The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_Daniel Peterson]

What you call "pseudo-information" is, oftentimes, your own posts!

I don't want to go back through your lengthy and careful selection of damning materials, let alone the entire actual thread, so feel free to cull out posts from me in which I offer new information, dishonest or otherwise, about Tom Murphy.

I'll then comment on a case by case basis when I have the opportunity.

Further, I didn't see you chastise any of your fellow TBMs for their really astonishing dishonesty.

I don't comment on every post, don't read every thread, don't care about every issue, and, even when I think them wrong or misbehaving, don't share your conviction that my "fellow TBMs" tend to be motivated by "astonishing dishonesty."

You seemed, quite honestly, to be having a lot of fun at Tom Murphy's expense.... (E.g., your "cosmic rays" comments, etc.)

I do have fun. I have a sense of humor. I lack your grim determination.

I'm also not a fan of Tom Murphy. (He's said much worse things about me, incidentally, than I have ever said about him. Do you care?)

My apologies for enjoying myself.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades

I mean, let's face it: That thread has EVERYTHING! It provides a better-than-textbook example of 1) Mopologists not only inventing slanderous accusations out of thin air but 2) posting them as gospel truth as well. It also provides solid, concrete, and innumerable examples of 3) the typical Mopologetic twisting and obfuscation. Not only that, it even displays 4) multiple contradictions not only amongst each other, but of themselves (I.e., many 5) self-contradictions), right in the same thread!

As Mister Scratch mentioned, it was also 6) the catalyst thread for the mass exodus of TBMs which destroyed ZLMB and 7) the thread which provided the inspiration for (by demonstrating the "need" for) the oppressive moderation style at FAIR and later at MAaD.

8) It had the Z trolls and their accomplice.

SSDD.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I've edited this. Don't want to say anything. I'm just disgusted.

[_Ray A]

I'm popping in here with a question about Quinn. I wonder what does Michael Quinn think about all this? Has Quinn ever accused people like DCP of being rumour-mongers and having a campaign against him? We've heard endless speculations from Rollo and Scratch, but - what does Quinn himself think? Would HE make the same accusations that Scratch and Rollo have, specifically and individually?

That is the question I have.

Are Scratch and Rollo (and others) "defending" Quinn because they really care about him, and know his opinions, or is this an agenda? Another agenda against the Church. Would Quinn himself be this vociferous in his own defence here?

Remember, this is a man who believes in literal Mormonism, that Joseph Smith was a prophet just like Moses, and that the Book of Mormon is real history!

Has Quinn ever made an accusation against DCP? Have you ever asked that question, Scratch? Have you tried to contact Quinn to ascertain whether he wanted you and Rollo to pursue this?


Because if you don't I will, even if I have to find his address and write him by snail mail. I really want to know what he thinks about you and Rollo "defending" him.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm popping in here with a question about Quinn. I wonder what does Michael Quinn think about all this? Has Quinn ever accused people like DCP of being rumour-mongers and having a campaign against him? We've heard endless speculations from Rollo and Scratch, but - what does Quinn himself think? Would HE make the same accusations that Scratch and Rollo have, specifically and individually?

That is the question I have.

Quinn has stated before, on multiple occasions, that he believes he was "ousted" from the Church via marching orders issued by BKP. You can read about some of his thoughts on this at pbs.org, in his interview with Helen Whitney.

Has Quinn ever made an accusation against DCP? Have you ever asked that question, Scratch? Have you tried to contact Quinn to ascertain whether he wanted you and Rollo to pursue this?

Because if you don't I will, even if I have to find his address and write him by snail mail. I really want to know what he thinks about you and Rollo "defending" him.

I think that's a terrific idea, Ray. You go right ahead and ask D. Michael Quinn what he thinks about the fact that Daniel Peterson was telling everyone on the FAIRboard that he (i.e., DCP) had "good reason to believe" that people, including Quinn's SP, were talking about his sexual orientation.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Because if you don't I will, even if I have to find his address and write him by snail mail. I really want to know what he thinks about you and Rollo "defending" him.

Be my guest.

[_The Dude]

Wow, those people sure had it out for Tom Murphy. And all the main players are still around! No wonder Jan was such a "sucker" for David Stewart ("sucker" maybe not the right word... for better or worse) -- Stewart had it out for Murphy, so his level of pseudoscience was of lesser concern. I wonder how differently I would've acted on MAD/FAIR if I'd known some of this who's-who right from the start. Thanks for this highly educational presentation, Mr. Scratch.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow, those people sure had it out for Tom Murphy. And all the main players are still around! No wonder Jan was such a "sucker" for David Stewart ("sucker" maybe not the right word... for better or worse) -- Stewart had it out for Murphy, so his level of pseudoscience was of lesser concern. I wonder how differently I would've acted on MAD/FAIR if I'd known some of this who's-who right from the start. Thanks for this highly educational presentation, Mr. Scratch.

You are most welcome, Dude. It has been very educational for me, too.

[Tator]

Wow. Again, wow. I vaguely remembered the thread but must have been too busy with something else to follow it carefully. It truly is THE thread with it all - including the bizarre disconnect with reality that some people seem to regularly demonstrate. After as much interaction as I've had with Juliann, I thought nothing she could say would make my jaw drop anymore, but boy, did she pull some jaw-droppers on that thread. Like this statement to executive order:

Just curious...executive order, but are you generally a confused kind of fellow or are you purposefully misrepresenting what has been said here?

The woman has b*lls of steel. I mean, really - how do you have the nerve to say something like that, after you've been going on about "court-like" transcripts containing proof that MURPHY himself defamed Midgley, and you got it straight from Midgley, only to watch the house of cards collapse before your eyes as it is demonstrated there was no "court-like" transcript, Midgley wasn't even there, and the "transcript" consists of notes from a couple of people who eventually admitted that MURPHY didn't say anything about Midgley at all!!

I admit my favorite part was also when it was finally revealed what caused the "raucus laughter"... you know, that embarrassing event for Murphy, and it turned out the jokes didn't have anything to do with Murphy's competence whatsoever....and people insisting his presentation really had nothing to do with responding to the FARMs critiques, and really wasn't even "academic", and then finally admitting his portion was in the Mormon CULTURE section and was about his life as a Mormon anthropologist... which, of course, explains why he was talking about his personal experiences rather than defending his theory.

You know, if any anti had made similar accusations about a believer's presentation, and then offered the type of "evidence" they did on this thread, defenders of the faith would be screaming and hollering - and yet, DCP intoned:

FT: It has been an extraordinarily disgusting performance, and I find it difficult to believe that it has been done in good faith. Such studied and long-winded absurdity threatens to ruin ZLMB, if, indeed, it hasn't already done so.

Juliann concurred:

: ZLMB is dead. When it comes to the point that putting up lecture notes is not allowed by the resident hucksters, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

First, it must be said that the "lecture notes", in the end, didn't even support the accusation of defamation of character being bandied about...(snort, by people posting anonymously, tee hee).

So it is "huckstery" to actually want verification of accusations of defamation of character? It is "huckstery" to want to also be able to read the "court-like" transcript? Is it "huckstery" that finally revealed that Murphy never mentioned Midgely's name, and that no "court-like" transcript existed?

Unbelievable. What ruined ZLMB for believers was that critics wouldn't just roll over and play dead, and accept any accusation made by believers, no matter how ill-supported.

I can only say how delighted I am that Juliann did her advertising for FAIR on this thread. It verifies what I have long suspected about the believer exodus from ZLMB. It wasn't enough to have a moderating team determined to apply neutral rules without regard to belief or lack thereof. They wanted a board that would allow them to present this level of "proof" for accusations of character defamation and wanted a moderating team that would agree with them and punish those asking for actual evidence, not hearsay.

Can you imagine this thread on FAIR or MAD? The mods would have intoned "asked and answered" on page two and shut the thing down. :O

[_beastie]

And in regards to whether or not Juliann knowingly lied, I think Gad summed it up best:

Now lets look at one more of Juliann's contradiction. Originally she claimed,

"His inexplicable defamation of Lou Midgley in the middle of an *academic* conference is just about as bad."

now she says,

"Eh...little problem here. No one ever claimed he said this during the taped lecture.

she also said previously,

"Shades, get a grip. There is a transcription of the lecture. You know...like those court reporter kind of people that take notes in courtroom proceedings?"

she also said,

"Juliann: And are you implying that he did not say what he said about Midgley to a room of people?"

I wonder if FT would agree with me, that it is more than abundantly clear that Juliann's accusation is that Murphy made his accusation in the middle of his lecture when everyone was listening. It's those conditions that would be required for Murphy to be seriously considered for the crime of defaming migdley publically, in the "middle of a conference, " where everyone saw, and the details were recorded by tape (professionally recorded no less) and by "transcript" so that there is little dispute as to the exact words and context.

Whatever Murphy's crimes are, if any, Juliann certainly owes Murphy and apology. For defaming him, here on this message board.

My analysis is as follows:

Juliann heard an account second hand and third hand from migdley. It just had to be true, in her mind, since it was about an enemy. So she made a number of assumptions that she thought would pan out in her favor if it were the case she got questioned. Shades questioned. She bet on her assumptions and prejudices, and she has ended up contradicting herself ever since. There most likely was a tape recorder there. But there was never any "court room" note taking. There had to be, for her story, to say she firsthand, "read the transcript." And it wasn't entirely illogical for her to direct Shades to the website, because it's entirely possible that the tape recording would be transcribed by then to prove she was right. Of course, she didn't realize in the beginning, that the supposed smoking gun came during an offline Q/A session after the lecture. She heard the story, in absence of specifics contrary, she assumed that the accusation happened during the lecture, heightening it's credibility being that it would be recorded, and it's seriousness as a moral infraction. But yet she still tries to salvage a case against murphy, by making the very opposite argument, that now the recording/s are not evidence of Murphy's innocence!!!

Is this how most people reason who brag about being liberals and frequenting academic conferences on the weekends?