almost 3 years. He's a good man (though more than a bit verbose), and I've never seen him say anything abusive or evil about his wife and family. From what I've heard from those who have read the FAIR piece, it's a good thing they took it down, as they cobbled together a bunch of out-of-context stuff and used it to smear Bob. Gee, sounds like something one of those evil antis would have done.
rcrocket wrote:Cluck cluck cluck. A bunch of prurient old anonymous hens circulating by email and board chit chat the malicious talk of a known person's private woes. You're sick -- all of you.
And if a board posted a Wiki site on you and your life? You'd be OK with that?
Somehow I doubt it.
I'd recommend, Bishop Crockett, that as long as you're sitting in that glass mansion in ****** you stop throwing stones at those who chose to post anonymously.
Really, now, is it necessary to continue to post personal information about me? What possible thrill do you get out of stalking me in this way? First it is defamation about my resume and now it is more and more posting of personal information?
Why can't you all just leave McCue alone -- continuing to circulate personal information about him under the guise of criticizing FAIR -- how hypocritical is that? McCue is a decent individual. He doesn't deserve what you, Blixa, etc. etc. are doing to him. You all want to know what the original Wiki piece is which says the nasty things about him, and you ask for it and circulate it? You're perverted.
Your anonymity is sheer cowardice. You use it to throw around trash about somebody, McCue, who is a known practicing attorney. You and your friends justify your behavior because FAIR posted it? (Unfortunately, I can neither condemn or condone it because I haven't seen it nor should I). Your internal circulation of the old WIKI FAIR piece is libelous.
Jersey Girl wrote:Well, charity...you've caught me in a mood wherein I don't give a damn how anything looks right now. Lucky you. Here's the thing about the hysterectomy vs vasectomy and thank you for jumping to your wrong headed overly biased conclusions in public.
A "couple" weren't discussing hysterectomy vs vasectomy at all. Bob and his Bishop discussed it when Bob sought guidance regarding his wife's well being.
You really are in a foul mood. This is even worse. Talking to a bishop about private matters is supposed to stay private. And behind his wife's back posting on a message about such a thing. Disgusting.
Oh, yes, I didn't know that until you posted it. So who is defaming Boib?
beastie wrote: Of course this topic is of more interest on this board, because this board is more involved in FAIR/MAD in every way. The real topic here isn't mccue, it's the egregious behavior of the fair-wiki "manager", Greg Smith, and the fact that ad-hom attacks are frequent on the part of FAIR apologists in general. THAT'S why it's still alive here.
I have not defended FAIR at all. I haven't slavered over the "juicy" article, so I don't know what FAIR had to say. All you guys here have provided me with the gossip. Isn't that egregious behavior?
The part I bolded....you appear to think that every one around you is gossiping except the folks at FAIR wiki. Defaming Bob? Are you saying that *I* am defaming Bob? There is no "gossip" to provide you with charity. The Bishop discussion is part of an online essay written by Bob himself.
Do you actually think I'm in the habit of disclosing someone's personal information on a public forum? If so, you'd be wrong on that count.
Why do you refer to the article as "juicy"? Juicy to whom? This is even worse? Don't you think you should do some fact checking or at least ask a question or two before accomodating information into your scenario?
Had I only your characterizations on this thread to go on, I can easily see why FAIR wiki chose to post the article that they did.
Jersey Girl wrote: The part I bolded....you appear to think that every one around you is gossiping except the folks at FAIR wiki. Defaming Bob? Are you saying that *I* am defaming Bob? There is no "gossip" to provide you with charity. The Bishop discussion is part of an online essay written by Bob himself.
Well, then what is the stink about FAIR? If Bob is posting private and personal information himself, then it becomes public knowledge and anybody can repeat it. So what is the big deal?
Jersey Girl wrote:Why do you refer to the article as "juicy"? Juicy to whom? This is even worse? Don't you think you should do some fact checking or at least ask a question or two before accomodating information into your scenario?
If it is some black and white trivia, with nothing to be outraged about, then why is anyone outraged? It must be something at least a little scandalous. Or at least scandalous that a person would post private information about his wife/family and destroy their privacy. Check your own reaction. You (and the others) are driving this whole thing. There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.
Jersey Girl wrote: The part I bolded....you appear to think that every one around you is gossiping except the folks at FAIR wiki. Defaming Bob? Are you saying that *I* am defaming Bob? There is no "gossip" to provide you with charity. The Bishop discussion is part of an online essay written by Bob himself.
Well, then what is the stink about FAIR? If Bob is posting private and personal information himself, then it becomes public knowledge and anybody can repeat it. So what is the big deal?
Jersey Girl wrote:Why do you refer to the article as "juicy"? Juicy to whom? This is even worse? Don't you think you should do some fact checking or at least ask a question or two before accomodating information into your scenario?
If it is some black and white trivia, with nothing to be outraged about, then why is anyone outraged? It must be something at least a little scandalous. Or at least scandalous that a person would post private information about his wife/family and destroy their privacy. Check your own reaction. You (and the others) are driving this whole thing. There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.
Yes, there is something about it on the MAD board, charity. Go read the MAD board.
From what I've read, the article is a chopped up spin job with commentary that supports the spin. That would be my main objection to it. That and the fact that the folks who compile FAIR wiki appear to think they have no other recourse than to engage in tabloid reporting. My "reaction" is simply one of disgust.
If it is some black and white trivia, with nothing to be outraged about, then why is anyone outraged? It must be something at least a little scandalous. Or at least scandalous that a person would post private information about his wife/family and destroy their privacy. Check your own reaction. You (and the others) are driving this whole thing. There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.
How many times have you posted on this thread, charity?
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.