Ethics Scenario

[_Yoda]

Sorry. Scratch will be happy, though, to point out to you and everybody else that I have a long (even virtually uninterrupted) history of vicious, hateful, and unethical behavior, so you shouldn't have been surprised.

Well, on that note, Scratch and I would have to "agree to disagree".

[_Yoda]

It had little more to do with Eric -- incidentally, is it permissible to use his real name now? did I somehow reveal that private fact?

Eric has given his own in real life name on the board in previous posts, so I don't see any breach.

[_Ray A]

As to the rest, I disagree completely. And I mean completely. Sorry. Scratch will be happy, though, to point out to you and everybody else that I have a long (even virtually uninterrupted) history of vicious, hateful, and unethical behavior, so you shouldn't have been surprised.

You have a point. I know you are an honourable person, and I've never felt otherwise. I don't agree with all of your "apologetics", but I don't see that as a reason to demonise you personally. You are entitled to your considered opinion, and I mine.

I do think it's time for the innuendo and false accusations against you to stop.

[_Yoda]

For just under forty minutes, before an audience of, perhaps, three.

You don't know that. This is the Internet. People lurk here all the time. If they are not signed in, you can't really tell how many people are reading comments at any given time.

Also, to me, whether Eric's reputation was sullied for an audience of 3 or 300 is irrelevant. The same goes for your reputation being sullied. I don't agree with that, either. There is no difference.
>
>
>
>

[_Daniel Peterson]

For just under forty minutes, before an audience of, perhaps, three.

You don't know that. This is the Internet. People lurk here all the time. If they are not signed in, you can't really tell how many people are reading comments at any given time.

I have every reason to expect that at least as many people have seen my virtually immediate "retraction" as saw the first assertion.

Besides which, Eric is essentially anonymous.

But, now, many people have seen how serenely Eric's utterly irrelevant besmirching of my character goes down on this board -- and how obviously different the standard is when the character of a critic of the Church is called into question, however briefly. It was a beautiful thing, in its way. Indeed, it still is. I continue to be denounced, while, apart from your posts, Eric's completely irrelevant dragging of me into his attempt to gain justification for publishing dirt on "Roy" goes absolutely without criticism.

[_Yoda]

But, now, many people have seen how serenely Eric's utterly irrelevant besmirching of my character goes down on this board -- and how obviously different the standard is when the character of a critic of the Church is called into question, however briefly. It was a beautiful thing, in its way. Indeed, it still is. I continue to be denounced, while, apart from your posts, Eric's completely irrelevant dragging of me into his attempt to gain justification for publishing dirt on "Roy" goes absolutely without criticism.

I agree that your test was a success. There are more critics on this site than TBM's.

There are more TBM's on MAD than there are here.

I have seen just as many incidents of critics being treated harshly on MAD as I have TBM's being treated harshly here.

I'm not saying it's right....on either side. But wasn't that kind of a given before your "test"?

Was dragging someone's name through the mud, even if it did only happen for a moment, justified? In my opinion, I don't think so. Just like I don't think it would be wise for Eric to publicize his gossip on "Roy".

I think it will cheapen his case, rather than help it.

[_Ray A]

Besides which, Eric is essentially anonymous.

Eric is not anonymous. Anyone who read his articles would know his name is Eric Norwood.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I agree that your test was a success. There are more critics on this site than TBM's.

That wasn't the point, of course.

I know there are more critics than believers here. But critics don't have to be unfair. (Tarski, for example, can be fair, and so can certain others.) And they don't have to be personally hostile. Disagreement with a person's religious beliefs doesn't entail defaming him. (I know, I know. Scratch will be on this one like . . . Well, you fill in the blank. But his accusations against me aren't fair, true, or just. I simply haven't committed the vicious and cruel acts that he delights in attributing to me.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Eric is not anonymous. Anyone who read his articles would know his name is Eric Norwood.

Well whaddya know. And I never revealed it.

[_Yoda]

I agree that your test was a success. There are more critics on this site than TBM's.

That wasn't the point, of course.

I know there are more critics than believers here. But critics don't have to be unfair. (Tarski, for example, can be fair, and so can certain others.) And they don't have to be personally hostile. Disagreement with a person's religious beliefs doesn't entail defaming him. (I know, I know. Scratch will be on this one like . . . Well, you fill in the blank. But his accusations against me aren't fair, true, or just. I simply haven't committed the vicious and cruel acts that he delights in attributing to me.)

I completely agree with you. I just don't think that two wrongs make a right.