Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

[_Yoda]

I agree with you Liz.

Thanks, Marg. That really means a lot.

[_moksha]

I find this whole business of needing to crawl around in the mud to defeat any perceived enemy to be distasteful.

[_Ray A]

You, of all people, Ray, should understand that. Remember a few years ago when your daughter's name was dragged through the mud on RfM? How did that make you feel?

Imagine how you would feel if someone posted a picture of one of your daughters on a website, and they hadn't authorized that posting.

That's what happened here, Ray.

Actually, that was my first thought, Liz, when I learned that the avatar was of Bob and his wife (I didn't know). I'll say more about this in a little while, as I have a visitor coming over soon (I've been sleeping). But my first question is, did Eric call Bob's wife a "crack whore"?
>
>
>

More later.

[_Yoda]

But my first question is, did Eric call Bob's wife a "crack whore"?

If he did, it wasn't publicly on the board...or at least it wasn't something that I read.

[_Ray A]

Actually, Ray, the majority of that thread (at least the last 5-10 pages) involves Social Services research. What happened to Eric touched a nerve with many of us, all parents. Yes, there were a few dissenters, but the majority of participators on that thread were doing research on Utah Social Services regulations in an attempt to HELP Eric, not condemn him.

Not without numerous “insinuations” along the way. We don’t know all the facts. Eric’s book is not out yet. Loudly whispering about “possibilities” isn’t going to achieve a single thing – until we know all the facts. And perhaps some may want to consider why Eric won’t communicate with some people. If I was going through divorce (which I did nine years ago) and people who knew next to nothing about my relationship with my ex-wife, I’d deeply resent them making insinuations without knowing the facts (this did actually happen).

And yes, Ray, I called Eric on the carpet for posting that "offending avatar". Do you know why?

Not because I had some vendetta against Eric, or because I have some great fondness for Bob Crockett. I've always liked Eric....and Bob and I fight like cats and dogs on a regular basis on the board!

I took the position I took because it was the right thing to do.

Personally, I think that the thread in question was a mistake, considering the sensitivities of the present moment. This is what Jersey wrote on the first page of that thread:

Move on and away from this, people. It does no good to or for anyone to continue to resurrect this issue. No apologies will be forthcoming and why? Because the two guys believe that what they did was justifiable and to issue an apology would be an admission of guilt.

Get over it. Put a period and be done.

Unfortunately it continued. Such is the nature of message boards.

Imagine how you would feel if someone posted a picture of one of your daughters on a website, and they hadn't authorized that posting.

That's what happened here, Ray.

I'm sorry that Eric threw a temper tantrum. Bottom line...that's essentially what he did. He didn't get his way, and decided to pull what he saw as a big Trump card, and left the board.

I agree I would not have liked that, but I explained in my last post what may have motivated Eric to do this, and it certainly wasn’t as egregious as what I experienced. We are also dealing here with a young man who has had traumatic experiences, not what anyone would call “normal”, before he was 20 years old. On the other end of the scale are two Mormon bishops, men with families and much knowledge and life experience. In their terms, Eric is “a kid”. He’s actually the same age as my youngest son. I don’t see what the problem is to say sorry. I, too, have not agreed with Eric on one main thing, and that was his decision to pursue a lawsuit. I didn’t blast him on the board. I emailed and offered my sincere contrary opinions. You can disagree without becoming an enemy, or inflaming the situation, and without even bringing all the dirty laundry and useless speculation to the board.

I honestly wish him well. I hope he changes his mind sometime and decides to post with us again....But if he does that, he needs to be mindful of what is appropriate and what is not.

It’s sometimes hard to know what’s “appropriate” these days. Was Shades posting Stan Barker’s personal email correspondence appropriate? Not according to the new board rules. But the justification was, “this is what SHIELDS does”. Tit for tat. Perhaps Eric felt the same way, but he’s not an Admin or a mod, so he can’t get away with it.

Again this offending avatar issue was done the wrong way. The OP virtually invited some posters to fling more dirt Eric’s way. All of this could have been done by PMs or email, but for some Eric has become the “whipping boy” of the board. It’s sad that he’s decided to leave, and I too hope he will return, but realistically he might find more profitable areas to express his opinions, and receive advice from real friends who are friends enough to honestly tell him to the face, privately, what he might be doing wrong.

[_marg]

In many ways I think it's a good move on Eric's part to leave. I don't think this board was doing him any good. He's an extremely intelligent individual who doesn't need to waste his time putting up with antagonistic crap from morons.

[_Danna]

I find this whole business of needing to crawl around in the mud to defeat any perceived enemy to be distasteful.

As always, you are a credit to penguins everywhere. Pity about those humans.

[_quaker]

I look forward to Goodk's masterful novel that I can proudly place beside Leaving the Saints on my bookshelf.

[_Yoda]

Ray, since I started that thread, let me speak to the original OP. The original OP was actually dealing with Bob's endless claims that Eric's original post was a humiliation to his family. I reposted Eric's original post of a year ago and generated discussion as to whether or not such a post would typically cause humiliation to an LDS family.

The thread, over time, evolved into a discussion about Westridge. Since the thread did veer off topic, it might have been wise to split it. However, I tend to avoid splitting large threads unless it is absolutely necessary because it is a pain to do.

Since the thread was not in Celestial, where I would have been obligated to split it, and since I was the thread starter, I opted to leave it alone.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I know you don't want to believe me. However, and once again, I see nothing wrong with taking a publicly-posted statement about a friend of mine (and a client, to boot) and bringing that statement to his attention.

I continue to see a problem with your meddling in a family's private affairs, but that's just me ....

I am sure that if some nasty apologist were saying something nasty about a personal critic friend of yours, calling him either by his in real life name or his real name, you wouldn't hesitate bringing it to his attention.

But that wasn't the context we are talking about. It was an issue between father and son that you (and DCP) should have stayed out of.

But, here, GoodK has left. I remain. I triumph.

If it makes you sleep better at night ....