Mormon Times article on DCP

[_rcrocket]

Bob, Skippy and I would be very interested in you addressing the questions we posed. I'll pull the quote forward since it got lost on a prior thread page.

When you restore this Board's history, I'll cite chapter and verse. Or maybe not. I have a long-standing rule not to be gulled into research somebody else's old posts.

Suffice it to say, skippy is a professional, and his posts would be very very fruitful grounds for embarrassment in his profession if he unmasked his anonymity.

Me -- you know where I live and practice. You, as one or more have already done, are free to contact my firm and stake president to anonymously embarrass me. [Hauling out the martyr card one more time!]

[_Blixa]

[skippy is a professional, and his posts would be very very fruitful grounds for embarrassment in his profession if he unmasked his anonymity.

[_Runtu]

[skippy is a professional, and his posts would be very very fruitful grounds for embarrassment in his profession if he unmasked his anonymity.

I'm sure that's a surprise to her. LOL

[_skippy the dead]

When you restore this Board's history, I'll cite chapter and verse. Or maybe not. I have a long-standing rule not to be gulled into research somebody else's old posts.

Suffice it to say, skippy is a professional, and his posts would be very very fruitful grounds for embarrassment in his profession if he unmasked his anonymity.

I don't think that any of my posts would prove embarrassing professionally. I try to avoid attacking others and I also try to respect the religious beliefs they hold. I may not agree with them, but I don't hold them in contempt. I've even defended you on occasion, rcrocket.

But nonetheless, you seem intent on insisting that I slander and defame on this board, yet you cannot back up your claims. I will now give such claims the attention they deserve, which is none.

Have a good one.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The gossiping occurred before or around the time of Quinn's ex'ing in 1993. He didn't "come out" until 1996.

So says a newspaper article. But I know otherwise. And so does Dr. Quinn. You can ask him yourself.

Quinn came out in 1996, despite what you claimed to have seen at the 1980 or 1981 MHA conference.

Contact Tom Kimball at Signature Books, who knows me from LDS-Bookshelf Days. kimball[at]signaturebooks.com [could be tkimball; can't remember]. Ask to be put in touch with Dr. Quinn. Ask Dr. Quinn whether the Tribune's article that Dr. Quinn "came out" in 1996 is correct, or was it generally known among BYU professors that he had "come out" much earlier.

He did come out in 1996, at the time he was promoting his same-gender book. And "coming out" is a bit different than something "generally known" by gossipy BYU professors.

I tell you, having been on the staff of BYU sporadically at times, that it was common knowledge and that Dr. Quinn didn't try to hide it in the 1980s.

You previously said he wasn't trying to hide it in 1980 or 1981, because you saw him "holding hands with one of his mates" at the MHA conference.

According to the University of Utah spokesman, and Dr. Quinn himself in the Sunstone presentation I have previously cited to you, that is totally untrue. Dr. Quinn admits that he has not published sufficiently in a broader historical studies area that would interest universities, and that getting a job as a history professor is fiercely competitive. He flat out says that neither the Church nor BYU have anything to do with his inability to get a job. Or, did you not view the Sunstone presentation I cited to you as proof that your assertion was wrong? Proofs are meaningless?

The WSJ article, which you were the first to post at FAIR, said otherwise. The man has been blackballed by the LDS academic community because of his controversial writings, and his homosexuality has been thrown about to further seal his demise. And, guess what? It worked.

But the state bar may very well care about your public resume's claim to an honor you did not receive.

My resume speaks for itself. Nobody on this board or any predecessor ever pointed out to me the fact that my resume has errors. I am always cleaning it up, fixing typos, dates, publication names, case names and so forth. There are probably errors on it today, but I'm the only one who can detect them if I looked hard enough.

But it was someone on this (or similar) bb who pointed out the error, and you corrected it.

Who are you to challenge me with deception?

I'm no one. Your words challenge you.

You seek to malign my professional reputation, and anonymously so?

I haven't "maligned" anyone or anything.

[_rcrocket]

The WSJ article, which you were the first to post at FAIR, said otherwise. The man has been blackballed by the LDS academic community because of his controversial writings, and his homosexuality has been thrown about to further seal his demise. And, guess what? It worked.

Again, untrue. From Quinn's own mouth in his Sunstone "Pillars of My Faith" presentation it is untrue. http://mormonstories.org/?p=392
Or, are proofs irrelevant?

[_Runtu]

I don't think that any of my posts would prove embarrassing professionally. I try to avoid attacking others and I also try to respect the religious beliefs they hold. I may not agree with them, but I don't hold them in contempt. I've even defended you on occasion, rcrocket.

But nonetheless, you seem intent on insisting that I slander and defame on this board, yet you cannot back up your claims. I will now give such claims the attention they deserve, which is none.

Have a good one.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen any posts from you that come anywhere close to what rcrocket is describing. It's odd that he would accuse you of unprofessional behavior but then suggest that demands for actual evidence are an attempt to "gull" him into something. Very strange, indeed.

[_beastie]

Or, are proofs irrelevant?

Apparently they're irrelevant when you accuse skippy of maligning people.

[_rcrocket]

Or, are proofs irrelevant?

Apparently they're irrelevant when you accuse skippy of maligning people.

Do you think that proofs are irrelevant?

[_beastie]

Do you think that proofs are irrelevant?

No, but clearly you do.