They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_Daniel Peterson]

And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.

Erste Dame. Du willst vermuthlich wissen, warum die Fürstinn dich heute so wunderbar bestraft?

Papageno. (bejaht es.)

Zweyte Dame. Damit du künftig nie mehr Fremde belügst.

(Emmanuel Schikaneder and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte 1.3)







#################################################################################################

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.

Holy crap.

[_Mister Scratch]

You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.

That's debatable, of course. I'm sure that plenty of the people whose emails you gleefully posted at SHIELDS didn't exactly feel as if their "confidence" had been kept. Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

[_collegeterrace]

Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.

Holy crap.

Only if he wears the old school one piece Jesus jammies with the poop chute in the back. Then it is crap that has "passed through the veil."

[_Jersey Girl]

Here, DCP makes a claim regarding confidentiality:

DCP:

I would not, however, violate a confidence.

And Porter responds by injecting a situation with GoodK that had nothing to do with confidentiality:

Porter:

Right.

And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.

I love it when you answer on point, Porter.


Previously, I made this brief comment:

Jersey Girl:

Not this again.

And Porter sees my comment as a "defense":

Porter:

Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.

Uh. Nowhere on this thread or any other thread on this board, have I defended Daniel's choices regarding GoodK, quite the opposite is true. If you feel differently, please repost any post where I defended Daniel in that regard.

Do not mistake my criticism of your remarks as a defense of Daniel's choices regarding GoodK.

[Guest]

And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.

Erste Dame. Du willst vermuthlich wissen, warum die Fürstinn dich heute so wunderbar bestraft?

Papageno. (bejaht es.)

Zweyte Dame. Damit du künftig nie mehr Fremde belügst.

(Emmanuel Schikaneder and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte 1.3)

Is the show over? Did the fat lady just sing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.

That's debatable, of course.

No, actually it's not.

Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

This simply never happened.

[_Jersey Girl]

I dunno about anyone else, but I find it odd that any person would evalute these:

Not this again.
omg.
Holy Crap.

As a "defense" of anyone or anything.

[_Jersey Girl]

You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.

That's debatable, of course. I'm sure that plenty of the people whose emails you gleefully posted at SHIELDS didn't exactly feel as if their "confidence" had been kept. Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

Quinn again. Why do you persist in raising an issue that had no personal impact on you?

[_Mister Scratch]

That's debatable, of course.

No, actually it's not.

Oh? Do Infymus and SusieQ, among may others, share your opinion? At the time, did Ray A appreciate your "privately sharing" emails he'd sent you?

Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

This simply never happened.

Remember this?:

Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.) And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject. The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.

Uh, yeah. That sounds exactly like the sort of information that should be blabbed to everyone on the FAIR/MAD board.

As to your intent, what about this?:

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.

(emphasis added)

Meaning, of course, that you knew that mentioning it would damage his reputation in LDS circles.