Ethics Scenario

[_Jersey Girl]

This is for crock.

I have never once expressed that I accept any of GoodK's assertions regarding the Utah Boys Ranch now Westridge on this board. What I have done and done so consistently is play devil's advocate to his assertions, the underlying premise being that if *I* can shoot holes in his assertions then anyone can. If he's going to level allegations against the facility, then he needs to fortify his allegations with something more solid than assertions. The tethering issue, for example, came up several months ago and at that time I made an attempt to demonstrate to him that tethering children is a fully acceptable method of restraint given certain conditions.

So, crock, your assumptions about me and my position regarding GoodK's assertions are completely false. Please do not project your assumptions on me based soley on my challenging you. I challenge where I see the potential for challenge whether it be your statement regarding reporting of suspected abuse/neglect or GoodK's assertions regarding what goes on at the boys ranch in Utah.

I am not someone who easily jumps on anyone's bandwagon and especially when the topic has to do with maltreatment of children. I have been a child advocate for the better part of my life, am a mandated reporter and no part of me would screw around with the truth whether the facility in question were/were not affiliated with the LDS Church or not when the well being of children is involved. I know full well that assertions from GoodK don't make the case. I have been down that road, around the block and back again, and I know it like I know my own name.

So knock off the attempts at mind reading.

If GoodK's assertions (and the testimonies of the others he's collecting) are true, what I would like to see more than anything else is for him to have evidence with which to make a rock solid case against the facility and to aide in putting the place out of business. From what I've seen thus far, he isn't "there" yet, and if it is, he's withholding information for some other purpose, likely a book that he mentions here.

And the other side of that for me, is if GoodK is truly withholding in favor of publishing a book, I have little respect for that choice.



.

[_Jersey Girl]

One more series of comments for GoodK and DCP.

I've read most (not all) of the posts you three have made on this thread and I want to know why the two of you persist in leaking out and cooperate with leaking out people's names on this board. If you all have disagreements regarding events surrrounding a family members hospitalization, why doesn't GoodK and DCP pick up the phone and talk to eachother instead of cavalierly putting people's private business on a board? That includes GoodK's mention of possibly a family member of crocks on this board.

Do you care so little for the well being of people in your lives and in the lives of others that you are willing to use them as leverage on a freaking internet message board?

You can forgive me or not, but it makes the two of you look like complete immature socially maladapted and irresponsible nutjobs.

Jersey Girl

Adding more clarity: GoodK mentioned what looks like a family member or acquaintance of crocks in at least two of his posts. GoodK mentioned what looks like a family member of his own in a post. DCP copied the name from GoodK's post and used it in his own post.

These are people you know or are related to in real life. You are most free to drag their names through your posts on a message board. I'm likewise free to say that I think it's bad form.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One more series of comments for crock, GoodK and DCP.I've read most (not all) of the posts you three have made on this thread and I want to know why the three of you persist in leaking out people's names on this board.

Whose name have I leaked?

If you all have disagreements regarding events surrrounding a family members hospitalization, why doesn't GoodK and DCP pick up the phone and talk to eachother instead of cavalierly putting people's private business on a board.

Whose private business have I put on this or any other board, cavalierly or not?

Do you care so little for the well being of people in your lives and in the lives of others that you are willing to use them as leverage on a freaking internet message board?

Who have I used as leverage?

You can forgive me or not, but it makes all three of you look like complete immature socially maladapted and irresponsible nutjobs.

I don't think you know what you're talking about on this one, Jersey Girl.

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

You didn't initiate the leaking, you did however cooperate with it by using someone's name in your post that GoodK had posted. You'll notice that in none of my posts here, am I using the names in question.

I have no reason to discuss this with you further. If you feel misrepresented by me, I have made an effort to clarify in the above para. I don't support it and have said so. In the grand scheme, Daniel, it shouldn't matter what a Jersey Girl thinks about what you're doing. I do say what I think on this board.

I think I have misrepresented Crock, for as I recall now, I don't see where he persisted in using someone's name. It was GoodK who did that to crock.

I'll modify my post regarding that and your part as I see it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've studiously avoided using GoodK's real name, and was somewhat surprised, the other day, to learn that people here already know it. Ray Agostini posted it, and assured me that it's easy to deduce (which doesn't surprise me, given GoodK's public activities regarding the Utah Boys' Ranch) and that everybody has figured it out.

It presumably isn't hard to go from GoodK's real name to his stepfather's name, but, even so, I've never identified his stepfather here, either. But GoodK has, and, not being a close student of GoodK's posts, I don't know how often he's done it. I didn't see much point, once GoodK had named his stepfather (and, for all I know, he has done so many times), to pretend that his stepfather's name is still a secret. Even so, I've only mentioned it in specific response to GoodK -- once, on one thread -- and certainly haven't been spreading it all over the internet.

I've revealed nobody's identity here. As you yourself are aware, I know the name and place of residence of at least one poster here -- an outspoken and even immoderate critic of mine, for what it's worth -- who much prefers pseudonymity. I haven't revealed it, and I won't.

I really can't see how my behavior in this regard justifies calling me a "completely immature socially maladapted and irresponsible nutjob."

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

I don't care whose name you know and haven't revealed. I don't care what your opinion is about the descriptors I used. I tend not to be polite when annoyed and I'm not going 17 posts discussing it further because, well, that would only annoy me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't care whose name you know and haven't revealed. I don't care what your opinion is about the descriptors I used. I tend not to be polite when annoyed and I'm not going 17 posts discussing it further because, well, that would only annoy me.

Then, to be frank, I'll just say that I think your comment was stupid and inane as it relates to me.

I've revealed no identities here.

Be annoyed with me all you want. Make your annoyance some sort of virtue, if you like. You have no legitimate reason for it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Then, to be frank, I'll just say that I think your comment was stupid and inane as it relates to me.

See how good that feels?

I've revealed no identities here.

I modified my post to clarify that you hadn't revealed an identity, that you carried over an identity into your post.

Be annoyed with me all you want.

I find your permission to be annoyed, annoying.

Make your annoyance some sort of virtue, if you like.

My annoyance is annoyance, not a virtue.

You have no legitimate reason for it.

Your posts and those of GoodK are my legitimate reason for it.

[_The Nehor]

I hardly think I'm going to turn up the crucial evidence to support it one way or the other

Nehor, are you talking about your visions or the Book of Mormon?

I don't have the ability to concoct crazy fantasies with no evidence and parade them in front of people as if I've just made some amazing discovery.

You went on a mission didn't you?

If you're going to pretend ignorance of context to try to score rhetorical points at least make it minimally amusing.

[_The Nehor]

Find out? Do you really think I have the time or disposition to investigate this?

Yes, I think you have more than enough time to "investigate" this. Clearly you do. But I'm sorry, I didn't know you were simply waxing poetic about being "curious."

I stand corrected. I do have the time to do this. I lack motivation.