Ethics Scenario

[_Yoda]

Eric, please re-read my posts if you were referring to me in regards to your comment about the success of DCP's "test".

My point was that I think what he did was extremely inappropiate.

My advice on your OP, however, stands. Please know that I am very supportive of you, your cause, and always have been.

[_TAK]

This really is something to be marveled at. Is it just me, or we redefining "disgusting, slanderous lie" to mean "experiment" now?

Let me get this straight; Daniel C. Peterson, an ecclesiastical leader within the LDS Church, a professor at Brigham Young University, knowingly spreads filthy, slanderous lies about me on the Internet, and in retraction calls it an "experiment" and you people accept that?

To keep this in perspective, I have never, ever invented a story about Peterson from whole cloth. I mentioned Peterson's treatment of Mike Quinn, which really happened, and he justifies himself by posting a horrible serious of lies that he later retracts and calls a "test."

What's worse is some people are actually playing along and commenting on the success of the "test."

I've been playing along too. Yesterday, after reading the Professor of Middle Eastern Studies' post I contacted an acquaintance, John W. Dozier, an Internet law attorney specializing in defamation cases. I'm not aware of any case law that addresses "tests" from BYU professors in relation to libel. We'll see how that goes.

I propose that from now on, it is free game to make up and say anything you want to say about Daniel C. Peterson as long as it is later recanted as an "experiment."

What the f***.

I would sue DCP and the University as he was probably on a University computer.

[_GoodK]

I would sue DCP and the University as he was probably on a University computer.

When DCP was on the business end of a lawsuit from Kurt Van Gordon, BYU and the First Presidency were names in the suit as well.

It seems like DCP is exposing the University and the Church to a potential lawsuit with behavior like this.

Enter Bob Crockett, attorney to the LDS stars.

Eric, please re-read my posts if you were referring to me in regards to your comment about the success of DCP's "test".

My point was that I think what he did was extremely inappropiate.

My advice on your OP, however, stands. Please know that I am very supportive of you, your cause, and always have been.

My comment was not directed towards you, specifically, although even entertaining his suggestion that this was in fact some type of "experiment" and not an embarrassing outburst he quickly thought twice about is too much for me to stomach.

[_Mister Scratch]

I just don't think that two wrongs make a right.

What I did isn't even remotely comparable.

Yes, I agree---mainly since my criticism(s) of you have their basis in actual facts. by the way: my offer still stands. If you want to express some regret or contrition regarding this or any other of the rotten things you've done, then I'll end my posting career.

[_Dr. Shades]

Back to the original topic:

Church member or not, is he still an employee/director/whatever of the Mormon Gulag?

Yes, he is still an employee/director at the Mormon Gulag.

Okay, now we can proceed.

What's he like? Is he:

1. A consummate professional, doing everything by-the-book, exerting his best effort to be fair and create a positive environment with the maximum potential for good in the residents' lives? Or,
2. A Nazi wannabe, getting his cheap thrills from physically abusing and/or verbally demeaning the residents? Or,
3. Somewhere in between?

If he gravitates--or finds himself squarely within--Option #1, then I vote that you cut the poor guy a break and bury all this.

On the other hand, if he gravitates--or finds himself squarely within--Option #2, then I say "congratulations," because Karma has clearly chosen you to be the vessel of her wrath. He'll deserve everything he gets, so as long as your facts are correct, then I vote that you drop the hammer.

(My curiousity has been raised, so I respectfully request that you answer the questions in the above list.)

[_The Nehor]

What I did isn't even remotely comparable.

Yes, I agree---mainly since my criticism(s) of you have their basis in actual facts. by the way: my offer still stands. If you want to express some regret or contrition regarding this or any other of the rotten things you've done, then I'll end my posting career.

What if he wants to but can't because he didn't do any of them. Per your above post this wanting should be sufficient to make you stop posting. It's win/win.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, I agree---mainly since my criticism(s) of you have their basis in actual facts. by the way: my offer still stands. If you want to express some regret or contrition regarding this or any other of the rotten things you've done, then I'll end my posting career.

What if he wants to but can't because he didn't do any of them. Per your above post this wanting should be sufficient to make you stop posting. It's win/win.

Nope. He actually has to apologize and express regret. And he very much did do nasty things on skinny-l, smear Mike Quinn, attack Robert Ritner, and so on.

[_asbestosman]

This really Let me get this straight; Daniel C. Peterson, an ecclesiastical leader within the LDS Church, a professor at Brigham Young University, knowingly spreads filthy, slanderous lies about me on the Internet, and in retraction calls it an "experiment" and you people accept that?

Uh, who accepted it? Did I say I accepted it? I basically said I thought his experiment was superfluous.

I propose that from now on, it is free game to make up and say anything you want to say about Daniel C. Peterson as long as it is later recanted as an "experiment."

Way to take the moral high ground. That's sure to help you with any potential lawsuits you might file against Daniel Peterson (assuming they had merit which I can't say since I am not a lawyer).

[_The Nehor]

Nope. He actually has to apologize and express regret. And he very much did do nasty things on skinny-l, smear Mike Quinn, attack Robert Ritner, and so on.

I know you didn't actually ask me for an apology but I would like to apologize for looking down on you as a deranged lunatic. You are a deranged lunatic but that's no reason for me to be condescending....at least not much.

[_GoodK]

I know you didn't actually ask me for an apology but I would like to apologize for looking down on you as a deranged lunatic. You are a deranged lunatic but that's no reason for me to be condescending....at least not much.

The Nehor's behavior reminds me of a quote from my favorite writer:

""As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

Way to take the moral high ground.

Asbestosman:

What do you think the moral high ground is, when a professor at Brigham Young University has, on more than one occasion, actively sought out ways to cause harm in my real life?

Is it to turn the proverbial cheek, over and over again? Let's keep in mind that I, personally, don't pretend to talk to God, don't gossip about the sex lives of historians on the Internet, don't break ecclesiastical confidentiality subtly in a manner that poisons the well, don't try and expose the real identities of message board posters, etc. I believe DCP deserves far worse than he gets here.

What's he like? Is he:

1. A consummate professional, doing everything by-the-book, exerting his best effort to be fair and create a positive environment with the maximum potential for good in the residents' lives? Or,
2. A Nazi wannabe, getting his cheap thrills from physically abusing and/or verbally demeaning the residents? Or,
3. Somewhere in between?

If he gravitates--or finds himself squarely within--Option #1, then I vote that you cut the poor guy a break and bury all this.

On the other hand, if he gravitates--or finds himself squarely within--Option #2, then I say "congratulations," because Karma has clearly chosen you to be the vessel of her wrath. He'll deserve everything he gets, so as long as your facts are correct, then I vote that you drop the hammer.

(My curiousity has been raised, so I respectfully request that you answer the questions in the above list.)

Thank you for asking, Dr. Shades.

It is an interesting question. I believe that Option one can be thrown out of the window immediately, as it isn't even in the same realm as a reasonable description of "Roy". I have an interview with a former staff member that described one of her first weekends as a "home parent" where she witnessed this person abuse a teenage boy before being asked to not say anything about the incident. It is one of my favorite clips.

While he wasn't as violent as Brent Sanderson, and not violent at all to me personally, the man described in my article and book, he was a much higher ranking staff member and had/has much more influence, control, and stake in the company.