Scratch's Sudden Departure

[_beastie]

I must admit that my original opinion that the case was probably going to be found without merit is beginning to be altered, because of posts like this one from DCP:

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

Think about it for a moment. What if someone came on this board and stated that they were personally associated with your family? What if they repeatedly insinuated that this personal association gave them private information that would be damaging to you - if they were to reveal it? And what if then, they made a "test" post asserting the exact type of thing that people may be imagining all along, because of the repeated "hints". Would you feel that your reputation had been personally damaged? I would. Now whether or not damage can be demonstrated is a different point, but I understand why Eric feels libeled.

[_Trevor]

Think about it for a moment. What if someone came on this board and stated that they were personally associated with your family? What if they repeatedly insinuated that this personal association gave them private information that would be damaging to you - if they were to reveal it? And what if then, they made a "test" post asserting the exact type of thing that people may be imagining all along, because of the repeated "hints". Would you feel that your reputation had been personally damaged? I would. Now whether or not damage can be demonstrated is a different point, but I understand why Eric feels libeled.

Sounds like a form of blackmail, and one that is unlikely to be pursued by law enforcement.

[_beastie]

Sounds like a form of blackmail, and one that is unlikely to be pursued by law enforcement.

Why would it be considered blackmail instead of libel?

[_truth dancer]

Also, Dan prefaced his remarks with:

I guess I've sat on what I know long enough:

Suggesting he was finally ready to disclose all the garbage he knew about GoodK.

[_beastie]

Suggesting he was finally ready to disclose all the garbage he knew about GoodK.

Exactly. At first I thought that Eric had damaged his own case with the "addiction" post, but I do think that could clearly be seen as a parody. (I still think he would have been better off if he had not posted that.) However, in combination with what DCP kept hinting, along with how the post was phrased, a reasonable person could conclude DCP was sharing actual information. I'm not sure a reasonable person could conclude that BYU really had experiments with drugs going on that DCP was participating in.

[_Trevor]

Why would it be considered blackmail instead of libel?

I suppose not. You have the threat, but the pay off isn't clear enough. Stop posting about me, or else, maybe?

[_beastie]

I suppose not. You have the threat, but the pay off isn't clear enough. Stop posting about me, or else, maybe?

Yes, I think a reasonable person could interpret it that way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Also, Dan prefaced his remarks with:

I guess I've sat on what I know long enough:

Suggesting he was finally ready to disclose all the garbage he knew about GoodK.

And the remarks that he prefaced with that were the very remarks that Dan announced, forty minutes later, in blue type for enhanced visibility, were wholly bogus. They were the very remarks that demonstrated that, while a bogus personal attack from GoodK against me would pass on MDB as just another day in the neighborhood, serenely accepted by those on the thread as my just due, a bogus personal attack against GoodK by me would result in righteous indignation and outrage. And behold, it was so.

I must admit that my original opinion that the case was probably going to be found without merit is beginning to be altered, because of posts like this one from DCP:

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

Come on. What does that actually say?

Is it news to anybody here that the relationship between GoodK and his stepdad is less than optimal? Does anybody really believe that that's something that occurred just recently, perhaps right after I sent that link to GoodK's stepdad? Does anybody here imagine that everything was entirely peachy until GoodK's father, out of the sheer blue, dispatched GoodK to the Utah Boy's Ranch? How have I revealed anything here that a minimally alert person with an IQ above the mid-fifties wouldn't already have figured out?

My simple point is this: Those who accuse me of causing a rupture between GoodK and his stepfather over something with which I have no legitimate concern and of which I have no knowledge whatsoever should understand, before they leap to condemn me, that GoodK's stepfather and I have known each other for more than two decades and that the troubled relationship between GoodK and his stepdad had been a topic of conversation between us at several points over that period.

Disagree with my providing the link as much as you wish, but it's simply false to claim that I destroyed a relationship of which I knew nothing. I knew about it, and I didn't destroy it.

Incidentally, I too wouldn't be surprised if Scratch proves to be behind this. But if he hopes to demonstrate that the Church has set me apart and paid me to be an "apologist" -- I suppose it's possible that he really believes some or all of the accusations he's made against me over the past three years -- he's going to be frustrated yet again.

[_beastie]

Come on. What does that actually say?

Is it news to anybody here that the relationship between GoodK and his stepdad is less than optimal? Does anybody really believe that that's something that occurred just recently, perhaps right after I sent that link to GoodK's stepdad? Does anybody here imagine that everything was entirely peachy until GoodK's father, out of the sheer blue, dispatched GoodK to the Utah Boy's Ranch? How have I revealed anything here that a minimally alert person with an IQ above the mid-fifties wouldn't already have figured out?

My simple point is this: Those who accuse me of causing a rupture between GoodK and his stepfather over something with which I have no legitimate concern and of which I have no knowledge whatsoever should understand, before they leap to condemn me, that GoodK's stepfather and I have known each other for more than two decades and that the troubled relationship between GoodK and his stepdad had been a topic of conversation between us at several points over that period.

Disagree with my providing the link as much as you wish, but it's simply false to claim that I destroyed a relationship of which I knew nothing. I knew about it, and I didn't destroy it.

Incidentally, I too wouldn't be surprised if Scratch proves to be behind this. But if he hopes to demonstrate that the Church has set me apart and paid me to be an "apologist" -- I suppose it's possible that he really believes some or all of the accusations he's made against me over the past three years -- he's going to be frustrated yet again.

It says that you possess damaging information about GoodK, which you choose not to share.

If that's not what you meant to say, what were you trying to say?

[_harmony]

I'm not sure a reasonable person could conclude that BYU really had experiments with drugs going on that DCP was participating in.

Would a reasonable person believe that BYU used electro-shock therapy on gays? Would a reasonable person believe that BYU teaches that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from a funerary text? Would a reasonable reason believe that BYU refused to show John the Baptist because he wasn't dressed?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And, to your question, ... yes.