Why I am not a Mormon

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know you feel like a victim here.

Golly. Can't imagine why.

However, that is wholy irrelevant to your pattern of attempting to shame me for what I've said on this board - by being a tattle tale.

I made no attempt to "shame" you.

I have privileged access to my own motivations, and that played no part in them. I know that you say we've met. That's probably true. But I don't remember it. I wouldn't recognize you. I don't have any grudge against you. I've explained my motive.

If you're going to insist that I'm lying about my reason for doing what I did, what point is there in my saying anything here?

I won't respect or even sympathize with your assertion that you did nothing wrong. You did.

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

If you and your supporters will simply mentally supply my response every time, over the next several pages, whenever you repeat your claim, that will minimize the waste of valuable electrons.

You could have handled it better even if you still decided to forward the post to him instead of hoping that your bad timing would reflect poorly on my character.

There was no Machiavellian scheming about the "timing" of the e-mail. I saw your post, thought about it for a while, and then mentioned it very briefly in a response to a post from your father.

I had no desire to have anything "reflect poorly on [your] character."

I have privileged access to my own motivations, and that played no part in them. I know that you say we've met. That's probably true. But I don't remember it. I wouldn't recognize you. I don't have any grudge against you. I've explained my motive.

If you're going to insist that I'm lying about my reason for doing what I did, what point is there in my saying anything here?

Bob out-bishoped you in this situation. He proved he had more character by simply sending me a PM.

What Bob did was fine. There was and is nothing wrong with what I did.

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

If you and your supporters will simply mentally supply my response every time, over the next several pages, whenever you repeat your claim, that will minimize the waste of valuable electrons.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If so, that is just another strike against the CoJCoLDS for making him act and talk the way he does.

!!!

[_GoodK]

Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 2 was actually copied to GoodK,

I was not copied by you. You sent the email to him without copying me, and likely without suspecting he would include me on the reply.
You wouldn't be trying to imply that you copied me on the email, would you?

I've repeatedly said, though, that it was GoodK's remark about his father that I found troubling.

That was your excuse for the first bit of tattling, what about the second? Was Chap also talking about my father in a way you found troubling?

Minimize, justify, dismiss... and if all else fails - "everyone hates me..." or "Mr. Scratch sucks."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There was and is nothing wrong with what I did.

!!!

[_The Nehor]

If so, that is just another strike against the CoJCoLDS for making him act and talk the way he does.

!!!

Obviously as a Bishop you were acting on the orders of the Stake President. Fess up. We need names here and a chronology of every phone call you two have had for the past six months and notes on all meetings in which you both were in attendance. Anything else shows that these orders came from higher up, presumably from the SCMC. Don't make us call you a liar again.

;)

[_GoodK]

If so, that is just another strike against the CoJCoLDS for making him act and talk the way he does.

!!!

Obviously as a Bishop you were acting on the orders of the Stake President. Fess up. We need names here and a chronology of every phone call you two have had for the past six months and notes on all meetings in which you both were in attendance. Anything else shows that these orders came from higher up, presumably from the SCMC. Don't make us call you a liar again.

;)

Thanks Nehor. Great work, as usual.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 2 was actually copied to GoodK,

I was not copied by you. You sent the email to him without copying me, and likely without suspecting he would include me on the reply.
You wouldn't be trying to imply that you copied me on the email, would you?

That's precisely what I said. I didn't merely imply it.

Here is the address section of that e-mail, as it shows up in my "Sent Mail" folder:

From: "Daniel C. Peterson" <daniel_peterson@BYU.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:43:14 -0600
To: AXX NXXXXXd <aXXXXXXXXd@gmail.com>, eXXX nXXXXXd <nXXXXXd.eXXX@gmail.com>
Conversation: Dan Peterson's response
Subject: Re: Dan Peterson's response

If you would prefer, I can post your full name and e-mail address.

On 29 March 2008, you launched a thread on this board entitled "GoodK is Chap?", which opened as follows:

GoodK is Chap? I got an email from DCP, who apparently thinks I am posting as Chap now, for some odd reason.

Thought I'd post here, so Dan can see the vast differences between me and Chap's posts..

Quote:
It seems that your son is posting as “Chap” now, rather than as “GoodK.”

What I admit that I don’t understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I’m wrong but that I’m either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who’ve never met their patient, they’re discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It’s really pretty funny.

I may, of course, have forged this.

I've repeatedly said, though, that it was GoodK's remark about his father that I found troubling.

That was your excuse for the first bit of tattling, what about the second? Was Chap also talking about my father in a way you found troubling?

As I've explained, I thought that, if your father was trying to to read what you were posting, he might have missed your shift from "GoodK" to "Chap," just as I apparently had. (Of course, I now realize that I was mistaken in assuming that you had made such a shift.)

Minimize, justify, dismiss.

Entirely appropriate counsel when an accusation is false and misguided.

and if all else fails - "everyone hates me..."

Try counting my friends and supporters on this thread.

Mr. Scratch sucks.

Agreed.

[_GoodK]

If you would prefer, I can post your full name and e-mail address.

Is that some sort of threat? Have you really sunk this low?

Try counting my friends and supporters on this thread.

Persecution complex?

Perhaps, oh just perhaps, you are in the wrong here and can't see it as plainly as everyone else does.

Perhaps the reason none of your friends or supporters have shown up to offer their support is they don't support your decision to tattle on me in these two examples.

Perhaps the sound of crickets you are hearing should cause you to look a little closer at the line I feel you crossed.

Heck, even LoaP seems to have given up trying to defend this.

[_antishock8]

Holy crap. The psycho maintains the email.

GoodK, this cat is crazy. I'd move on...

[_TAK]

GoodK:
Watching this shameful display by DCP I have to wonder..
Do you think DCP was truly concerned for your father or do you think the goal of his injection into your life was just an attempt to silence a critic?