Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _harmony »

marg wrote: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 s*** from morons.


The same could be said for virtually everyone who actually wants to have a discussion here, marg. GoodK wasn't here for discussion. GoodK was here for agreement; when he got discussion, ie opposition, he left. Calling one's opposition morons is standard operating procedure here, so you're in good company. Carry on. There is much still to be written.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Ray A wrote: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”.

The new board rule on this is:

"Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public."

Note the key-words "chat room" or "private message." E-mail is FAIR game.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _harmony »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Ray A wrote: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”.

The new board rule on this is:

"Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public."

Note the key-words "chat room" or "private message." E-mail is FAIR game.


And Stan definitely made it "overtly public".
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_marg

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _marg »

harmony wrote:
The same could be said for virtually everyone who actually wants to have a discussion here, marg. GoodK wasn't here for discussion. GoodK was here for agreement; when he got discussion, ie opposition, he left. Calling one's opposition morons is standard operating procedure here, so you're in good company. Carry on. There is much still to be written.


Harmony you didn't offer opposition in the form of intelligent, knowledgable, intellectually honest perspective on this issue. You offered it in the form of a smear campaign with goading being your objective.

I don't necessarily think that's why he left. I'm simply saying it's better for him to not waste his time with that sort of unproductive communication which can overshadow productive discussion.

Here's an example of one of your speculative, smear campaign..goading posts...example
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

I haven't read much of this thread and I don't intend to. The back and forth about Eric is tiresome to me. I only wanted to chime in and share a bit about my experience with Eric.

Eric has been ever kind and respectful to me. I haven't been particularly good to him or gone out of my way for him, yet he was the only person other than my girls to wish me a happy Mother's Day. He wished me a Happy New Year, as well. I've not found him to be selfish, but rather thoughtful and that goes a long way with me. And Eric as well as most everyone else here knows I've disagreed with him on several issues, but I've never been treated disrespectfully by him. Not once.

I wish him happiness and all good things.

Kimberly
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray A wrote:Eric's anger probably intensified during that thread, possibly motivating him to put up the offending avatar. He wasn't posting, or just responding to inaccurate information if he was. Everyone else was doing the talking for him.

Yes folks, 19 pages of it. One "offending avatar" goes up, and the dirt is on him again. Don't you think this guy has already had a hard enough life?



Mr. Observant,

Eric came on the thread with the AV. You didn't see that?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Yoda

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Yoda »

Ray wrote: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 understood Eric's motivation. I agree that Bob was acting like a jerk. But Bob's wife didn't do anything to anybody. Why should she be unnecessarily dragged into MDB politics? She is an innocent victim. There is no reason for her picture to be posted without her consent.

Are you seriously arguing that Eric should have been allowed to keep the avatar? That it shouldn't have been deleted? That he shouldn't have at least been politely asked about it, and respectfully asked to delete it on his own accord?
_Ray A

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Ray A »

liz3564 wrote:Are you seriously arguing that Eric should have been allowed to keep the avatar? That it shouldn't have been deleted? That he shouldn't have at least been politely asked about it, and respectfully asked to delete it on his own accord?


This thread was started with malacious intentions. Blind Freedy and his guide dog can see that. As I've said before, this is a question that should have been directed to Shades, privately. It may well have been resolved amicably if done that way. Eric is a reasonable person and Shades is quite diplomatic in his own way. Instead, he (Shades) was forced to address the issue in public and perhaps come down harder than he normally would. Do I think, if asked privately, and respectfully, whether Eric would have complied with Shades' request? I do, but not after this thread was started.

No, I don't think the avatar was the best idea, but I explained why Eric was resorting to this. I'm not going to jump on Eric for every indiscretion, because I'm not his daddy. I hope I'm also not a "fair weather" friend.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

This thread was started with malacious intentions. Blind Freedy and his guide dog can see that. As I've said before, this is a question that should have been directed to Shades, privately. It may well have been resolved amicably if done that way. Eric is a reasonable person and Shades is quite diplomatic in his own way. Instead, he (Shades) was forced to address the issue in public and perhaps come down harder than he normally would. Do I think, if asked privately, and respectfully, whether Eric would have complied with Shades' request? I do, but not after this thread was started.

No, I don't think the avatar was the best idea, but I explained why Eric was resorting to this. I'm not going to jump on Eric for every indiscretion, because I'm not his daddy. I hope I'm also not a "fair weather" friend.



Are you saying that I, the thread starter, began this particular thread with "malicious intentions"?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Are you saying that I, the thread starter, began this particular thread with "malicious intentions"?


Can't you read English?
Post Reply