The Paul H Dunn-ing of President Nelson

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As to the contents of the CAB report, I believe the litigation you mentioned down-thread (between Airwest and Page) was the impetus for the FAA's special investigation that was summarized by the CAB.

If so, I wonder how intensive the investigation was.  And was the investigation actually, you know, investigative?  Was there forensic analysis?  Did someone from the FAA actually examine the aircraft in situ (at the Delta airport)?  Before any repairs were done?  

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As to the aircraft vs. engine issue - my knowledge stems first from having been the son of a 30-year career airline pilot, secondarily from my involvement in aviation litigation.  I'm confident there are regs which spell this out, but I honestly don't have the time to track it down today given other professional obligations.  In the meantime, I believe @Stargazer provided a good post on this issue.  My experience is that the airframe is always considered separate from the engine(s).

I'll defer to you on that point ,then.

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As to my "definitive" statement - it is my experience that such reports make mention of both damage to the airframe and the engine when both exist.  Although not ideal, the absence of mention is itself evidence of absence; the same goes for the presence or absence of an actual fire.  I find it extremely unlikely that a special FAA investigation would make no mention of a fire in an incident (and that the CAB's summary would exclude it, as well).

This is a fair assessment.  But then, it presupposes an intensive and scrupulous and timely investigation by the FAA.  Of an airplane that landed in Delta, smack dab in the middle of Utah, in the middle of winter.  In 1976-77.

And in the end, the purportedly embellished details seem largely immaterial (as in "unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant"). 

Does it really matter whether they landed in a field or at Delta Airport (which, even now, sure walks/talks/looks like a field)?  How does that add to the vividness of the event?  How does that aggrandize Russell M. Nelson?

Does it really matter whether the left engine was "off," such that it needed to be turned on again (as opposed to, say, throttled down then up, or throttled up)?

Is there a factually significant distinction between an "emergency" landing in Delta versus a precautionary one?  Particularly since the narrative is from a non-expert?

Holy cow.  I can only hope that when and if I reach 96 years old my critics will only have similarly paltry and nitpicky grounds on which to vivisect my life and character.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

So you have skimmed one episode correct?

Oh, no.  There are more of this dreck?  How many episodes?

Life is short, my man.  I've reviewed the same materials as Consig.  I've reviewed the other board's commentary.  I've reviewed the cited evidence.  I don't really feel obligated to surrender more hours of my life to the dreary task of listening to the likes of Bill Reel and Consig.  Their assessment and say-so, smothered as it is with smarm and sneering and nastiness, is not really helpful or illuminating.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Consigleri is a poster banned from this site.  He still posts under that moniker on the other board.  He is RFM.  His in real life name is known, but it was bad form for Scott Lloyd to publicly offer to provide that information.

I don't see how.  Consig is pretty much a public figure.  Anyway, Scott could pass on the information via PM.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

Just now, smac97 said:

Oh, no.  There are more of this dreck?  How many episodes?

Life is short, my man.  I've reviewed the same materials as Consig.  I've reviewed the other board's commentary.  I've reviewed the cited evidence.  I don't really feel obligated to surrender more hours of my life to the dreary task of listening to the likes of Bill Reel and Consig.  Their assessment and say-so, smothered as it is with smarm and sneering and nastiness, is not really helpful or illuminating.

Thanks,

-Smac

RFM has a regular podcast called Radio Free Mormon.  He also does a podcast with Bill Reel called Mormonism Live. I don't listen to all their podcasts but I Do some.  I like the ones RFM does on his own.  Less back and forth bantering.  I have nothing against Bill Reel but he tends to drone on to much. I have found RFM fairly bright and thorough and like I said on his own less "smarm and sneering and nastiness."

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, no.  There are more of this dreck?  How many episodes?

Life is short, my man.  I've reviewed the same materials as Consig.  I've reviewed the other board's commentary.  I've reviewed the cited evidence.  I don't really feel obligated to surrender more hours of my life to the dreary task of listening to the likes of Bill Reel and Consig.  Their assessment and say-so, smothered as it is with smarm and sneering and nastiness, is not really helpful or illuminating.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would add I think your conclusion based  on one episode only is flawed and biased.  But I get it.  We only have so much time?  One of the reason when I started a lengthy response to your last (thoughtful) post in the apologetic thread I decided about ten minutes into it it was not worth the time an effort I had planned out. Thus I hit the delete button on what I had started drafting. Nothing personal. I just felt it would not make a difference so not worth the time.

[Fair Dinkum]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If so, I wonder how intensive the investigation was.  And was the investigation actually, you know, investigative?  Was there forensic analysis?  Did someone from the FAA actually examine the aircraft in situ (at the Delta airport)?  Before any repairs were done?  

I'll defer to you on that point ,then.

This is a fair assessment.  But then, it presupposes an intensive and scrupulous and timely investigation by the FAA.  Of an airplane that landed in Delta, smack dab in the middle of Utah, in the middle of winter.  In 1976-77.

And in the end, the purportedly embellished details seem largely immaterial (as in "unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant"). 

Does it really matter whether they landed in a field or at Delta Airport (which, even now, sure walks/talks/looks like a field)?  How does that add to the vividness of the event?  How does that aggrandize Russell M. Nelson?

Does it really matter whether the left engine was "off," such that it needed to be turned on again (as opposed to, say, throttled down then up, or throttled up)?

Is there a factually significant distinction between an "emergency" landing in Delta versus a precautionary one?  Particularly since the narrative is from a non-expert?

Holy cow.  I can only hope that when and if I reach 96 years old my critics will only have similarly paltry and nitpicky grounds on which to vivisect my life and character.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's not forget the other stories, one of which was removed prior to being published in his biography and the other which if I get some time may look into further.  So embellishment as a charge is not without at least a some firm undisputed evidence

 

I believe all of the brethren are good well meaning men but they live in a world where miracles are real.  Even common naturally occurring events as witnessed by anyone else is seen as a miracle to these men

Edited July 29, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I would add I think your conclusion based  on one episode only is flawed and biased. 

My conclusion is not based "on one episode."  I don't take my marching orders from Bill Reel and Consig.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

But I get it.

I'm not sure you do.  Just because I have not subjected myself to the not-particularly-pleasant task of enduring overly-long and self-indulgent podcasts by the likes of Bill Reel and Consig doesn't mean I was incapable of reading materials and arguments and coming to my own conclusions.  Which, as it happens, I have done.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

We only have so much time?  One of the reason when I started a lengthy response to your last (thoughtful) post in the apologetic thread I decided about ten minutes into it it was not worth the time an effort I had planned out. Thus I hit the delete button on what I had started drafting. Nothing personal. I just felt it would not make a difference so not worth the time.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

RFM has a regular podcast called Radio Free Mormon. 

I know that.  But how many episodes have they devoted to the airplane story?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

He also does a podcast with Bill Reel called Mormonism Live. I don't listen to all their podcasts but I Do some.  I like the ones RFM does on his own.  Less back and forth bantering.  I have nothing against Bill Reel but he tends to drone on to much. I have found RFM fairly bright and thorough and like I said on his own less "smarm and sneering and nastiness."

I hold Bill Reel's assessment of things in fairly low regard.  Like John Dehlin, I think he's big on talk and blather and himself, and rather light on substantive reseaarch, analysis and thought.

Consig is an intellectually formidable guy, but much of what he has to say is overwrought, unpleasant, and nasty.  And anyone who as a matter of regular discourse characterizes my faith as akin to Nazism and its adherents as Nazis is so lacking in basic decency and decorum, is so boorish, as to be generally avoided.  Which I do.  (Also, his spectacularly unfair and inaccurate reading of Terryl Givens did quite a bit to lessen my estimation of his ability to fairly and reasonably observe and comment on the Latter-day Saints).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[helix]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Holy cow.  I can only hope that when and if I reach 96 years old my critics will only have similarly paltry and nitpicky grounds on which to vivisect my life and character.

-Smac

It never ends.  Yesterday on Reddit, the online ex community believes they've caught Nelson in another embellishment. 

Nelson recently tweeted this: "[A lead in about Olympic competition...]  I was among those who worked to develop an artificial heart-lung machine, which in turn helped in the pioneering of open-heart surgery. There was a great spirit of cooperation and respect among the few of us working in that new area of medical research. We knew that our real competition was against disease and death. Our cooperation in the race to pioneer new medical procedures literally saved lives.  It is possible to disagree with others without violating the Savior’s injunction to “love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). It is possible to have a different opinion than your neighbor while still loving that neighbor. It is even possible to “compete” in a spirit of mutual respect that brings out the best in everyone."

The ex community reacted to Nelson's message with anger and cynicism.  They immediately tried to minimize or completely discount Nelson's involvement in that scientific endeavor.  A few argued that because he was only the 5th author on a 7 author academic paper, he probably didn't do anything of interest, and shouldn't be tooting his own horn in this tweet.  Others have suddenly started attacking the scientific process, telling anecdotal stories of how easy it is to be an author on a paper without doing the actual work.  They're currently trying to hunt his PhD thesis with optimism they will find more flaws (they've only found a summary so far).  One said that Nelson's work isn't a big deal because we'd have this artificial heart-lung machine had Nelson not been born.  Another is upset he or she can't find Nelson's name more in academic discussion from the early 1950s.  They have contacted Bill Reel to discuss this more (Bill has responded). 

And I'm back here thinking "This is a medical doctor who was involved in a team for novel research for his PhD, and you are mad about this!?"  But they do this.  Every week.

Edited July 29, 2021 by helix

[Fair Dinkum]

13 minutes ago, helix said:

 

It never ends.  Yesterday on Reddit, the online ex community believes they've caught Nelson in another embellishment. 

Nelson recently tweeted this: "I was among those who worked to develop an artificial heart-lung machine, which in turn helped in the pioneering of open-heart surgery. There was a great spirit of cooperation and respect among the few of us working in that new area of medical research. We knew that our real competition was against disease and death. Our cooperation in the race to pioneer new medical procedures literally saved lives.  It is possible to disagree with others without violating the Savior’s injunction to “love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). It is possible to have a different opinion than your neighbor while still loving that neighbor. It is even possible to “compete” in a spirit of mutual respect that brings out the best in everyone."

The ex community reacted to Nelson's message with anger and cynicism.  They immediately tried to minimize or completely discount Nelson's involvement in that scientific endeavor.  A few argued that because he was only the 5th author on a 7th author academic paper, he probably didn't do anything of interest, and shouldn't be tooting his own horn in this tweet.  Others have suddenly started attacking the scientific process, telling anecdotal stories of how easy it is to get a paper published without doing the actual work.  They're currently trying to hunt his PhD thesis with optimism they will find more flaws (they've only found a summary so far).  One said that Nelson's work is isn't a big deal because we'd have this artificial heart-lung machine had Nelson not been born.  Another is upset he can't find Nelson's name more in academic discussion from the early 1950s.  They have contacted Bill Reel to discuss this more (Bill has responded). 

And I'm back here thinking "This is a medical doctor who was involved in a team for novel research for his PhD, and you are mad about *this!?*"  But they do this.  Every week. 

 

This is disgusting.  Nelson's contribution to artificial heart technology is well documented and beyond dispute

https://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/20-most-innovative-surgeons-alive-today/

Edited July 29, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Let's not forget the other stories, one of which was removed prior to being published in his biography

So you are finding fault for a story that was not published in his biography?

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

and the other which if I get some time may look into further. 

Okay.

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So embellishment as a charge is not without at least a some firm undisputed evidence

I'm not sure about the "firm" and "undisputed" bits.

Moreover, I'm not sure how material any of this is.  And Mormon 9:31 keeps coming to mind...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This is disgusting.  Nelson's contribution to artificial heart technology is well documented and beyond dispute

https://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/20-most-innovative-surgeons-alive-today/

Yes, well.  Such are the noxious fruits of faultfinding.  I commented previously on this phenomenon:

Quote

I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail").

Bill Reel, and Consig, and others, pick up that hammer pretty much every day and go looking for nails.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2021 by smac97

[mgy401]

15 minutes ago, helix said:

 

It never ends.  Yesterday on Reddit, the online ex community believes they've caught Nelson in another embellishment. 

Nelson recently tweeted this: "[A lead in about Olympic competition...]  I was among those who worked to develop an artificial heart-lung machine, which in turn helped in the pioneering of open-heart surgery. There was a great spirit of cooperation and respect among the few of us working in that new area of medical research. We knew that our real competition was against disease and death. Our cooperation in the race to pioneer new medical procedures literally saved lives.  It is possible to disagree with others without violating the Savior’s injunction to “love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). It is possible to have a different opinion than your neighbor while still loving that neighbor. It is even possible to “compete” in a spirit of mutual respect that brings out the best in everyone."

The ex community reacted to Nelson's message with anger and cynicism.  They immediately tried to minimize or completely discount Nelson's involvement in that scientific endeavor.  A few argued that because he was only the 5th author on a 7 author academic paper, he probably didn't do anything of interest, and shouldn't be tooting his own horn in this tweet.  Others have suddenly started attacking the scientific process, telling anecdotal stories of how easy it is to get a paper published without doing the actual work.  They're currently trying to hunt his PhD thesis with optimism they will find more flaws (they've only found a summary so far).  One said that Nelson's work is isn't a big deal because we'd have this artificial heart-lung machine had Nelson not been born.  Another is upset he or she can't find Nelson's name more in academic discussion from the early 1950s.  They have contacted Bill Reel to discuss this more (Bill has responded). 

And I'm back here thinking "This is a medical doctor who was involved in a team for novel research for his PhD, and you are mad about this!?"  But they do this.  Every week.

Maybe we should change the name of this thread to “The Swiftboat-ing of President Nelson”?

30 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Let's not forget the other stories, one of which was removed prior to being published in his biography and the other which if I get some time may look into further.  So embellishment as a charge is not without at least a some firm undisputed evidence

 

We are all aware of the difference between a biography and an autobiography, right?

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And in the end, the purportedly embellished details seem largely immaterial (as in "unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant"). 

Does it really matter whether they landed in a field or at Delta Airport (which, even now, sure walks/talks/looks like a field)?  How does that add to the vividness of the event?  How does that aggrandize Russell M. Nelson?

Does it really matter whether the left engine was "off," such that it needed to be turned on again (as opposed to, say, throttled down then up, or throttled up)?

Is there a factually significant distinction between an "emergency" landing in Delta versus a precautionary one?  Particularly since the narrative is from a non-expert?

Holy cow.  I can only hope that when and if I reach 96 years old my critics will only have similarly paltry and nitpicky grounds on which to vivisect my life and character.

Well, in this case, materiality to the story is a matter of opinion, and not a topic I'm interested in debating.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Are you suggesting that if became widely known that Pres Nelson had a penchant for embellishment AKA Paul H Dunn that it would have no impact?

I am suggesting nothing, but asking you a direct question in good faith, with an example, so we can dialog on specifics. His reputation is the subject of your concern, but what is the threat, and what the worst that could happen? E.g., what is his reputation for you now, what is the threat against it, and what is the worst impact this threat could have?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Yes, I'd love to know. It's funny because many moon's ago I had imagined what Consig looked like and the reality is nothing close to it! ;o

Consigliere’s real name really is no secret. 

On one occasion, at a Sunstone conference a few years ago, a

Ridiculously hyped “unmasking,” staged at a conference 

Break-out session, 

Identified the real 

Name of RFM/Consigliere. 

 

Venturing into another 

Obvious reason that the identity

Lacks any 

Likely claim to confidentiality, be it remembered that in the course of the 

Unfolding of that sorry episode with McKenna Denson, RFM’s name became publicly known when he quite prominently brought legal action against BYU PD to force the disclosure of documents. It was not difficult at all to 

Zoom in on the identity of the person bringing the action. 

 

 

Have fun with the above. Happy deciphering.

[Vanguard]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Consigliere’s real name really is no secret. 

On one occasion, at a Sunstone conference a few years ago, a

Ridiculously hyped “unmasking,” staged at a conference 

Break-out session, 

Identified the real 

Name of RFM/Consigliere. 

 

Venturing into another 

Obvious reason that the identity

Lacks any 

Likely claim to confidentiality, be it remembered that in the course of the 

Unfolding of that sorry episode with McKenna Denson, RFM’s name became publicly known when he quite prominently brought legal action against BYU PD to force the disclosure of documents. It was not difficult at all to 

Zoom in on the identity of the person bringing the action. 

 

 

Have fun with the above. Happy deciphering.

Oh my gosh! Scott, that one took me a moment. I spent far too much time trying to figure out how you of all people would speak in such a skewed and confusing way! Thank you, sir. ; )

[bOObOO]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Consigliere’s real name really is no secret. 

On one occasion, at a Sunstone conference a few years ago, a

Ridiculously hyped “unmasking,” staged at a conference 

Break-out session, 

Identified the real 

Name of RFM/Consigliere. 

 

Venturing into another 

Obvious reason that the identity

Lacks any 

Likely claim to confidentiality, be it remembered that in the course of the 

Unfolding of that sorry episode with McKenna Denson, RFM’s name became publicly known when he quite prominently brought legal action against BYU PD to force the disclosure of documents. It was not difficult at all to 

Zoom in on the identity of the person bringing the action. 

 

 

Have fun with the above. Happy deciphering.

This is what I came up with from out of those clues.  I hope I am wrong.  If this is siggy he doesn't look like a happy camper.

[Vanguard]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, in this case, materiality to the story is a matter of opinion, and not a topic I'm interested in debating.

But the real issue is one of opinion, isn't it? So what if the CAB report or some such comes back pretty clearly that it was nowhere near as dire as President Nelson made it seem? What are you therefore concluding about President Nelson? He should be careful when recounting stories? He's a liar and not fit to be a prophet of God? He can't be trusted with anything he says? What?

[Kenngo1969]

 

@Scott Lloyd

Are you on your phone?  

 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Oh my gosh! Scott, that one took me a moment. I spent far too much time trying to figure out how you of all people would speak in such a skewed and confusing way! Thank you, sir. ; )

I just thought it was free verse poetry!  

Edited July 29, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[bOObOO]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

 

@Scott Lloyd

Are you on your phone?  

 

No he

always

talks that way

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Oh my gosh! Scott, that one took me a moment. I spent far too much time trying to figure out how you of all people would speak in such a skewed and confusing way! Thank you, sir. ; )

Now you can explain to me how it is you know what he looks like when you didn’t even know his name. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

This is what I came up with from out of those clues.  I hope I am wrong.  If this is siggy he doesn't look like a happy camper.

Huh? No, that’s not RFM. That’s Joseph Bishop, who allegedly victimized Denson. 

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now you can explain to me how it is you know what he looks like when you didn’t even know his name. 

I think you meant that question for bOObOO. ; ) And I know what Consig looks like because I watched the podcast. : )

Edited July 29, 2021 by Vanguard