FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_harmony]

For starters, I could not believe that Bob McCue would violate his wife's privacy by posting his marital difficulties on a public message board! What could he have possibly been thinking?!!!!.

*sigh*

As for the actual article, I'm extremely disturbed that someone at FAIR thought it was a good idea to violate McCue's wife's privacy further by posting that article. It was an extremely unprofessional way to engage a critic--to justify it because he is a critic of the church and he set himself up for it by posting such intimate information--is still inexcusable. No doubt that is why it was pulled.

Did you honestly expect professionalism from FAIR? Why?

[_cksalmon]

are you actually saying the posts cited by mccue SUPPORT the assertion he abused his wife???

I doubt A.I. thinks that, but I could be wrong. What is clear, having read the document, is that the FAIR article was, at best, a calculated personal attack, unrelated to any apologetic issues McCue has raised. At worst, well, it's libelous.

That no one in an oversight position at FAIR had the moral certitude to deep-six the article, and that the authors wrote and posted it, shows that "FAIR" manifestly doesn't care to be.

As McCue is an SP, I suppose he's fair game.

Oh, wait, that's a Scientology distinction. Is that the direction FAIR is moving?

I have virtually zero respect for that organization at this point.

The obvious lack of integrity, one is tempted to think, may be endemic to the organization. How on earth could this article have gotten past any sort of legitimate oversight? That FAIR yanked the article so quickly and has been mum since leads one to believe that it takes outsiders to call their shenanigans. The folks in charge of administrating FAIRmormon.org may be crucially lacking the moral compass necessary to prevent this sort of abject ad hominem attack in the name of "defending" the faith from sullying its own web pages.

Meanwhile McCue, an atheist, has posted graciously about the motives and personality of the article's primary author.

CKS

[_Alter Idem]

are you actually saying the posts cited by mccue SUPPORT the assertion he abused his wife???

Absolutely. What he posted, which he never denied posting, in my opinion he is guilty of emotional abuse.

[_Alter Idem]

For Skippythedead, Blixa and anyone else interested in my feelings after reading the article;

That article was extremely disturbing--best that it was pulled and hopefully the RFM posts are no longer available.

For starters, I could not believe that Bob McCue would violate his wife's privacy by posting his marital difficulties on a public message board! What could he have possibly been thinking?!!!!.

As for the actual article, I'm extremely disturbed that someone at FAIR thought it was a good idea to violate McCue's wife's privacy further by posting that article. It was an extremely unprofessional way to engage a critic--to justify it because he is a critic of the church and he set himself up for it by posting such intimate information--is still inexcusable. No doubt that is why it was pulled.

As for Bob McCue trying to sue someone--how does he possibly have a leg to stand on? The fool set himself up by posting all that information on a public board!!!!

He handed the ammunition to his opponents on a silver platter..and then cried "No fAIR!" when they loaded their guns and shot him with it.

I hate to play devil's advocate (really, I don't hate it at all) but, how do you know that he violated his wife's privacy?

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

[_harmony]

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

Oh, so it's all McCue's fault? Why am I not surprised?

[_Alter Idem]

For starters, I could not believe that Bob McCue would violate his wife's privacy by posting his marital difficulties on a public message board! What could he have possibly been thinking?!!!!.

*sigh*

As for the actual article, I'm extremely disturbed that someone at FAIR thought it was a good idea to violate McCue's wife's privacy further by posting that article. It was an extremely unprofessional way to engage a critic--to justify it because he is a critic of the church and he set himself up for it by posting such intimate information--is still inexcusable. No doubt that is why it was pulled.

Did you honestly expect professionalism from FAIR? Why?

Yes, I actually was surprised that they would stoop to something so low--I guess because I expect more from them.

[_charity]

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

Oh, so it's all McCue's fault? Why am I not surprised?

So he is blameless for posting something he shouldn't have said on a message board? I guess nobody is supposed to read mesage boards and remember what you say? Haven't you ever gone back and quoted me on some remark I made? Then I suppose right now you are repenting of doing that, and won't ever do it again?

Or is this a double standard?

[_harmony]

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

Oh, so it's all McCue's fault? Why am I not surprised?

So he is blameless for posting something he shouldn't have said on a message board? I guess nobody is supposed to read mesage boards and remember what you say? Haven't you ever gone back and quoted me on some remark I made? Then I suppose right now you are repenting of doing that, and won't ever do it again?

Or is this a double standard?

For anything with FAIR's fingers in it: it's always someone else's fault, preferably the target's fault. Always.

I haven't read it. I prefer to not read McCue; he's too longwinded for me. My eyes start to glaze over on the 2nd paragraph. But I was sure you'd think it's all his fault. And I was right.

[_Alter Idem]

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

Oh, so it's all McCue's fault? Why am I not surprised?

Please don't put words in my mouth..I never said it was all his fault--I said he gave his enemies the ammo...you don't think that was reckless on his part?

How often are we all warned about being too free with information on these boards?

[_cksalmon]

Are you suggesting that he was posting with her approval?

There is no reason to assume she was aware of them, in fact, the most likely assumption is that she did not.

Because of this, my assumption is that she did not know he was discussing their marital problems on a message board.

Oh, so it's all McCue's fault? Why am I not surprised?

So he is blameless for posting something he shouldn't have said on a message board? I guess nobody is supposed to read mesage boards and remember what you say? Haven't you ever gone back and quoted me on some remark I made? Then I suppose right now you are repenting of doing that, and won't ever do it again?

Or is this a double standard?

Charity, let's say he's not blameless. Let's say he had it comin' to him. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that FAIR is just following the commandment: an eye for an eye. Let's say that manifestly personal attacks against critics and their family relationships is justified.

Supposing all that, FAIR was completely in the right.

The Christianity of it all is bleeding out my eyes. Because Christianity is all about getting what one deserves. That's the "good news."

Have you even read the article? I have. Surely, they're not keeping it from you.

I have a feeling you'll respond, if you even choose to do so, with some version of "Well, he deserved it." I'll file such a response away in my file cabinet labeled "Why Mormonism Really Just Isn't Christianity."

CKS