Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_harmony]

I think it bothered him that John Dehlin and Gregory L. Smith had stepped into the limelight, pushing him into the shadows of obscurity. So he made a calculated post that he knew would attract attention.

He needed a drama, at which he was at the centre, to make sure he was Victim Number 1 still.

Oh baloney. I'm pretty no one does that sort of thing, outside of a certain circle of people in inpatient treatment facilities. Maybe he just wanted to deflect a little of the crticism being leveled at Smith.

[_ldsfaqs]

I don't think Mr. LDSFaqs understands what Public Information means.

- Doc

Bishop's contact information is not "privately held" information, anyone can ask for it.

Further, it IS "public" because in many areas the Church lists the Bishop's contact information right in the phone book.

Okay, if I used the word "publically available", would that make you happy?
Stop being an offender for a word. It's publically available information that anyone member or not can ask for.
Thus, by "definition" is not not "private". And that's what this argument is about right, that a Bishop and Dan was breaking rules accessing and trying to get "private" information.

Well, it's not "private" folks, so no rules broken.

[_ldsfaqs]

ldsfaqs ~ I just reported your response to me for removal to Telestial. The rules of this forum say "No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed."

Try responding to me again, only this time without calling me stupid.

I called your argument stupid, not you, learn to read and not bear false witness.
And then later I asked if you were really this "dunce" a.k.a. ignorant, foolish, etc.

Thus, I didn't not call you "stupid".... Why do you believe in causing problems and lying about people trying to get them banned because you don't like them attacking your foolish arguments?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_sock puppet]

I don't think Mr. LDSFaqs understands what Public Information means.

- Doc

Bishop's contact information is not "privately held" information, anyone can ask for it.

Further, it IS "public" because in many areas the Church lists the Bishop's contact information right in the phone book.

Okay, if I used the word "publically available", would that make you happy?
Stop being an offender for a word. It's publically available information that anyone member or not can ask for.
Thus, by "definition" is not not "private". And that's what this argument is about right, that a Bishop and Dan was breaking rules accessing and trying to get "private" information.

Well, it's not "private" folks, so no rules broken.

The database that DCP's friend bishop used is restricted. Why? Why was it abused for DCP's non-ecclesiastical purposes?

[_Blixa]

Sock. Stop poking the cage.

[_sock puppet]

Sock. Stop poking the cage.

But it's almost as much fun as breaking a hot dog into 1 inch pieces, putting cinnamon oil on a chunk and giving it to the gorilla at the zoo--and then watching him go ape crap.

[_MsJack]

And then later I asked if you were really this "dunce" a.k.a. ignorant, foolish, etc.

Hence the calling me stupid part.

Thus, I didn't not call you "stupid".... Why do you believe in causing problems and lying about people trying to get them banned because you don't like them attacking your foolish arguments?

From now on, I report every single post that you direct at me in Terrestrial or Celestial that accuses me of lying or calls me stupid. Every. Single. One.

So I'd suggest you just stop it, and address my arguments without the name-calling.

[_Yoda]

Sock. Stop poking the cage.

[_Blixa]

Are you really this dunce???

And then later I asked if you were really this "dunce" a.k.a. ignorant, foolish, etc.