What the MADmods Don't Know

[_rcrocket]

Hey, I'm all for humor.

But Kevin and you and others are guilty of rank cowardice, and those who also claim in their posts to be active temple recommend holders but whom also condemn living persons and the church are guilty of rank hypocrisy as well.

I hear the refrain -- it is for safety that we post anonymously. It is for safety that bank robbers wear masks, that rapists don't state their names and that anthrax letter-writers don't sign their names. I'm sure the Unibomber felt safe.

You, and I mean you, tread on sacred and sensitive ground. This is not a forum about photography. On the sacred point. you posters fear retribution from Church bishops if your name becomes known. But, why shouldn't your posts be tempered with the notion that your reputation is on the line? [Please don't come back to me with the free speech issue; I don't gainsay the right to post anonymously at all. I criticize the morality and moral fibre of those who do so. Just as I believe the government should not legislate against adultery or abortion, I stlll have no respect for those who commit the deeds.]

On the sensitive point, I still cannot conceive the blindness you all have about maligning the reputations of living persons who post with their real names. All these posts trouncing Dr. Peterson and his handling of the Quinn "gossip" is not only wrong (I am there to testify as a personal eyewitness -- my reputation and name are on the line -- that it was common knowledge that Quinn was gay and he didn't hide it after 1980 [*] or thereabouts) but maliciously so, and given that it is anonymous, it is immoral.

rcrocket

[*] That he wasn't fired from BYU until years later speaks good about the processes BYU employed; not evil. Dr. Quinn simply just didn't care to tell his employer.

[_Blixa]

Except in the service of hysterical demonization, how "bank robbers, rapists and anthrax letter writers" are adequate or even useful points of comparison is beyond me.

[_Mister Scratch]

On the sensitive point, I still cannot conceive the blindness you all have about maligning the reputations of living persons who post with their real names.

These people post with their real names by choice. Nobody "outed" them (as apologists frequently do), nor did any one twist their arms and force them to use their in real life names. Folks such as DCP and Hamblin post using their real names under the full knowledge that it will curry instant favor amongst TBMs.

All these posts trouncing Dr. Peterson and his handling of the Quinn "gossip" is not only wrong

No. What was "wrong" was the gossip itself, and the role it played in destroying Quinn's career.

(I am there to testify as a personal eyewitness -- my reputation and name are on the line -- that it was common knowledge that Quinn was gay and he didn't hide it after 1980 [*] or thereabouts)

Now you are engaging in sophistry again. Your claim all along that you saw him "holding hands with another man." How come no one has ever supported your claim? If this was such "common knowledge," how come there are so few (I count a grand total of one---i.e., you) people who are willing to verify your "testimony"? Further, if you are correct, how do you explain the fact that Quinn was never disciplined by the BYU authorities?

[*] That he wasn't fired from BYU until years later speaks good about the processes BYU employed; not evil. Dr. Quinn simply just didn't care to tell his employer.

More mishandling of information from you. Quinn was *never* fired. He resigned (or was forced/asked to resign). You last sentence doesn't make any sense. He didn't "tell his employer" what? About his sexuality? If it was "common knowledge," as you claim, why would he have needed to? Wouldn't one of the many homophobic TBMs have ratted him out?

[_rcrocket]

These people post with their real names by choice. Nobody "outed" them (as apologists frequently do), nor did any one twist their arms and force them to use their in real life names. Folks such as DCP and Hamblin post using their real names under the full knowledge that it will curry instant favor amongst TBMs.

Guilt by association doesn't square with me. I don't hang with those guys; I don't email them; other than my two publications in Review that don't know me; I very rarely post on their board. How they post, why they post, why they use their own names simply does not give you the moral right to traduce their names anonymously. Deflecting a challenge to your moral cowardice by pointing to the motivations of others is, well, cowardice isn't it?

No. What was "wrong" was the gossip itself, and the role it played in destroying Quinn's career.

I really cannot comment upon what people said about Quinn, but I do know that it was a well known fact from 1980 to the present, and he doesn't deny it, that he was gay. All power to him for that. He chose it or it was chosen for him. But to castigate Dr. Peterson for commenting upon the truth of a matter which affected the employment status of a BYU professor is silly, and cowardice by an anonymous poster such as yourself. Go ahead, put that Zorro mask on, rob your local bank, and pat yourself on the back for your anonymous act.

(I am there to testify as a personal eyewitness -- my reputation and name are on the line -- that it was common knowledge that Quinn was gay and he didn't hide it after 1980 [*] or thereabouts)

Now you are engaging in sophistry again. Your claim all along that you saw him "holding hands with another man." How come no one has ever supported your claim? If this was such "common knowledge," how come there are so few (I count a grand total of one---I.e., you) people who are willing to verify your "testimony"? Further, if you are correct, how do you explain the fact that Quinn was never disciplined by the BYU authorities?

You don't know the meaning of the term sophistry, do you? The misuse of big words is not an admirable quality.

I was there. I saw what I saw. His colleagues pointed it out. I was a simple research assistant. As to what BYU did, or when it did it, or why it did it, I don't know. I was gone by 1982.

[_rcrocket]

Except in the service of hysterical demonization, how "bank robbers, rapists and anthrax letter writers" are adequate or even useful points of comparison is beyond me.

Go ahead, dispose of the analogy by a hand-wave.

The simple fact of the matter is that anonymity for the cause of "safety" is no excuse to commit an immoral act -- to traduce the reputations of living persons.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

Except in the service of hysterical demonization, how "bank robbers, rapists and anthrax letter writers" are adequate or even useful points of comparison is beyond me.

Go ahead, dispose of the analogy by a hand-wave.

The simple fact of the matter is that anonymity for the cause of "safety" is no excuse to commit an immoral act -- to traduce the reputations of living persons.

rcrocket

Would you consider your reports about Quinn to be an "immoral act"? Our recounting of DCP's gossipmongering is little more than reporting the facts, quite the same as you claim your reportings about Quinn are.

By the way, I noticed on mormoncurtain.com that Randy J of RfM has posted a blistering account of your dishonest MMM article.

[_rcrocket]

Except in the service of hysterical demonization, how "bank robbers, rapists and anthrax letter writers" are adequate or even useful points of comparison is beyond me.

Go ahead, dispose of the analogy by a hand-wave.

The simple fact of the matter is that anonymity for the cause of "safety" is no excuse to commit an immoral act -- to traduce the reputations of living persons.

rcrocket

Would you consider your reports about Quinn to be an "immoral act"? Our recounting of DCP's gossipmongering is little more than reporting the facts, quite the same as you claim your reportings about Quinn are.

By the way, I noticed on mormoncurtain.com that Randy J of RfM has posted a blistering account of your dishonest MMM article.

Go ahead. Change the subject. I wrote that article under my own name and with my own reputation at stake.

Your continued cowardice with anonymous posts is astounding. How do you live with yourself? What would friends, business associates and church members think of you if they knew you traduced the reputations of persons hiding behind the cowardly wall of anonymity?

rcrocket

[Jersey Girl]

. On the sacred point. you posters fear retribution from Church bishops if your name becomes known. But, why shouldn't your posts be tempered with the notion that your reputation is on the line? [Please don't come back to me with the free speech issue; I don't gainsay the right to post anonymously at all. I criticize the morality and moral fibre of those who do so. ]

I would tend to think that fear of retribution from one's Bishop would be a sad point rather than a sacred point. Does it not diminish the role of a spiritual adviser to also be judge, jury and executioner? Perhaps you should question the morality of such a judgment/punishment combo that would make one require anonymity in order to secure the right to free speech.

[_Blixa]

I rather think a hand wave may be all that's necessary. I doubt most people would equate calling someone a gossip (or a liar or a hypocrite) to be equal to rape and bio-terrorism. Maybe I'm wrong.

[_Ray A]

Your continued cowardice with anonymous posts is astounding. How do you live with yourself? What would friends, business associates and church members think of you if they knew you traduced the reputations of persons hiding behind the cowardly wall of anonymity?

rcrocket

One thing I will give Dr. Shades is that he's not that anonymous. But as for the rest of these heaps of donkey dung backstabbers and mobbing traitors, I wish they would at least have the human decency to tell us who they are. They have no idea what backstabbers they are. They probably know, in their hearts, how despicable they are, and that's why they post anonymously.