Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Yoda]

http://m.toledoblade.com/Music-Theater- ... ew-CD.html

[Guest]

What other meaningless topics can we discuss so that no one in their right mind would want to wade through this ridiculousness.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to assist the moderators by commenting on how a post should be moderated but I feel the need now.

I suggest to the moderators that liz's posts violate

Rule 8 spamming
Rule 4 derail and should be split off into a separate thread
Rule 5 off topic and should be moved to the Off-Topic forum.

Happy General Conference week end everyone.

[_Yoda]

Pass.

She's hot!

[_Yoda]

What other meaningless topics can we discuss so that no one in their right mind would want to wade through this ridiculousness.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to assist the moderators by commenting on how a post should be moderated I feel the need now.

I suggest to the moderators that liz's posts violate

Rule 8 spamming
Rule 4 derail and should be split off into a separate thread
Rule 5 off topic and should be moved to the Off-Topic forum.

Happy General Conference week end everyone.

You do realize that the moderators will be upset with you for suggesting splitting this mammoth thread. I know I wouldn't do it. I would probably just move the whole bloody thing to Off Topic. After all, I am not the only one who posted off topic posts here. If it is really going to be done right, the mods are going to have to piece through at least the last 15 pages of the thread.

Besides, Stak, who is the originator of the thread, was the one who wanted to see the thread reach 1000 posts. I was merely trying to help him reach his goal. I would think that Stak, as the originator of the thread, at least be consulted before a split is made. That has always been board policy in the past.

[_lulu]

You do realize that the moderators will kill you

Personal threat, Rule 9.

[_Yoda]

You do realize that the moderators will kill you

Personal threat, Rule 9.

Really?

Fine.. It was obviously not a personal threat but if it will make you feel better, I will edit it out.

Is that seriously the best comeback you can come up with?

You're slipping, Lulu.

[_lulu]

You do realize that the moderators will kill you

Personal threat, Rule 9.

Really?

Fine.. It was obviously not a personal threat but if it will make you feel better, I will edit it out.

Is that seriously the best comeback you can come up with?

You're slipping, Lulu.

You have threatened that someone will kill me.

I take that very seriously. It has been reported to the moderators.

I am in consulatations now to decide whether further reporting about you is necessary in order to protect my personal safety.

[_Yoda]

You do realize that the moderators will kill you

Personal threat, Rule 9.

Really?

Fine.. It was obviously not a personal threat but if it will make you feel better, I will edit it out.

Is that seriously the best comeback you can come up with?

You're slipping, Lulu.

You have threatened that someone will kill me.

I take that very seriously. It has been reported to the moderators.

I am in consulatations now to decide whether further reporting about you is necessary in order to protect my personal safety.

[_beastie]

liz,

I've asked this question a couple of times, and am hoping maybe to catch your attention and get a response.

I have a hypothetical situation for Dan's defenders to consider.

A few years ago, there was a dispute between some critics and believers in regards to whether or not FARMS apologists were paid for their work. How would you have reacted if a critic had a friend who worked for BYU's financial department, and could access confidential information that would disclose whether or not Dan was paid for his work for FARMS?

Would that friend have committed an ethical breach? Would the critic who had asked his friend to access that information have committed an ethical breach?


Why is it so hard just to admit that, in retrospect, Dan probably made a mistake in judgment?

[_Yoda]

liz,

I've asked this question a couple of times, and am hoping maybe to catch your attention and get a response.

I have a hypothetical situation for Dan's defenders to consider.

A few years ago, there was a dispute between some critics and believers in regards to whether or not FARMS apologists were paid for their work. How would you have reacted if a critic had a friend who worked for BYU's financial department, and could access confidential information that would disclose whether or not Dan was paid for his work for FARMS?

Would that friend have committed an ethical breach? Would the critic who had asked his friend to access that information have committed an ethical breach?


Why is it so hard just to admit that, in retrospect, Dan probably made a mistake in judgment?

I honestly don't think that the scenarios are compatible.

As far as whether or not Dan made a mistake in judgment? I think it was a mistake for him to broadcast the incident on MDDB.

And even if I give credence to Dan making a mistake in judgment about asking his friend, it is hardly the criminal act that everyone here is making it out to be.

What I find so hypocritical about this whole thing is that everyone just giddily admits to being played by Everybody Wang Chung, but Dan, as usual, is raked over the coals.

I am just sick to death of him being stalked and continuously criticized. No one deserves what he has gone through.