DiscussMormonism.com

rcrocket wrote:The second annointing thread explained one thing to me: An idiot posted anonymously and lacked the courage to state his name. The fact I couldn't get the general authorities' assignments to line up the way he described it suggests to me that he is, indeed, an idiot and a coward who will, quite naturally, burn in hell. Just a kind thought.

Hmmm. Harold Hillam was the Europe West Area President at the time. And according to the Friend, Wayne Peterson was a counselor in the Europe West Area in 2003.

Seems to me it's not that hard to line up the GAs' assignments the way the hell-burner said they did.

The second annointing thread explained one thing to me: An idiot posted anonymously and lacked the courage to state his name. The fact I couldn't get the general authorities' assignments to line up the way he described it suggests to me that he is, indeed, an idiot and a coward who will, quite naturally, burn in hell. Just a kind thought.

First, let me say that we're all so pleased that you're actually offering input other than your normal "one note johnnie" song.

Oh wait....

Second, the poster gave enough personal details that the leaders would immediately be able to know who he was. So his anonymity was not designed to protect his identity from church leaders. It was designed to protect his family.

I understand that, to you, protecting one's family via internet anonymity is an act of cowardice, but we're not all quite as noble as you.

rcrocket wrote:The second annointing thread explained one thing to me: An idiot posted anonymously and lacked the courage to state his name. The fact I couldn't get the general authorities' assignments to line up the way he described it suggests to me that he is, indeed, an idiot and a coward who will, quite naturally, burn in hell. Just a kind thought.

Good God, crockett, you've posted anonymously here often enough, and go ballistic when people post your in real life information. I doubt if you left the LDS Church at any time going forward and had gone through the Second Anointing, been a Mission President, and so on that you'd likely put your John Hancock to the post or the link to your sunny Southern California law firm's website.

Lacked courage? It seemed like a pretty straightforward and forthcoming post to me. I doubt Lee Bishop/Bishop Lee could have done as well.

Crocket,

was stupid enough to post his real name and that is the only horn he has to toot is trying to get everyone else to be as stupid as he is and was.

beastie wrote:First, let me say that we're all so pleased that you're actually offering input other than your normal "one note johnnie" song.

Oh wait....

Second, the poster gave enough personal details that the leaders would immediately be able to know who he was. So his anonymity was not designed to protect his identity from church leaders. It was designed to protect his family.

I understand that, to you, protecting one's family via internet anonymity is an act of cowardice, but we're not all quite as noble as you.

The interesting thing is that I found the pertinent GA information to confirm at least that the details given were as they should be; took me about 5 minutes on the net. But Bob couldn't spare 5 minutes; it apparently was easier for him to just proclaim the man a liar.

Sethbag, I think Elder Packer's manner has more to do with his personal circumstances...not a blessing that a number of other people have. Elder Packer was called at an extremely young age; he was a seminary teacher and had never served as a Bishop, Stake Pres. or Reg. Rep. I think this is the reason for what some have perceived as arrogance. Also, holding a position of authority for a long time, has probably contributed to it. He's also a bit shy when in public situations and so I think some of his aloofness is a defense mechanism.

rcrocket wrote:The second annointing thread explained one thing to me: An idiot posted anonymously and lacked the courage to state his name. The fact I couldn't get the general authorities' assignments to line up the way he described it suggests to me that he is, indeed, an idiot and a coward who will, quite naturally, burn in hell. Just a kind thought.

blah blah blah anonymous blah blah blah coward blah blah blah going to hell blah blah blah

the road to hana wrote:Good God, crockett, you've posted anonymously here often enough, and go ballistic when people post your in real life information. I doubt if you left the LDS Church at any time going forward and had gone through the Second Anointing, been a Mission President, and so on that you'd likely put your John Hancock to the post or the link to your sunny Southern California law firm's website.

That is simply untrue. When I post with a pseudonym I always give my true name out in one of my posts or in my profile.

There have been minor exceptions -- ten posts or less on some boards. I have been known to make an anonymous post to poke fun at one of my own posts -- but nobody's perfect.

The simple fact remains that you all are getting all jazzed and excited about an anonymous post. He's a coward. You are a coward. And, no, I don't post with my own name because I made some mistake in doing so some time ago. I have posted with my own name since the days of BBS echo boards.

rcrocket

The simple fact remains that you all are getting all jazzed and excited about an anonymous post. He's a coward. You are a coward. And, no, I don't post with my own name because I made some mistake in doing so some time ago. I have posted with my own name since the days of BBS echo boards.

And how noble that makes you!!

I'm sure your family members were equally appreciative when their personal information was posted by an internet stalker.

rcrocket wrote:

the road to hana wrote:Good God, crockett, you've posted anonymously here often enough, and go ballistic when people post your in real life information. I doubt if you left the LDS Church at any time going forward and had gone through the Second Anointing, been a Mission President, and so on that you'd likely put your John Hancock to the post or the link to your sunny Southern California law firm's website.

That is simply untrue. When I post with a pseudonym I always give my true name out in one of my posts or in my profile.

There have been minor exceptions -- ten posts or less on some boards. I have been known to make an anonymous post to poke fun at one of my own posts -- but nobody's perfect.

The simple fact remains that you all are getting all jazzed and excited about an anonymous post. He's a coward. You are a coward. And, no, I don't post with my own name because I made some mistake in doing so some time ago. I have posted with my own name since the days of BBS echo boards.

rcrocket

Wait, I'm confused. You are posting with your own name, or you aren't?

So we can lay out your whole identity here R__________ D. C____________, partner in the law firm of ___________ and ____________ in _____ ______________, ______________, and that doesn't bother you?

Sure, you posted plenty on this board initially under a variety of pseudonyms. Most of us knew who you were, but you weren't openly posting without anonymity.

If I were you I wouldn't be advocating so fiercely against anonymity. It takes less than five minutes to find your complete contact information and bio online. Not everyone is comfortable with that; that doesn't necessarily make them a coward. It makes them prudent.