Outing Annonymous Posters

[_Coggins7]

Do you have Alzheimer's, or just no integrity?

You are asking this question of him?

[_GoodK]

Bob's Alzheimer's:

I should also point out that I am your dad's lawyer on this very issue involving *****, so I had a duty to bring your post to his attention.

However, I don't feel free necessarily to use this fact to defend myself on this board against your friends' attacks. But I will tell you that.

Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?

[_Mary]

Well, I would say (not that it is really any of my business) reading through the thread from beginning to end, that so long as Goodk was writing anonymously then the email he/she referred to would be in the domain of the hypothetical. It does bring up some interesting issues on the nature of God and the nature of a certain mind set held in the church in relation to disease and illness.

Anonymously, I can speak of a couple who were promised through blessing that their child would recover. The child died. Anonymously I can speak of being told that healings that occur outside of the church are of the devil. There's been some threads on this over at Mad.

I can speak anonymously of a family, a pregnant wife, 5 children, one on the way. Where the wife got breast cancer and was promised through blessing that she would fully recover. She had the baby and a while later succombed to the disease. She made no preparation for death, no preparation with regard to the children, simply because she didn't believe (right to the last minutes) that she was going to die....because a blessing had promised her recovery. The issues that all this brings up, are worthy of discussion, as are times when blessings 'seem' on the faith of the individuals involved, to succeed. Also actually the times when there was 'no' faith in recovery, and someone recovers anyway. It's all quite a messy area.



However, should someone pop in from the UK, who knows me, knows who I know and starts quoting me to the families involved, then I would say that was pretty unethical.

As long as I don't name names it remains in the hypothetical and so shouldn't hurt anyone.

Anyways on that basis I would say that Bob was out of order and probably knows it really.
GoodK sounds like a reasonable person who has a great deal of respect for Bob, so hopefully it can all be resolved, but this thread has come to feel, because Bob made it personal, like airing dirty laundry in public. I'd blame Bob for that rather than GoodK,

Just all my opinion of course.

Mary

[_beastie]

Be careful Bro. Crockett, Beastie already knows there just cannot be anything to this. There just can't be. She has numerous speculatory and hypothetical scenarios, all from reputable archaeological texts, to back up here refutations. Well, no facts or evidence per se, just absence of present evidence, which always seems to pull her through.

Until, as I pointed out, the next dig. Or the next, or the next...

She doesn't have to refute your text, just quibble and nibble at the edges.

You are delusional.

[_beastie]

While doing this may not be covered in lawyer ethics, this would be a good case for a university ethics class to study. Did Bob foresee any harm his disclosure may have caused in ratting GoodK out?

We've all known people like Bob. The second they hear anything negative said about someone else, they run to that person and report the information. They always tell themselves they have moral reasons for doing so, but it's really just to stir people up and cause problems between others. It's malicious behavior.

[_Mary]

But Beastie, none of us are perfect...

I remember being on a mission, having a migraine, and pms, and my companion decided to go out and teach anyways.
I felt so guilty that I (drugged up on painkillers I might add) followed her, couldn't find her, and found myself locked out of the house
in a very dodgy area of Liverpool...(very dodgy)... I phoned the president explained the situation and asked what I should do.

Believe me when I say that from that point on I was viewed as a tell-tale or whatever Americans call it, within that zone. The president wasn't
mightily impressed either, and of course argued that the companion was honourable and serving the Lord...

I was the one at fault for being ill....ah well..

What I am saying is that I know what it's like to be called a tell-tale, not very pleasant, even when there are good intentions or high emotions or apparant justification involved....

Which all makes me a big hypocrite for posting what I did about Bob...

Sorry Bob.

Mary

[_Chap]

Be careful Bro. Crockett, Beastie already knows there just cannot be anything to this. There just can't be. She has numerous speculatory and hypothetical scenarios, all from reputable archaeological texts, to back up here refutations. Well, no facts or evidence per se, just absence of present evidence, which always seems to pull her through.

Until, as I pointed out, the next dig. Or the next, or the next...

She doesn't have to refute your text, just quibble and nibble at the edges.

You are delusional.

He also does not read all your posts, such as this one:

Chap,

I may be underestimating crocket's capacity for delusion, but I think he was joking with that last post. The C. Ray piece has been thoroughly debunked, which he knows, and I recently quoted Coe to him stating that the Maya system of writing was complex enough for them to write whatever the heck they wanted to write. I doubt if even he could engage in the level of denial that would be necessary to continue his former, seriously mistaken, position, which is why I thought he was actually engaged in some self-mocking joking. I could be wrong. It is hard to tell when he's joking because so many of his seemingly serious positions are laughable, anyway. But I do think this post was his form of a joke.

I would not so much say that our colleague on this board is 'delusional', which would suggest that his state of mind has come upon him in the form of an affliction not of his making. I think it is the case, rather, that by posting repeatedly in a way that suggests that (e.g.) the FARMS view of Book of Mormon historicity and its relation to Mesoamerican archeology is the one held by most sane people, he is trying to maintain a sense of normality while adopting a viewpoint that has little or no relation to the professional scholarly consensus on the subject outside the tiny world of LDS apologetics.

The tactic works like this:

1. People who are absolutely sure they are in the right and that their opponents are completely misguided (e.g. round-earthers arguing with flat-earthers) sometimes allow themselves a sneering or mocking tone in referring to their opponents.

2. I always sneer at my opponents.

3. Therefore I am in the right and they are completely misguided.


But in terms of our colleague's intellectual stance it comes to more or less the same thing in the end, I agree.

[_rcrocket]

I would not so much say that our colleague on this board is 'delusional', which would suggest that his state of mind has come upon him in the form of an affliction not of his making. I think it is the case, rather, that by posting repeatedly in a way that suggests that (e.g.) the FARMS view of Book of Mormon historicity and its relation to Mesoamerican archeology is the one held by most sane people, he is trying to maintain a sense of normality while adopting a viewpoint that has little or no relation to the professional scholarly consensus on the subject outside the tiny world of LDS apologetics.

I don't think that at all. I just like to put pins in the big pompous and ill-read windbag known as Beastie. She has accumulated a great mass of material dealing with Mormonism and archaeology, and certainly Mormons tend to look foolish in advancing their particular views of archaeology even without her help, but her intellectual capacity is too weak to be critical of her sources or synthesize them. She just adopts whatever source supports her view, no matter how weak, and then puts a vulgarity on the end of it to emphasize how strongly she feels about it. And then, if necessary, she gets personally insulting.

Fortunately for LDS apologetics, there is not unanimity with respect to nearly all aspects of Mesoamerican archaeology of interest -- horses, metallurgy, etc. LDS apologetics like to focus on the minority view, no matter how slim. On the other hand, I see how the amateurs on this board do two things. One, they do not even concede that any minority view exists (akin to global climate change experts not even acknowledging the very large minority view to the contrary). Two, they are mean spirited and vulgar in their views, because they think it gives them a leg up in rhetoric against Mormons who tend not, in the main, to be mean-spirited and vulgar. (I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)

But, I fully acknowledge the weight and persuasive power of the consensus in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fully acknowledge that the Mormon view is usually considered to be laughable and foolish. The concept of the resurrection was also foolish, and early anti-Christian commentators scoffed at it and charged the disciples with stealing the body. Angels, too, and healings seem foolish. But, fortunately, my faith doesn't rise or fall on existential proof, for if such were necessary Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Adam would fall as well. Instead, Jesus talks about something other than existential proof in coming to know Him. You all have just lost it.

And as to my friend GoodK, who once again seems to charge me with a lack of integrity for finally rising to my defense by pointing out that I had a duty to report his child's mockery of his/her father and his/her family's distress on a very public board where many who read it already know all there is to know about GoodK's family, I really don't think my good friend GoodK is qualified at his/her tender/advanced age to adjudge integrity -- based upon what he/she has done here.

[_harmony]

I just like to put pins in the big pompous and ill-read windbag known as Beastie. She has accumulated a great mass of material dealing with Mormonism and archaeology, and certainly Mormons tend to look foolish in advancing their particular views of archaeology even without her help, but her intellectual capacity is too weak to be critical of her sources or synthesize them. She just adopts whatever source supports her view, no matter how weak, and then puts a vulgarity on the end of it to emphasize how strongly she feels about it. And then, if necessary, she gets personally insulting.

And yet I have seen her go toe to toe repeatedly with Brant Gardner, and hold her own. Or at least give him an argument worthy enough for him to request her presence on his home board.

Fortunately for LDS apologetics, there is not unanimity with respect to nearly all aspects of Mesoamerican archaeology of interest -- horses, metallurgy, etc. LDS apologetics like to focus on the minority view, no matter how slim. On the other hand, I see how the amateurs on this board do two things. One, they do not even concede that any minority view exists (akin to global climate change experts not even acknowledging the very large minority view to the contrary). Two, they are mean spirited and vulgar in their views, because they think it gives them a leg up in rhetoric against Mormons who tend not, in the main, to be mean-spirited and vulgar.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, if you think Mormon apologists aren't mean-spirited. With the exception of Brant Gardner, who is a gentleman under virtually all conditions, I've never seen a Mormon apologist who wasn't mean spirited. It's embarrassing how mean-spirited Mormon apologists are. DCP takes mean-spirited to a whole new level.

I'd also like to point out that Mormon apologists, every single one of them, are also amateurs. There is no such thing as a professional Mormon apologist. They all have professional lives removed from, and in some cases far removed from, their apologetics.

But, I fully acknowledge the weight and persuasive power of the consensus in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology. I fully acknowledge that the Mormon view is usually considered to be laughable and foolish.

Then you aren't much of a Mormon apologist.

And as to my friend GoodK, who once again seems to charge me with a lack of integrity for finally rising to my defense by pointing out that I had a duty to report his child's mockery of his/her father and his/her family's distress on a very public board where many who read it already know all there is to know about GoodK's family, I really don't think my good friend GoodK is qualified at his/her tender/advanced age to adjudge integrity -- based upon what he/she has done here.

This is just pointless personal drivel, with no redeeming value whatsoever. (And a 14 year old Boy Scout is considered old enough to judge integrity... and exhibit it.)

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Bob--- GoodK has asked that his/her gender remain ambiguous. Please honor that request. I have had to edit several of your posts. Please PM me if you have any questions. Liz