Lawsuit against FAIR

[opmer]

apologists"

I'm curious if you know what the word apologist means. Your scare quotation marks are silly.

Is this an "act of fraud"? Hardly.

In reality it is just using an old anti-Mormon trick. BUT, the antis had their rights to the websites removed, and so will FAIR.

[heavymental]

The good will with the Tanner's is that at least they tell the truth. Where's the good will in setting up bogus sites to lead people astray?

According to who? You? Are the Tanner's leading people to leave their religion good will? Because you or the Tanners don't agree with the doctrines of Mormonism if you were truly Christian as you claim to be rather than telling people their salvation is in jeopardy wouldn't it be more prudent to understand them rather than damn them to hell?

Seems to me Jesus himself commented on this very issue.

Luke 9: 49-50

49

[Avatar4321]

Securing the domain names is a pretty childish thing to do.

Maybe, but getting upset over it is just as childish.

[heavymental]

Sorry, but I have not set up a series of bogus websites to lead people astray

No, but you certainly don't promote much Christian 'good will' among those LDS on this site and your agenda is to lead these people astray from what they believe to be true.

[Confidential Informant]

To me, this smacks of desperation on the part of Wyatt, FAIR, et al.

Really? To me it smacks as a desperate attempt on the part of the Tanners (Sandra, at least. Jerald isn't much help these days) to restore their credibility in a field where they have become largely irrelevant.

C.I.

P.S. I have read the Complaint.

ci

[Avatar4321]

To me, this smacks of desperation on the part of Wyatt, FAIR, et al.

Really? To me it smacks as a desperate attempt on the part of the Tanners (Sandra, at least. Jerald isn't much help these days) to restore their credibility in a field where they have become largely irrelevant.

C.I.

P.S. I have read the Complaint.

ci

Where did you get a copy of the complaint?

I hope no one is upset if I am not very sympathetic towards people who make their lives by lying about others.

[will2believe]

Securing the domain names is a pretty childish thing to do.

Maybe, but getting upset over it is just as childish.

Who says the Tanners are upset? Maybe the lawsuit is just a counter-prank.

[Confidential Informant]

Where did you get a copy of the complaint?

Court documents such as complaints are public record. I got one from the Court Clerk.

C.I.

[wenglund]

There's no grounds for a lawsuit!  The purpose of the law is to protect the "goodwill" of an established brand.

Where's the "goodwill" in the Tanner's efforts? 

The good will with the Tanner's is that at least they tell the truth.

My investigation of a single chapter of the Tanners' booK "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" suggest quite the opposite. See for yourself here:

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/chapt35.htm

Several years ago I tried posting a link to this critique on the Tanners own discussion board, and the post was quickly deleted and I was subsequently banned by Webguy, their board administrator. I later learned that my experience was not unique, but that many people who dared question the questioners, or critique the critics, had been similarly and radically censored there. Consequently, those thus prevented from "telling the truth" at UTLM, formed their own discussion board called ZLMB.

Contrast this with what may be found here (where FAIR has allowed critics to question and critique the actions and material of its members on their own board--including this thread), and one may get a better sense of who may really be the ones fearing whom, as you say.

If you would like to discuss this particular issue further, you are welcome to open a thread devoted specifically to it, so as not to derail this thread further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

Who's plaintiffs' counsel?

[simply_disappear]

this is what i got when i searched one of the domains:

Did you mean: www.lighthouseministries.com or www.lighthouseministries.net?

SPONSOR RESULTS

Yahoo! Domains Find out if utahlighthouseministries.com is available. Yahoo! now offers a domain name for only $9.95 a year. Includes starter web page, email and domain forwarding, 24x7 free support and more.

domains.yahoo.com

[mnn727]

Personally, I find the tactic of Mr. Wyatt offensive, and while I don't know if it fits, I hope it falls within the defintion of cybersquating. I believe the same to be true if someone were trying to hijack web users looking to find this site, because they did not like the message by those in charge of this domain.

I hope you are writing your letter of protest to lds-mormon.com then also

[mnn727]

Whether Mr Wyatt is wrong to have these domains point to FAIR articles or not is a decision each person needs to make, however if you think its wrong, then I would suggest you also complain about lds-mormon.com

[lwyatt]

So, just out of stupid curiosity, if Yahoo! is offering these names since they are free and available (actually not free since you have to pay 9.95 + tax per year) why aren't the Tanner's and others complaining about them in addition to my Father?

To me, this seems like a bunch of people (i.e. the Tanner's and their sympathizers) complaining that they did not think to use these others first, and are complaining because someone is actually giving out correct information to contradict their fabrications and daydreams.

[simply_disappear]

Here is the link -> http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2684651

Any thoughts on this. Tanners are on it again.

I think they are still sore over the Church Handbook incident in which the Church sued them over copyright laws.

sour grapes is all it is...............

[helix]

Whether Mr Wyatt is wrong to have these domains point to FAIR articles or not is a decision each person needs to make, however if you think its wrong, then I would suggest you also complain about lds-mormon.com a notorious Anti-LDS rag - site

Yes, it's also wrong when many anti-Mormon websites do the same. I just didn't want to mention them, as they don't involved FAIR or the Tanners.

[Flock of (mormon)Seagulls]

For those LDS who think this is no big deal, imagine the tables are turned. Imagine that the domains bookofmormon.com, bookofmormon.org, and bookofmormon.net are still available. Through some oversight in the church IT department, nobody purchased those domain names. Now imagine that Gary Rogers purchased all three domain names and redirected them to his Book of Mormon Movie: Volume 1 - The Journey home page. Faithful Latter Day Saints would be justifiably upset. Now you know how the Tanners feel. They do not want to be associated with FAIR the same way LDS Inc. does not want to be associated with Gary Rogers' filmmaking career.

[simply_disappear]

So, just out of stupid curiosity, if Yahoo! is offering these names since they are free and available (actually not free since you have to pay 9.95 + tax per year) why aren't the Tanner's and others complaining about them in addition to my Father?

To me, this seems like a bunch of people (i.e. the Tanner's and their sympathizers) complaining that they did not think to use these others first, and are complaining because someone is actually giving out correct information to contradict their fabrications and daydreams.

lwyatt,

I don't think it is available through yahoo! all the page said was it couldn't find it and said that yahoo! will try to find what I wanted.

I have done a search on all the names listed---I think 4 in all in the article and none of them amount to anything at all. Sandra and Gerald Tanner's names only come up with a general web page that has numerous links to it.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong since your father's own words state that his sites don't look like theirs.

I think it's funny because www.lighthouseministries.com looks like a very good equal of Mr. and Mrs. Tanner's site yet have nothing to do with it either.

I'm not a cyberhound or a computer person at all but in my search, I could find nothing................

[Jeff]

A sign of desperation for whoever did it.

The Tanners should easily win this and use the money to further build their own ministry. They never thought they'd get an early christmas bonus.

[lwyatt]

So, just out of stupid curiosity, if Yahoo! is offering these names since they are free and available (actually not free since you have to pay 9.95 + tax per year) why aren't the Tanner's and others complaining about them in addition to my Father?

[leeuniverse]

Correct..... Multiple Businesses, Corporations, and Individuals "buy up" thousands of domain names (for which there are "existing" named entities) for the future potential of making money, acting as redirector's to other websites, or for future business.

Allen did nothing wrong. I'm sure if they made him an offer he might be interesting in selling them. This is Capitalism folks.

Ever been to your local grocery store "Cereal" isle? There are LOT's of copy's and knockoffs, which use another major brand in some form to sell or market their cereal, from name, to box design, to the taste of the cereal, and it's all legal. Allen did nothing different.

Also, the Tanners are moron's. Allen purchased the domains as a private individual, not as an agent of FAIR. So them even involving FAIR shows their level of intelligence.

By the way, can someone find that past thread where this stuff was already discussed ad-nausem?

[Flock of (mormon)Seagulls]

Why is it that you can type into Google the word Mormons and find everything under the sun (both good and bad) which include Mormon in their domain name and this is ok for everyone that supports the Tanners, but it is not ok when this is done to them?

Having your website pop-up on a google search for "Gordon B. Hinckley" is different than registering the domain gordon_b_hinckley.com. Also, mormon is not the official name of the LDS church. Utah Lighthouse Ministries is the official name of the Tanners organization.

However, I do agree that the group that registered lds-mormon.org (IRR I believe) pulled the same sleazy tactic as Wyatt. I'm not sure if the church has sued the IRR. If not, they should. They could probably win since mormon is the unofficial name, and LDS is an abbreviation for the official name. Still, even though they are a so called "Antimormon" site, at least they offer content on their web pages. Wyatt simply buys up domains and sits on them.

Also, you cannot expect organizations to purchase every possible domain name associated with them. So just saying, "if they didn't want it used by someone else they should have purchased it" is a lame excuse.

And the bottom line is, even if none of this is illegal, it is really childish. It's like when I accidentally misspell a popular url and get redirected to a porn site. It's this type type of garbage that hurts the Internet.

[simply_disappear]

So, just out of stupid curiosity, if Yahoo! is offering these names since they are free and available (actually not free since you have to pay 9.95 + tax per year) why aren't the Tanner's and others complaining about them in addition to my Father?

[lwyatt]

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time has anyone heard whether the Tanners ever tried asking, just simply asking, for those names, or offering to buy them, or whatever?

You are right, since they are their names, they should have the first pick, or whatever you want to call it, but since they did not think of it is it really that big of a deal? Once they found out about these websites (parodies by the way are permissible under the law - if they were not, then there would be no comedians allowed and Jay Leno would be shut down overnight) they could have asked for them, but it does not look like they did that (at least no mention of it is in the article). What do you think?

[lwyatt]

Yes.

Fair is unfair.

Please cease and desist.

How is Fair unfair? By pointing out the truth? In what way if Fair affiliated in anyway (other than by my Father being an administrator for Fair) with this lawsuit? Personally, I think that the Tanners are just going after everyone that they can think of to try and grab either publicity or money. The only question that I have is that why they do not go against AOL, Yahoo!, and others for offering these websites - or at the very least allowing them to be set up if there was an infringement.

I think that they do not do that because they are afraid of doing that because they know that what my Father did was not illegal, or an infringement in anyway. They are just trying to gain the limelight again, and possibly make money at the same time.