The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_harmony]

God is able of these stones to raise up kinsmen unto Todd.

ROTFL. Don's right. You're hilarious.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Sounds as if you're having a meltdown, my dear professor.

I'm tired of your counterfactual malice, and have decided to deal with the falsehoods you peddle in a more efficient way.

By name-calling? Get serious, Dan -- my posts have been based on your own words. It's fine for you to disagree with my conclusions, but at least recognize that your many posts about the gossip surrounding Quinn's sexual orientation certainly lend themselves to differing conclusions as to what happened. I don't think it could be more clear that you and your "circles" (along with your friend and Quinn's SP) discussed Quinn's private sex life behind his back long before he publicly came out of the closet. I call that gossip, you don't. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Quinn had someone there and the details can be read in his account in Sunstone.

And when Mike Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done.

Why not? You seem to think that's the case when you speak.

you said what you said; it's that simple.

Quite so.

And you lie about it.

False, as you are well aware, my dear doctor.

Your own words assasinate your character.

Only when twisted by malicious and anonymous cowards such as yourselves.

Again false, my dear Freethinker.

Perhaps cranky, but no slanderer; you, on the other hand, are a gossip.

Flatly false.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You lie.

Nope.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... except that it's my moral character that's being publicly maligned by Scratch I and Scratch II on this point.

False. We have simply commented on your words in your posts. If you don't want your words to be scrutinized, then don't post them. And we are talking about gossip, a common human frailty, and pointing it out does not "malign moral character." What possibly goes more to your character is your inability to 'stand for something' and be accountable for a mistake.

I go by my own name.

I wonder if the same could be said of Freethinker.

That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Your words are what made you "vulnerable."

Suppose that I or somebody else wanted to destroy the reputation of a Scratch or a Rollo Tomasi. The taint of unethical behavior, if it stuck at all, wouldn't cling to either of them beyond one or two message boards. Nobody knows who they are. They could easily change their monikers or log off, and it would be gone. If, however, they succeed in their goal of branding me as an unscrupulous smear-master, that taint, to some greater or lesser degree, will cling to me in real life.

What "taint"? That you engaged in gossip? That you made a mistake? That you're not perfect? How does this "destroy your reputation"? You made a mistake; own up to it and move on. Continuing to deny it and dig the hole deeper, just makes it worse. Posting here will open you up to scrutiny. Whether one posts with a real name or moniker is up to the individual (with most choosing anonymity, as you have done before). How you choose to identify yourself here is your choice alone, it has nothing to do with anyone else. The only thing about you that has anything to do with me or others here is your posts, as we discuss the words you choose to type in. Are you saying that no one can scrutinize or criticize what you write because you've chosen to use your own name? If so, that's absurd.

I'm aware of no obligation on my part to let their false charges go unchallenged.

Nor any obligation on my part to cut you a break simply because you, and you alone, have chosen to use your real name.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames.

But who has spent probably 95% of his time on the net posting very forthrightly under his own name, and has never, whether anonymously or under his own name, maligned anybody on any message board in the way [Mr. Scratch and Rollo] have been smearing me.

This from the man who referred to me a few posts ago as "either a utopian fanatic or a reclusive hermit and a misanthrope or a phony, malicious, agenda-driven poseur," and just above referred to Mr. Scratch and me as "the Scroatches." He just keeps digging the hole deeper ....

[_Pokatator]

Name calling? Who started this "Scroatch" stuff?

[_Some Schmo]

I try to answer serious questions. I try to ignore the others.

By "serious" do you actually mean "ones that don't embarrass me or my friends" or "ones that won't incriminate me or my friends?" I've never understood the word "serious" to indicate these meanings.

Odd.

[_Daniel Peterson]

... except that it's my moral character that's being publicly maligned by Scratch I and Scratch II on this point.

We have simply commented on your words in your posts.

If, by commented, you mean blatantly misrepresented, you're entirely right.

If you don't want your words to be scrutinized, then don't post them.

I don't mind "scrutiny." I mind slander.

And we are talking about gossip, a common human frailty, and pointing it out does not "malign moral character." What possibly goes more to your character is your inability to 'stand for something' and be accountable for a mistake.

If, by being accountable for a mistake, you intend to say pleading guilty to something I didn't do and that never happened, I agree. I'm unable.

I go by my own name.

I wonder if the same could be said of Freethinker.

As I've said, although I've easily posted 95% of what I've ever written on any message board under my own name, I have absolutely nothing against pseudonyms as such. What I object to is malicious character-assassination from behind the cover of anonymity. You've never even tried to present any evidence that Freethinker engaged in a smear-campaign. For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that the mere fact that, for a rather brief period, I used a pseudonym is somehow yet another nail in the coffin of my character. I find that unspeakably weird. Especially coming from a pseudonymous poster.

That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Your words are what made you "vulnerable."

No, my existence, coupled with the existence of slanderers like yourself and the other Scratch, is what makes me vulnerable. The fact that I use my own name increases my vulnerability. And, of course, the fact that you slander anonymously reveals your shameful cowardice.

What "taint"?

I understand that you regard character assassination as mere sport. I don't.

Are you saying that no one can scrutinize or criticize what you write because you've chosen to use your own name? If so, that's absurd.

Obviously not. I don't object to scrutiny. I object to public calumny. Especially when carried out by anonymous cowards such as yourself and the other Scratch.

But what the heck. You're far to cunnning, clever, and tenacious. Resistance is plainly futile, and it grew boring a long time ago. So I'll throw you some red meat:

I did it. From the grassy knoll. With a rope. In the drawing room.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

[_Pokatator]

I go by my own name. That makes me vulnerable to the malice of anonymous slanderers.

Speaking of silly...from your initial post in this thread attacking scratch for using a nickname to your latest quote above...this all coming from a man who has hidden under a variety of nicknames. It's interesting that I skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread and encounter the same "silly" obfuscation. How about addressing the actual topic of this thread if you are going to post here? What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts? And just to be clear, I'm not asking if you wrote or edited anything using their name...I'm asking if you know what the word "transcript" means or if you buy their contention that a transcript "like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings" make are usually in the form of a few notes jotted down after the fact?

E-0

Dr Peterson's reply:

Having skipped from page 1 to page 15 of this thread, you've skipped my explanation for my lack of interest in commenting on Scratch's carefully selected and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread, which, coupled with my merely vague memory of the thread in question and my complete lack of interest in re-reading the entire twenty-eight-page original itself, leaves me right where I am: Contented with life as it is.

I am with E-O on this one. I don't see Scratch's comments as a "carefully and spun version of the twenty-eight-page original thread" but since you do.....ignore his comments and just address your comments in the original 28 pages. Read the 28 pages and maybe your memory won't be so vague. "Contented with life as it is" means arguing Quinn when the OP is Murphy. Go figure? The choice, argue about Quinn and nicknames for 15 pages or read and comment on your comments in 28 pages...... What's the comparison of effort here?

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

[_Some Schmo]

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

'Tator, DCP only answers "serious" questions. Unfortunately, this question is not "serious" enough. For more information on what might not be considered "serious" in DCP's world, please see my previous post.

[_Pokatator]

Let's start simple, one question at a time. "What do you think of the obvious deception of your cohorts?"

'Tator, DCP only answers "serious" questions. Unfortunately, this question is not "serious" enough. For more information on what might not be considered "serious" in DCP's world, please see my previous post.

Good comment SS, I was typing when you were posting.