Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Yoda]

As far as I am aware, you don't know me, and you don't know Dan, so you are in no place to make a judgment call on what type of a friend I am.

I do not need to know a person to judge the persons actions. If someone admits to something, I am certainly with in reason to look at the situation and make a statement.

You know...when I read this, I was going to tell you to f*** off, or make another obscene suggestion. But instead, let me just suggest that you put me on Ignore and then we'll both be happy. You don't like me. I get it. I'm not that thrilled with you, either.

Now you are bordering going full-on William Schryver i.e. someone disagrees with you therefore that person has something against you.

We can disagree.
I can point out inconsistent statements you have made.
But that does not equal that I do not like you.

I am perfectly willing to deal with civil disagreement. But you claiming I started a pity party thread when I was being sincere is hardly civil. It was more than a statement of mere disagreement so don't even attempt to paint the picture otherwise. You were hostile to me and I was hostile in return. You reap what you sow.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, you were a victim if this kind of treatment. But If I recall correctly, it was Will Schryver who did that, when you anonymously submitted that article to FAIR. And who called his ass on it? That would be me. And I also happen to know that Dan jerked a knot in Will's tail for doing that to you.

Um, well, if you have watched the other board lately, it has been a number of Daniel's friends who have been doing it. And he used my name over there as well. So, as I was saying....

[_Yoda]

Yes, you were a victim if this kind of treatment. But If I recall correctly, it was Will Schryver who did that, when you anonymously submitted that article to FAIR. And who called his ass on it? That would be me. And I also happen to know that Dan jerked a knot in Will's tail for doing that to you.

Um, well, if you have watched the other board lately, it has been a number of Daniel's friends who have been doing it. And he used my name over there as well. So, as I was saying....

No, I actually haven't been reading the other board. Until a week ago, I had to use a proxy server to even access it.

If they were doing that to you, it is sincerely news to me, and I don't condone it in the least.

[_Kishkumen]

No, I actually haven't been reading the other board. Until a week ago, I had to use a proxy server to even access it.

If they were doing that to you, it is sincerely news to me, and I don't condone it in the least.

Well, Liz, I have been accused of being Scratch. They (including Daniel) have implied on more than one occasion that I was somehow involved in a conspiracy to get them tossed out of the Maxwell Institute. Daniel has held his knowledge of my real identity over my head for some time. He not long ago used my name on MDDB, while his friend Lou was repeatedly using my name in connection with the name of my employer and implicitly threatening, as his friend Bill had before him, to contact my employer.

So, my sympathy for the sufferings of Daniel is at a real nadir here.

Do I think he was interested in Everybody Wang Chung's identity for using it to shut him up?

Hell yes, I do. It's bleeding obvious.

[_Yoda]

No, I actually haven't been reading the other board. Until a week ago, I had to use a proxy server to even access it.

If they were doing that to you, it is sincerely news to me, and I don't condone it in the least.

Well, Liz, I have been accused of being Scratch. They (including Daniel) have implied on more than one occasion that I was somehow involved in a conspiracy to get them tossed out of the Maxwell Institute. Daniel has held his knowledge of my real identity over my head for some time. He not long ago used my name on MDDB, while his friend Lou was repeatedly using my name in connection with the name of my employer and implicitly threatening, as his friend Bill had before him, to contact my employer.

So, my sympathy for the sufferings of Daniel is at a real nadir here.

Do I think he was interested in Everybody Wang Chung's identity for using it to shut him up?

Hell yes, I do. It's bleeding obvious.

You had confided in me regarding the email Bill sent to your work email, threatening to report to your employer that you were accessing MDB during work hours. And, as you know, I found that action appalling and still do.

The rest of it I wasn't aware of. I can understand why you feel the way you do if this is what happened.

If you honestly feel that your career has been compromised, and that reporting this action Dan has been involved in will even the score, then maybe you should report it to proper Church channels. As an active member of the LDS Church, that is certainly your right.

Honestly, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I simply made my observations based on my direct conversations with Dan. People here can take it or leave it.

What I don't appreciate is my private board being not only opened up for scrutiny, but grossly misrepresented by someone who I considered a friend.

[_Kishkumen]

If you honestly feel that your career has been compromised, and that reporting this action Dan has been involved in will even the score, then maybe you should report it to proper Church channels. As an active member of the LDS Church, that is certainly your right.

Unlike others I am neither interested in turning people in, nor am I interested in threatening to turn people in. I am not even interested in reminding people that "I could turn you in, but, wonderful guy that I am, I don't--just don't push me." What I am saying here is that you are going to a lot of effort to defend the indefensible, and you are sacrificing a lot of goodwill to do so. I hope it is all worth it to you.

[_sock puppet]

I suspect that DCP would not ask an IT savvy friend to hack into the LDS database, even to try to find out if Everybody Wang Chung is a bishop.

I also suspect that DCP's bishop friend would not hire such an IT hack either, after his term as bishop ends.

But DCP did not feel enough compunction to inhibit his asking his bishop friend to use his ecclesiastical access for DCP's private purposes. And the friend bishop did not have enough gumption of conscience about abusing his access privilege to tell DCP, no.

In my view, it is morally more reprehensible that the bishop proved the LDS trust in him was misplaced than if, as a non-bishop member, he surreptitiously hacked into the database.

In my view, it is morally more reprehensible that DCP would abuse his friendship with the bishop than simply hack into the database without straining a friendship and asking a bishop friend to violate the trust that LDS had placed in that bishop.

That the conscience of neither put a halt to this conspiratorial breach of the LDS privacy, both feeling that the other would keep his confidence over bringing it to light with other LDS authorities, makes this situation most telling on the characters of them both.

[_Ceeboo]

Wow!

I would be hard pressed to think of a more bizarre discussion on any board, anywhere, ever.

The entire situation speaks for itself and can be clearly seen in the opening post of this 23 page thread!

No matter who you are, how can someone attempt to defend this?

Why would you want to defend this?

If you are simply unable to stand (for whatever reason), perhaps sitting in utter silence would be a much better choice.

Good grief!!!!!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_lulu]

Its a corollary of the Nixon rule.

If DCP does it, its OK.

I suspect that DCP would not ask an IT savvy friend to hack into the LDS database, even to try to find out if Everybody Wang Chung is a bishop.

I also suspect that DCP's bishop friend would not hire such an IT hack either, after his term as bishop ends.

But DCP did not feel enough compunction to inhibit his asking his bishop friend to use his ecclesiastical access for DCP's private purposes. And the friend bishop did not have enough gumption of conscience about abusing his access privilege to tell DCP, no.

In my view, it is morally more reprehensible that the bishop proved the LDS trust in him was misplaced than if, as a non-bishop member, he surreptitiously hacked into the database.

In my view, it is morally more reprehensible that DCP would abuse his friendship with the bishop than simply hack into the database without straining a friendship and asking a bishop friend to violate the trust that LDS had placed in that bishop.

That the conscience of neither put a halt to this conspiratorial breach of the LDS privacy, both feeling that the other would keep his confidence over bringing it to light with other LDS authorities, makes this situation most telling on the characters of them both.

[_Bret Ripley]

No matter who you are, how can someone attempt to defend this?

How? "Inartfully" seems to be the consensus approach.

Why would you want to defend this?

Because credibility and good judgment are overrated?

If you are simply unable to stand (for whatever reason), perhaps sitting in utter silence would be a much better choice.

No kidding. Perhaps the kindest interpretation of events is that Dr. Peterson exhibited some poor judgment. Although the consequences of his actions are probably insignificant, it is simply absurd to try to defend that poor judgment. Arguing that his lapse in judgment is no big deal is one thing -- trying to justify it is just silly.