FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_harmony]

Would you agree that there's "file keeping" on both sides?

There are certainly individuals on both sides that "keep files" to some degree. However, what makes this unusual is the fact that RFM keeps no archives, so there is a very deliberate saving of posts that must be occurring, which is qualitatively different than, say, going on MAD and searching in archives. So if I want to find incriminating posts of some sort by author X at MAD, I just search for author X. But knowing that RFM has no archives, a decision must be made at some point that this individual merits a "file" that is ongoing. See the difference? It's a sort of premeditation and long-term planning that seems somewhat unusual to me.

It also shows a long-term commitment to monitoring RFM.

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, in 2008, they drag out four/five year old posts, made while he was in the process of extricating his life from Mormonism, and dissect them, with the apparent help of "FAIR physicians" to blacken his character.

That rings a bell.

How do you figure, Ray? There are significant differences here. For one thing, RfM deliberately deletes old posts, precisely so this sort of thing won't happen. These "saved" posts were taken despite the clear intent that they not be left around. To use those posts is akin to taking personal documents destined for the shredder and using them to score rhetorical points. Here you are, still sore over the "Many Faces of Ray A" thread, or whatever else, and yet you seem unable to see the rather obvious differences. For example, anyone can go and look at those old posts of yours. Can we do the same with Bob McCue's posts? No; we cannot. FAIR is thus guilty of using faulty/unverifiable support.

Another point, Ray: Where have I ever hauled in baloney "Doctors" in order to do the postmortem on your volatility? Where have I ever posted anything flatly false, as the FAIR folks have done? Further, how was your "character blackened"? You yourself claimed to be proud of your visits to prostitutes, and of your flip-flopping behavior. Your really do yourself a disservice in trying to use this flagrantly unethical act on the part of FAIR to your advantage.

Greg Smith (who seems the likely author), or whomever else, has got a lot of repenting to do.

[_Pokatator]

harmony:
"To apologize would be to admit they were wrong. Admitting they are wrong is something our FAIR apologists are unable to do."

I think that to mitigate potential damages the one who commits libel HAS to apologize, as publicly as the offending article was public. Meaning the apology at a personal level is something else.

It would seem that FAIR acknowledges there was something wrong or they would not have so apparently hastily pulled the entire article. To limit any damages that a person could potentially claim in an instance like this, the offender must publish a retraction/apology.

So, if they consult their legal counsel and are given this good advice, you will yet see such a phenomenon, I would think. If they act quickly to limit the distribution of the libelous comments, which it appears they did, and if they admit they can't prove their statements, which it seems they have as they have taken them down, and if they furthermore apologize for the publication, which they may well need to do, then they have acted quickly to limit the potential damage to Bob's reputation and that would serve them well in any court action.

I am a bit slow to recognize the dynamics of the mopologist world but I do not expect a heartfelt apology in that they are sorry for any pain they may have caused Bob and his family and friends. However, an apology as a necessary action to avoid potential legal trouble - that I have full expectation of seeing, at least.

I have no problem going on the record and stating that if FAIR doesn't go through some kind of honest steps and soon to reconcile this situation, steps similar to what Nightingale has outlined above, I hope they do get sued.

[_Ray A]

How do you figure, Ray? There are significant differences here. For one thing, RfM deliberately deletes old posts, precisely so this sort of thing won't happen. These "saved" posts were taken despite the clear intent that they not be left around. To use those posts is akin to taking personal documents destined for the shredder and using them to score rhetorical points. Here you are, still sore over the "Many Faces of Ray A" thread, or whatever else, and yet you seem unable to see the rather obvious differences. For example, anyone can go and look at those old posts of yours. Can we do the same with Bob McCue's posts? No; we cannot. FAIR is thus guilty of using faulty/unverifiable support.

Another point, Ray: Where have I ever hauled in baloney "Doctors" in order to do the postmortem on your volatility? Where have I ever posted anything flatly false, as the FAIR folks have done? Further, how was your "character blackened"? You yourself claimed to be proud of your visits to prostitutes, and of your flip-flopping behavior. Your really do yourself a disservice in trying to use this flagrantly unethical act on the part of FAIR to your advantage.

Greg Smith (who seems the likely author), or whomever else, has got a lot of repenting to do.

That's not the point. What I did five years ago, and what I posted five years ago, was resurrected for one purpose, and one purpose only: To discredit me. Did it ever occur to you that I had changed since five years ago? No, no mercy! Innuendo, slander, and quoting me from FIVE years ago to blacken my character. This is the argument being made, that four or five year old posts should NOT be used against people. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant.

Bob McCue says he didn't commit adultery? Is he lying? How would you or anyone else bloody know! Is his word infallible?

I could not care less what the truth about Bob McCue is in regard to his personal and family life, and frankly I think it's no one's business. That the libelous article was withdrawn, and the whole exmo world now supporting Bob, he can thank his lucky stars. I had to endure this for weeks! All because I made the mistake of being honest about an episode in my life FIVE years ago! And the innuendo never stopped.

Then there was the PRIVATE email sent PRIVATELY to the Z. moderators, which NO ONE but them was supposed to read. This was not public knowledge, and an episode I very much regretted, which occurred at a very volatile time of my life (when I was also battling as a divorcee). Oh no, I don't need consideration and an allowance for circumstances, but Bob deserves it because he "was extricating himself from Mormonism at the time". He can be vulnerable, I can't!

Now you can return to get some more information from your "INFORMANTS". I'm sure they have some more juicy stuff we all need to know.

[_harmony]

Now, in 2008, they drag out four/five year old posts, made while he was in the process of extricating his life from Mormonism, and dissect them, with the apparent help of "FAIR physicians" to blacken his character.

That rings a bell.

How do you figure, Ray? There are significant differences here. For one thing, RfM deliberately deletes old posts, precisely so this sort of thing won't happen. These "saved" posts were taken despite the clear intent that they not be left around. To use those posts is akin to taking personal documents destined for the shredder and using them to score rhetorical points. Here you are, still sore over the "Many Faces of Ray A" thread, or whatever else, and yet you seem unable to see the rather obvious differences. For example, anyone can go and look at those old posts of yours. Can we do the same with Bob McCue's posts? No; we cannot. FAIR is thus guilty of using faulty/unverifiable support.

Another point, Ray: Where have I ever hauled in baloney "Doctors" in order to do the postmortem on your volatility? Where have I ever posted anything flatly false, as the FAIR folks have done? Further, how was your "character blackened"? You yourself claimed to be proud of your visits to prostitutes, and of your flip-flopping behavior. Your really do yourself a disservice in trying to use this flagrantly unethical act on the part of FAIR to your advantage.

Greg Smith (who seems the likely author), or whomever else, has got a lot of repenting to do.

Can we stick to McCue... please? Please? Please?????

And I really want to know who these "doctors" were and what their doctorates are in, and whether their field of expertise has anything to do with what they were supposedly dissecting?

[Guest]

Obviously you've never been through the temple or you'd not say this with a straight face. Actually, yes. Every enterprise owned by a member who is endowed is the church's. I know that's not what you meant, but you really need to put a governor on your fingers. They're writing checks you can't cash.

And in just what sense did you mean that the Church owns FAIR? Render unto Ceasar that which is his, and unto God that which is His.

Knowing the views you have expressed on this board, and having read where you say you have told your bishop just how far off base you are, you own statement that you stay for the sacrament and then skip out, I would personally shut down any "discussion" group you had anything to do with. Orignal thought? Don't you realize that every idea you have ever said on this board critical of the Church has already be said for years and years and years by other apostates?

Sweetie, back then I was as Molly as they come. I knew nothing about any of the church's dirty laundry. I was busy raising a family and trying to keep ahead of my bills. It wasn't until 20+ years later that I learned of Joseph's extramarital activities, and that set me on a path to finding out some of the hidden truths about the church. And those who've known me know how devastated I was at Joseph's perfidy, and how I've struggled to maintain some semblance of a positive attitude about the church that hid so much from me. The only thing that keeps me from kicking it all to the curb is my relationship with Father. When he tells me to bail, I'll bail. Until then, I'll stick around.

I can always tell when you get defensive. You start with the demeaning appelations. I've known a couple of "Mollies" as you cll them, who went off the deep end eventually. They might have looked "Molly" to most people. But I knew they were iffy. And eventually they left. I think you weren't coming across as "Molly" as you think.

A disclaimer is nothing like a "shut up" order. It is heads up to anyone wanting to sue FAIR that if they go after the Church they are crazy or greedy or both.

The hell it's not. It's a notice to all and sundry that whatever FAIR is saying is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the LDS church. The only thing that's needed is the dusting of the feet, and this little episode might just be the catalyst for that action.

In your own mind. Or in your wishes. If the Church was so upset about FAIR, they wouldn't continue to call FAIR members to positions of leadership in the Church.

I thought the way you were so freely offering your opinion on suing and not suing that you at least thought you were. Skippy actually did post in. Maybe you didn't read that.

Skippy's a lawyer. Maybe you missed that.

I tell you Skippy posted in as a lawyer, and you ask me if I knew that? Reading doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours today. Maybe you are just tired.

[_Coggins7]

If they church knows what FAIR is doing, then it seems to me that the church should either shut them down (like they shut down the neighborhood discussion groups in the 80's), or else rein them in. FAIR doesn't do the church any favors, as evidenced by this latest debacle.

And what, pray tell, do you care about what happens to the Church?

Despicable. Utterly despicable.

[_charity]

Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies.

[_beastie]

Every once in a while a poster on some board will speculate that TBMs monitor sites like RFM regularly. Believers hoot and holler over this, acting like it's pure paranoia. I think the fact that someone's been collecting posts from bob mccue demonstrates that it's not.

The main point, for me, is the act of long term premeditation. Someone was watching RFM for his posts and collecting them. That is far different than visiting a site and using a search engine to find archived posts. This is the exact thing that exmormons have speculated about, and some (who have reasons to not want their identities known) have feared. Believers have made fun of us for such speculation.

Ray, I agree that sharing your private email to the Zmods was an unusual act that, under most circumstances, would be entirely unacceptable. But the fact is that you had set yourself up as some sort of "judge in Israel" over exmormons, and, in particular, you were damning people who threaten LDS missionaries, while never mentioning the fact that you had done so yourself. I think this constituted extraordinary circumstances that justified sharing the email. And even this is still different than what has occurred here. Someone had read the email and remembered it - hard to forget, I imagine. That person then read your sermons about exmormons and anger, and, after enduring the hypocrisy for a while, finally spoke out. That's different than making a conscious decision to start monitoring and saving someone's posts from RFM.

by the way, the idea that bob ever admitted, or even hinted at, committing adultery or abusing his wife is ridiculous. Someone was being very fanciful in their interpretation of his posts.

Greg Smith's name sounds very familiar. I wonder if he's the greg who used to post on Z.

[_Yoda]

Has it occurred to anybody since the only place the FAIR article is getting repeated and gossiped about is on the anti-Mormon boards? I just checked MA&D. Not a word. So, if anybody is spreading rumors and gossip, it is all of McCue's supposed friends.

I guess with friends like this, you don't need too many enemies.

Charity, do you view MDB as an anti-Mormon board?