Bob wrote:So, you think that somebody whose avatar is a woman is a woman?
In most cases, that is correct. I believe that GoodK has referred to herself as a woman in previous posts as well. That's all I was basing this on, since I don't know her in real life. Are you saying that GoodK is not female?
I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?
Yes, this is the part that got under my skin. My family didn't need to see a post that I meant to be annonymous.
I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.
Yes, I do. We both do.
I know you didn't ask permission to email my family, you decided that yourself, which is your right - and my bad for not realizing you probably received the same email.
Mister Scratch wrote: Either you *did* do something akin to what Liz described, or you lied about it. Which is it, Bishop Bob?
Neither. The PMs GoodK posted really speak for themselves, so you can judge for yourself whether I told GoodK that I had, or was going to in the future, notify the father.
Liz wrote:Are you saying that GoodK is not female?
I have a request from GoodK not to out him or her and I will honor that request. I have done nothing in this thread to out him or her except to reveal the fact that I know his/her father.
Mister Scratch wrote: Either you *did* do something akin to what Liz described, or you lied about it. Which is it, Bishop Bob?
Neither. The PMs GoodK posted really speak for themselves, so you can judge for yourself whether I told GoodK that I had, or was going to in the future, notify the father.
Huh? The PMs simply mention a "*****" to whom you forwarded the message. You stated that you'd gone ahead and forwarded the message without first asking permission. Not very nice, Bishop Bob!
liz3564 wrote:GoodK, since Bob has insinuated otherwise, do you mind telling us if you are male or female?
I do mind. I really like my profile name and I'm already a High Priest, I don't want to start over!
I respect that. For the record, though, you would not have to change anything. If you do choose to change your screen-name, etc., I believe that if you PM Shades, he can adjust your post count with his Admin rights. In other words, you would still be a High Priest! ;)
liz3564 wrote:I respect that. For the record, though, you would not have to change anything. If you do choose to change your screen-name, etc., I believe that if you PM Shades, he can adjust your post count with his Admin rights. In other words, you would still be a High Priest! ;)
Er - wouldn't that rather obviously point out GoodK new identity?
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
For the record, the reason for me wishing to be annonymous and use the avatar "GoodK" (at MADB, before I even knew of this place) is not because I am a coward, not because I am worried about members who live around me and what they might say or think, it is not because I am a hypocrite and really do go to church on Sundays, it is only because my father is well known in the LDS apologetic community, and I have met and conversed with many of his friends.
I did not want to somehow tarnish his credibility or any future opportunity he might have with FARMS, that is all.
liz3564 wrote:I respect that. For the record, though, you would not have to change anything. If you do choose to change your screen-name, etc., I believe that if you PM Shades, he can adjust your post count with his Admin rights. In other words, you would still be a High Priest! ;)
Er - wouldn't that rather obviously point out GoodK new identity?
Maybe. Maybe not. There are people who have posted around 300 posts who have disappeared and returned. It's a lower post count than a lot of the "regulars". He/she could simply be looked at as a returned lurker.