sock puppet wrote:My disappointment in DCP in the situation is not that he watched the video. Not that he would have preferred that no one know he watched it. But that he gave such a lame, tired excuse--that he even made mention at all of the video or the SocialCam report.
I think the concerns for retribution from BYU (i.e., the Church) is just downright pathetic. Not that the concerns might not be well placed. After all, with Jeffrey I-was-handed-my-ass-in-a-BBC-interview Holland in a decision making role, the concerns might be spot on. But that an institution like the Church could possibly think that having watched the Pitbull video diminishes DCP's value to the Church as an employee at BYU... .
I think many of us know what it is like to be under the thumb of the LDS Church and how difficult, as well as emotionally trying, that can be. There one finds sufficient reason to have a little compassion.
LDST wrote:You have castrated the thread by deleting the image, and you have abused your power as a moderator.
How was the thread castrated? Frankly, by now, everyone has seen the image, or understand what the image was. The discussion is welcome to continue in full swing. It is up to the posters as to whether or not this occurs. If you are so concerned about that thread being "castrated", then participate in it! How is the removal of the image going to afffect what you have to say?
I cloned Shades' actions. How is that abusing my power as a Moderator? If I was abusing my power as a moderator, then you need to take it up with Shades as far as what he expects of his moderators. I was following his standards and protocol.
LDSToronto wrote:And I call BS on the notion that only Scratch should have a problem with the image deletion. You have castrated the thread by deleting the image, and you have abused your power as a moderator. Everyone should be concerned about that.
H.
Agreed. The image that was posted provides a classic visual example of the hypocrisy of those who purport to lecture from a position of moral superiority.
Liz ain't done nothing wrong. She's just doing her job as a moderator the best she can and no one is perfect so get the hell off her case -- Jesus Christ. She sees things in a different view as do we all.
Infymus wrote:Do I have to remind everyone about Daniel Peterson, PRIVATE emails, publication on a website called SHIELDS using real names, real emails, and full email contents - leading to the loss of potential employment - all done by one Daniel C. Peterson?
Screw Daniel's privacy AND his job.
so because he behaved badly in the past, we can behave badly now?
I don't agree... not surprisingly.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Shulem wrote:Liz ain't done nothing wrong. She's just doing her job as a moderator the best she can and no one is perfect so get the hell off her case -- Jesus Christ. She sees things in a different view as do we all.
Shulem wrote:Liz ain't done nothing wrong. She's just doing her job as a moderator the best she can and no one is perfect so get the hell off her case -- Jesus Christ. She sees things in a different view as do we all.
Paul O
Thanks, Paul.
You're welcome, Liz. And I think you are a great moderator -- fair and balanced. Shades is lucky to have you.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:On the other hand, Dan is employed by an extremely sensitive (and unforgiving) organization when it comes to this kind of thing, and I don't think any reasonable person would want his viewing a harmless video to negatively impact his life's vocation. I realize that Dan rubs many of us here the wrong way, but this bb should never be the source of harming one's livelihood. So, I respect our good Dr. Shades's decision to remove the screencap (at Kish's suggestion, for whom I also have a great deal of respect) in an effort to protect Dan from any possible problem with his ridiculously sensitive employer (we've all have had crazy bosses, so we should all be able to relate). I don't see this as censorship (at least not the kind that buries the truth), and I still love this board because it let's us say whatever we want when it comes to Mormonism (within reason, but even that is needed in a free society). So carry on the good work, Bro. Shades.
Do I have to remind everyone about Daniel Peterson, PRIVATE emails, publication on a website called SHIELDS using real names, real emails, and full email contents - leading to the loss of potential employment - all done by one Daniel C. Peterson?
I haven't forgotten. He just didn't care: he seemed to think that you deserved to suffer. It was only after a lot of prodding, and after someone (Liz, I assume) PM'ed or emailed him that he finally apologized, and even then, his remarks were so salted with qualifications and excuses that it was hard to take him seriously.
The Mopologists don't care what harm they cause: just ask Tom Murphy, Mike Quinn, Will Bagley, Rod Meldrum, and the hundred of others they've targeted.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Kish and I have had long personal correspondence by email, which ceased perhaps a year or so ago, I can't be certain and I'd have to check. Maybe that's a question he could ask me by email, if he wants. He's more than welcome to email me so we can openly discuss any differences. (I'm off to work.)
My friendship with Ray does not depend on him defending me from any of these silly "attacks." It is true that, Daniel Peterson being the friend that he is to Ray, the conflict, such that it is, puts Ray in an awkward position. Besides, Ray believes I have been in the wrong here. I think he is somewhat swayed in this by the fact that I have been arguing on the same side of Doctor Scratch, of whom Ray most definitely does not approve or respect.
Listen, I am not really moved by criticism of me in this matter. I would not change my feelings about the necessity of taking these posts down regardless.
Oh, I didn't mean to seem as if I was criticizing you. You are clearly taking the high road here. I was merely curious/making some observations about Ray A, who, after all, was just talking about "character assassination."
And that's interesting that you say "Daniel Peterson being the friend that he is to Ray...." Ray had given me the impression that he hadn't been in contact with DCP for a long, long time.
Not that this is significant. It's just interesting--that's all.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
