FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_skippy the dead]

If it is some black and white trivia, with nothing to be outraged about, then why is anyone outraged?

For me it's not "some black and white trivia", but rather the fact that FAIR puts extra-negative spin on each statement, even bringing in some "physicians" to diagnose McCue that have never met him. It's a smear job, no matter how many times they quote McCue's own posts. That's the outrage.

Oh, and plus the fact that FAIR thinks that even writing this type of attack and then posting it was appropriate.

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

In an effort to avoid laundry, I counted the posts!

charity has posted 31 times on this thread.
I have posted 10 times.

This post makes 11 for me.

:-D

[_cksalmon]

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.

Okay, I'm thinking about it.

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

CKS

[_beastie]

In an effort to avoid laundry, I counted the posts!

charity has posted 31 times on this thread.
I have posted 10 times.

This post makes 11 for me.

:-D

And this makes 15 for me on this thread (and a few were about an unrelated topic).

File that under "things that make you go hmmmmmm". :)

[_charity]

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.

Okay, I'm thinking about it.

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

CKS

I assume you know the difference between verb tenses. WAS vs IS.

[_the road to hana]

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.

Aside from your first sentence here, Bob, your comments here are misdirected. I haven't circulated personal information about him, or asked for or circulated the FAIR Wiki piece. I haven't trashed Bob McCue in any way.

You asked recently that people stop posting personal information about you. I pointed out to you that I would be happy to do that if you'd stop unfairly criticizing people who choose to post anonymously. Otherwise, you were sitting very much in a glass house throwing very big rocks.

In spite of that, you've persisted in ramping up the harassment of those who choose to post anonymously. Somehow, you just aren't getting it. You don't want Bob McCue harassed. You don't want to be harassed. You continue to harass.

I am not stalking you. In fact, I'm not doing most of what you've accused me in the above post. I'm trying to point out to you, apparently without success, the hypocrisy and vulnerability of your position. Why doesn't it occur to you that people post anonymously for a reason?

[_cksalmon]

Charity stated:

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board.

I pointed out that there certainly is something about this on the MADB board.

Charity responded:

I assume you know the difference between verb tenses. WAS vs IS.

Evidently, Charity means to suggest that if something is not on the front page of MADB, then it doesn't exist. I don't know how else to take her suggestion here, as the thread is manifestly still in existence on MADB, albeit in closed form. Below, I've pointed her to the relevant thread, with hyperlink.

POINT TO PONDER: Even when Charity is absolutely, utterly, unequivocally incorrect in what she has stated, she's still somehow correct in her own mind. She will adduce grammar, irrelevantly, to attempt to demonstrate her correctness.

MY SUGGESTION: When someone evinces such manifest disingenuousness s/he is not worthy of response.

At any rate, here's my response to Charity's irrelevant grammar lesson.

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.

Okay, I'm thinking about it.

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

CKS

I assume you know the difference between verb tenses. WAS vs IS.

Really? Seriously? That's it?

Of course I do, having taught English grammar and syntax to TOEFL students.

Here is where the shut down thread is located on MADB.

And I'm assuming that you really just don't know how utterly-disingenuous it is to suggest an utterly-irrelevant point of grammar in an attempt to disguise the fact that your stated thesis has been roundly falsified.

Again:

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

It's like questioning Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." The thread is there. You now have the link. Please stop pretending that there has been no mention of this on MADB. Orpheus shut the thread down. You now know where it is. Stop being disingenuous.

CKS

[_Jersey Girl]

Charity stated:

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board.

I pointed out that there certainly is something about this on the MADB board.

Charity responded:

I assume you know the difference between verb tenses. WAS vs IS.

Evidently, Charity means to suggest that if something is not on the front page of MADB, then it doesn't exist. I don't know how else to take her suggestion here, as the thread is manifestly still in existence on MADB, albeit in closed form. Below, I've pointed her to the relevant thread, with hyperlink.

POINT TO PONDER: Even when Charity is absolutely, utterly, unequivocally incorrect in what she has stated, she's still somehow correct in her own mind. She will adduce grammar, irrelevantly, to attempt to demonstrate her correctness.

MY SUGGESTION: When someone evinces such manifest disingenuousness s/he is not worthy of response.

At any rate, here's my response to Charity's irrelevant grammar lesson.

There is nothing about this on the MA&D board. 10, 11 pages here? Think about it.

Okay, I'm thinking about it.

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

CKS

I assume you know the difference between verb tenses. WAS vs IS.

Really? Seriously? That's it?

Of course I do, having taught English grammar and syntax to TOEFL students.

Here is where the shut down thread is located on MADB.

And I'm assuming that you really just don't know how utterly-disingenuous it is to suggest an utterly-irrelevant point of grammar in an attempt to disguise the fact that your stated thesis has been roundly falsified.

Again:

And, well, yes, there is something about this on the MADB board. But Orpheus shut down my thread posthaste. You'll have to go back a few pages. And you've already been informed about this more than once supra. Please stop saying, "There is nothing about this on the MA&B board." MAD&B shut the thread down after only a few posts.

I assume you now KNOW THIS. FAIR enough?

It's like questioning Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." The thread is there. You now have the link. Please stop pretending that there has been no mention of this on MADB. Orpheus shut the thread down. You now know where it is. Stop being disingenuous.

CKS

I agree with what you've stated here regarding charity being confronted with the obvious error of her assertions and still not owning it. I'm glad you saw fit to articulate it and far better than I could have.

[_cksalmon]

I agree with what you've stated here regarding charity being confronted with the obvious error of her assertions and still not owning it. I'm glad you saw fit to articulate it and far better than I could have.

I'd just adduce the jwhitlock quotation supra.

The cool thing about being TBM© Charity is that you never have to be wrong, even when you're wrong.

And if someone suggests that you are wrong, they're wrong.

TBM© Charity exists within an impregnable fortress of recursive self-validation. (Seer stones sold separately.)

CKS

[_KimberlyAnn]

I'm glad you saw fit to articulate it and far better than I could have.

Chris is remarkably articulate, is he not? And has such an attractive vocabulary!

He used "evinces".

Swooning,

Kimberly Ann