DCP and Quinn

[_Jersey Girl]

You'll be happy to know that due to a recent meeting of the chat room participants last evening, a general consensus was reached which can best be expressed in formal terms as:

"We're sick of the Quinn thing!"

I'd exclaim "Hallelujah!" except that I realize that, on this board, there is nothing whatsoever (pending the heat death of the universe) to prevent the Ancient Mariner and his faithful sidekick Batboy from continuing to pursue their absurd crusade forever and ever and ever and ever.

Having said that, we remain unsure as to whether or not you were born and will have to take that up at the next meeting. Please stand by for further compelling updates and keep your eye on the donut, buddy!

I wait with eager anticipation.

And there are innumerable other issues in my past that will need to be resolved through polling the experts here. For example, did I actually travel to Hawaii when I was five, or is that merely a false memory? Did I climb the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacán twice in the same morning? Did I really meet Karl Barth's nephew in Jerusalem once? Did I used to like Life cereal when I was a kid?

I've posted a new poll about you in order to deal with the more pressing matters. Whether or not you were born, have false memories, your lies about pyramid climbing and what Mikey likes will have to wait.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Long ago, probably before Dr. Peterson was even in grad school, I was a BYU research assistant. A kid. Around 1980 or so. Not sure the exact date but I know who I was working for at the time. A prominent LDS scholar invited me to attend an MHA meeting with him at Weber State. I went.

I was discussing with him Quinn's book on J. Reuben Clark. He pointed out Quinn in attendance with his boy friend, saying it was common knowledge that Quinn was homosexual. He remarked that it was fairly astonishing that Quinn had no desire to hide his orientation, and that he wondered why it was that BYU hadn't done anything about it.

You once recounted that you came to this "knowledge" by witnessing Quinn at the MHA conference holding hands "with one of his mates." This latest spin is quite a bit different.

And, so, when I joined my law firm in 1982, I met in Los Angeles one of my future law partners who had worked for Quinn. He, also, confirmed to me that Quinn really made no secret about his sexuality. The two of us are Mormon liberals so to us it was nothing.

Gossip, pure and simple.

Being the public figure that he was, and his openness, to me it matters not whether Dr. Peterson talked about it ...

It's still gossip.

... whether some random stake president talked about it ...

It's amazing how some TBM's are so comfortable with Church leaders' speaking with others about a member's sex life.

...or whether we talk about it now.

Quinn publicly came out over a decade ago.

But, Scratch and Roll-Over-Beethoven's approach to this issue with Dr. Peterson is despicable.

But Dan's, the SP's, and your discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back long before he came out, is not?

Anonymous character attacks and all. Such cowardice.

One-note wonder Bob ... or should I say, Plutarch?

And, no, I never manipulated MMM sources ...

Yes you did, and it couldn't have been more obvioius. Your sly use of ellipses utterly changed what Bishop was writing.

... saying and never admitted to doing so.

Just like Dan will never admit to being a gossip, you'll never admit to manipulating a quote to serve your purposes. Both are as plain as day, however.

The only specific flaw Bagley has ever identified to me or anybody else.

Your egregious manipulation of the Bishop quote has now been indentified to you many times.

Dr. Peterson is incorrect about one thing. I have met him. I shook his hand at a fireside many years ago, one of dozens who did so.

Let me guess -- you never washed that hand again.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I admit nothing. You have altered my response by omitting my explanation that I had removed material and inserted elipses throughout my article to make it shorter. The elipsed material you think important, I explained, would have made my article even stronger had I inserted it. I didn't, because I wanted my article to be as dispassionate-sounding as possible. Just brief references to the sources.

This is the biggest load of BS I've ever seen you write. Bottom line: take out the part of the Bishop quote that you did, and it supports your argument that Bishop added/made up facts in Lee's Confessions; put it back in and it clearly shows the opposite. I don't like to call anyone a liar, but you're really pushing an idiotic explanation for your removal of a few words which meant all the difference to your argument.

[_rcrocket]

I admit nothing. You have altered my response by omitting my explanation that I had removed material and inserted elipses throughout my article to make it shorter. The elipsed material you think important, I explained, would have made my article even stronger had I inserted it. I didn't, because I wanted my article to be as dispassionate-sounding as possible. Just brief references to the sources.

This is the biggest load of BS I've ever seen you write. Bottom line: take out the part of the Bishop quote that you did, and it supports your argument that Bishop added/made up facts in Lee's Confessions; put it back in and it clearly shows the opposite. I don't like to call anyone a liar, but you're really pushing an idiotic explanation for your removal of a few words which meant all the difference to your argument.

Rather than beating me over the head with this obliquely, why don't you just quote my original text, and quote the omitted text. Let the idiot and uninformed among you form their own conclusions? And, I deny any mutilation or change of meaning whatsoever. An author must have the liberty to shorten his article and not include full quotes of everything.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rather than beating me over the head with this obliquely, why don't you just quote my original text, and quote the omitted text. Let the idiot and uninformed among you form their own conclusions.

I'd be happy to. This is something I posted some time ago.

In the last paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book, you slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim (bold mine for emphasis):

Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

After many months of badgering, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (with ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter from Bishop to Lee (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:

I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.

Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of Bishop's letter (which you also failed to quote):

I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that his is if you have held anything back. In Justice to yourself and to me -- as well as your family 'tell it all.'

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan's, the SP's, and your discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back long before he came out

Good grief.

Get some help, Rollo.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dan's, the SP's, and your discussing Quinn's private sex life behind his back long before he came out

Good grief.

Get some help, Rollo.

I wasn't involved in the gossip. You were. You need help to learn accountability.

[_rcrocket]

Rather than beating me over the head with this obliquely, why don't you just quote my original text, and quote the omitted text. Let the idiot and uninformed among you form their own conclusions.

I'd be happy to. This is something I posted some time ago.

In the last paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book, you slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim (bold mine for emphasis):

Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

After many months of badgering, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (with ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter from Bishop to Lee (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:

I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.

Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of Bishop's letter (which you also failed to quote):

I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that his is if you have held anything back. In Justice to yourself and to me -- as well as your family 'tell it all.'

But why seize on this ellipses? My article has plenty of them.

I see with interest that you change the meaning of the phrase from "trial and history of the case" to "trial and history of the legal case." Subtle. When lawyers talk about their "case," they talk about the facts; in other words, the contents of what they bring to court with them in their "brief case." "The case" means the massacre and its events. By leaving out "the trial and the case" I just left out a redundancy. When I edit, I remove redundancies whereever I can. But, I have certainly explained all that to you before. Every time you hit me over the head with this issue on irrelevant topics just to bait me, I would appreciate it if you simply quote the before and after text so the idiot and uninformed can judge for herself.

I also pointed out that a key point of Bishop's case is that Brigham Young sold Lee out and made him a scapegoat, which was the implied purpose for the use of my quote. You can see this part of Bishop's "case" or "legal case" in closing argument in the transcripts.
So, in hindsight, I should have left the ellipsed material in because it simply would have made my point stronger.

I just don't see how something can be gossip if it is a statement about somebody's homosexuality about somebody who doesn't deny it, and has "come out" publicly about it. Especially a public figure. You say all sorts of vile things about living people, including Dr. Peterson, and you bat not an eye about it. He's a public figure. You can say what you want. (Anonymously so is another matter, but I'm not tackling that now.)




rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rather than beating me over the head with this obliquely, why don't you just quote my original text, and quote the omitted text. Let the idiot and uninformed among you form their own conclusions.

I'd be happy to. This is something I posted some time ago.

In the last paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book, you slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim (bold mine for emphasis):

Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

After many months of badgering, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (with ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter from Bishop to Lee (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:

I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.

Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of Bishop's letter (which you also failed to quote):

I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that his is if you have held anything back. In Justice to yourself and to me -- as well as your family 'tell it all.'

I see with interest that you change the meaning of the phrase from "trial and history of the case" to "trial and history of the legal case." Subtle.

You're really grasping now, Bob. Bishop's reference to "facts" is qualified by "connected with the trial and history of the case." Do you honestly think Bishop was referring to facts unconnected with the legal process?

"The case" means the massacre and its events. By leaving out "the trial and the case" I just left out a redundancy.

BS, and you know it. Bishop is clearly referring to facts of which he has personal knowledge -- the legal proceedings (hence, Bishop's writing "connected to the trial and history of the case"). This couldn't be more obvious from this later statement in Bishop's letter (that you conveniently omitted in your article): "I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began ...." Why "until the trial began"? Because Bishop had personal knowledge of the facts that occurred after that.

When I edit, I remove redundancies whereever I can. But, I have certainly explained all that to you before. Every time you hit me over the head with this issue on irrelevant topics just to bait me, I would appreciate it if you simply quote the before and after text so the idiot and uninformed can judge for herself.

You've painted yourself into a corner, Bob. You're too smart not to have realized how your use of ellipses utterly changed what Bishop wrote (to better fit your argument that no one should rely on Bishop's publication of Lee's Confessions). Your latest dodge is pathetic.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I also pointed out that a key point of Bishop's case is that Brigham Young sold Lee out and made him a scapegoat, which was the implied purpose for the use of my quote.

Bull. The purpose of your use of ellipses was to attack anyone's reliance (such as Bagley's) on Lee's Confessions.

I just don't see how something can be gossip if it is a statement about somebody's homosexuality about somebody who doesn't deny it, and has "come out" publicly about it.

Quinn didn't publicly come out until 1996.

You say all sorts of vile things about living people, including Dr. Peterson, and you bat not an eye about it.

What's so "vile" about pointing out DCP's gossip concerning Quinn?