The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I never knew of Mike Quinn or his being gay before I read this thread. I am so thankful that now I know.

Look what you did, Dan! You smeared Quinn's reputation with barrelomonkeys. Way to go, smart guy.

Okay, you usually just piss me off, but that was funny! :D

Although finding out someone is gay is not a smear in my book.

And it certainly doesn't apply today in Quinn's case -- Quinn came out publicly in 1996.

[_Yoda]

Okay, you usually just piss me off, but that was funny! :D

Some Schmo has a tendency to grow on you. I think it's the Homer Simpson avatar. LOL

[_Some Schmo]

I never knew of Mike Quinn or his being gay before I read this thread. I am so thankful that now I know.

Look what you did, Dan! You smeared Quinn's reputation with barrelomonkeys. Way to go, smart guy.

Okay, you usually just piss me off, but that was funny! :D

Although finding out someone is gay is not a smear in my book.

Mine either, but it is a smear in church circles. That's part of what makes all this so entirely sad (in the pathetic sense of the word).

[_Tarski]

I never knew of Mike Quinn or his being gay before I read this thread. I am so thankful that now I know.

Look what you did, Dan! You smeared Quinn's reputation with barrelomonkeys. Way to go, smart guy.

Okay, you usually just piss me off, but that was funny! :D

Although finding out someone is gay is not a smear in my book.

Mine either, but it is a smear in church circles. That's part of what makes all this so entirely sad (in the pathetic sense of the word).

Just finding out? hearing that? passively gaining the information?

[_Yoda]

THE END.

Next topic?

Here's one:

Is a transcript really a transcript if the transcript consists of a few notes about something compiled after the fact and not really recorded during the proceeding themselves?

Or maybe a better question:

If a transcript is written after the fact in a forest of apologists but no critic's there to read it, does it really exists at all?

Hey! We've come full circle! We're back to the original OP! :)

Here are the top 3 definitions of a transcript from Wikipedia's dictionary site, "Wiktionary":

1. Something which has been transcribed; a writing or composition consisting of the same words as the original; a written copy.
2. A copy of any kind; an imitation.
3. A written version of what was said orally; as, a transcript of a trial.

Juliann changed her tune on several occasions during the course of that thread. At first, she indicated that the transcript was more like definition #1.

Later, Jan and the others seemed to indicate that the transcript fell into more of a definition #2.

Still later, Jan stated that there was no transcript available.

Bottom line?

Juliann, Jan, et. al. screwed up. They lied and covered for each other.

It is important to note, however, that Dr. Peterson already stated that he did not condone this behavior, and that these folks should have taken responsibility for lying, if they lied. Dr. Peterson never claimed to be a witness to this transcript. He did take it at face value that it existed, based on Jan and Juliann's word.

[_beastie]

liz,

I think the word "transcript" should never have been used, and it was even worse that Juliann likened it to a court transcript, where somebody really is just writing every word coming out of people's mouths.

What happened is a couple of listeners "took notes". While taking notes is one step above, in terms of reliability, just remembering what was said, it is nowhere near the level of an actual transcript.

The statement of Dan's that I'd like him to explain is how, in his opinion, that thread typified what was so wrong with ZLMB. Did you notice the critics calling names or some such? I didn't, but maybe I should reread it to see what was so horrible about it that it demonstrated why believers could no longer tolerate Z and fled to FAIR.

[_Tarski]

THE END.

Next topic?

Here's one:

Is a transcript really a transcript if the transcript consists of a few notes about something compiled after the fact and not really recorded during the proceeding themselves?

Or maybe a better question:

If a transcript is written after the fact in a forest of apologists but no critic's there to read it, does it really exists at all?

Hey! We've come full circle! We're back to the original OP! :)

Here are the top 3 definitions of a transcript from Wikipedia's dictionary site, "Wiktionary":

1. Something which has been transcribed; a writing or composition consisting of the same words as the original; a written copy.
2. A copy of any kind; an imitation.
3. A written version of what was said orally; as, a transcript of a trial.

Juliann changed her tune on several occasions during the course of that thread. At first, she indicated that the transcript was more like definition #1.

Later, Jan and the others seemed to indicate that the transcript fell into more of a definition #2.

Still later, Jan stated that there was no transcript available.

Bottom line?

Juliann, Jan, et. al. screwed up. They lied and covered for each other.

.

And if they admitted to stretching the truth on this occasion we should all immediately forgive it.
Even if they don't the point has been made and unless Jullian et. al. decide to respond I don't see the point of prolonging this topic.
The point, i.e. the bottom line, has been reached and no one is contradicting it yet.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I never knew of Mike Quinn or his being gay before I read this thread. I am so thankful that now I know.

Look what you did, Dan! You smeared Quinn's reputation with barrelomonkeys. Way to go, smart guy.

Okay, you usually just piss me off, but that was funny! :D

Although finding out someone is gay is not a smear in my book.

Mine either, but it is a smear in church circles. That's part of what makes all this so entirely sad (in the pathetic sense of the word).

Just finding out? hearing that? passively gaining the information?

I don't know what you're getting at Tarski.

Do I believe Quinn was smeared when I read on here that he is gay? No.

Do I know who Quinn is? No.

Do I care he is gay? No.

Do I care if anyone is gay? No.

Do I care if men stand around and talk about each other and their sexual proclivities? No.

Do I wish this thread would end? Yes.

[_Blixa]

I suspect Tarski is refering to some phrasing of Dr. Peterson's regarding his contact with the Quinn information.

[_Tarski]

Just finding out? hearing that? passively gaining the information?

I don't know what you're getting at Tarski.
.

Well, look casefully at how things flowed above.
My point is that

to hear ≠ to smear

even in Mormon circles no one thinks you are guilty if you simply hear some gossip.