DiscussMormonism.com

I'm with Truthdancer. Gossip doesn't help your cause.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not a perfect man, but I think it's best not to dwell on his imperfections. It sounds like "Roy" has already paid the price for his actions. While I think Roy's mistakes to be a bit more serious than common mistakes you or I make, I also think it's none of our buisness if it has been handled and it sounds like it was. But hey, it's not like that's incentive for you. A chance for revenge is hard to pass up especially when you can get in a cheap shot like this.

Anyhow, I fail to see what apologists blackening the name of others (assuming for the sake of argument that they have) will buy you. What's the point in justifying your actions by appealing to the actions of those whom you do not respect? That's absurd. Have more self-respect than that please. You deserve more.

I cannot speak to A or C other than my Martin Luther King example. Obviously King was a man who deserves a lot of respect for doing a lot of good. I'm not so sure with "Roy". I think it's smarter to stay on target and focus on the bad he did you you and other children, but then I'm not you.

This concludes the test. The results were exactly as predicted. My thanks to the participants.

Let me get this straight Dan.... you tell lies about someone on the board to test other board members?

And, who exactly are the "participants" in your test?

I'm not even sure how to respond to this Dan... other than to say I don't think telling lies about someone as a way to test others is all that cool.



~td~

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I guess I've sat on what I know long enough: [Potentially libelous/slanderous material deleted]

I think I've run the test long enough to illustrate the rampant double standard here.

So far as I'm aware, GoodK has no history whatsoever of mental illness. If he's had abusive relationships with women, I'm unaware of them. I know nothing of any periods of incarceration in jail on his part, nor of any time spent in mental institutions. I have no reason to believe that his opening post here is a complete or even partial lie, and I have nothing to say about his mental condition.

But it was most amusing indeed to see chap, who advised GoodK that he was free to falsely malign my character without any need to justify it and who implicitly faulted me for denying GoodK's casual and irrelevant libel, rebuke me when I (falsely) maligned GoodK's character.

This concludes the test. The results were exactly as predicted. My thanks to the participants.

A really rare specimen, this one.

I am trying to imagine one of the signficant pastoral figures in the religion I used to belong to demeaning himself like this in public. Somehow I can't do it. Lack of imagination I suppose.

Still, he chose a pretty color to post in, so we can feel grateful for that.

cinepro wrote:What would be the point? Unless the Mormon Gulag has made specific claims that none of its leaders have cheated on their spouses and subsequently divorced and remarried, how is this relevant to his leadership?

Well, I guess the question to ask is would a faithful Mormon send their child to be spiritually molded by a man who abused his leadership position in the church, cheated on his wife, and was excommunicated?

And furthermore, if Quinn is to be taken with caution because of "sad incidents" happening in his stake, what does this say about the caution that should be exercised when dealing with Mormon Gulag leaders?

DCP wrote:denying GoodK's casual and irrelevant libel

Someone of your intellect should know the difference between a patently false accusation and something that really happened which you are equivocating over.

solomarineris wrote:What you're alluding is pure BS and conjecture.
I did read some solid posts of yours, this one is crock.
If you want credibility name your sources & don't beat around the bush.

Fair enough, here is one source:

Director of Clinical Services - Justin Robinson

http://www.aspiroadventure.com/Administration_Staff.htm

I can't reveal the other at this time.

GoodK wrote:Not "proof" as in physical evidence, but I have about as good of proof as one can get about these things. I have two independent, reliable, inside sources (that don't even know each other) telling me the same thing. I also do have evidence that "Roy" has been remarried.

Again, you have nothing but gossip.

That "Roy" has been remarried is irrelevant. What about his new wife? What about his former wife? What about his children?

Are you willing to drag them all through the mud and for what exactly?

Daniel Peterson wrote: But it was most amusing indeed to see chap, who advised GoodK that he was free to falsely malign my character without any need to justify it and who implicitly faulted me for denying GoodK's casual and irrelevant libel, rebuke me when I (falsely) maligned GoodK's character.

This concludes the test. The results were exactly as predicted. My thanks to the participants.[/color]

Not a very good test. The probability of truth to your claims against GoodK was very low. Given the context in which they were made alone, everyone should know you were full of it. Why Chap would call you out on that is obvious.

However, GoodK made claims that certain people have spoken of on several occasions, so they seemed more plausible (whether they were true or not). Your character has been maligned for so long, I imagine people will believe just about anything bad about you at this point. (I wonder why you've been so maligned... hmmm...)

And the fact was, Chap wasn't initially remarking on the validity (or lack thereof) of those claims, only on your propensity to turn threads that aren't about you into threads about you. Since GoodK doesn't have that history, why would Chap direct a similar comment at him? How would that constitute balance?

Jersey Girl wrote:
Again, you have nothing but gossip.

Again?

Jersey Girl wrote:That "Roy" has been remarried is irrelevant.

No, I think you misunderstand. That "Roy" has been excommunicated is the point. And the fact that Roy is a director at the Mormon Gulag and was a bishop in Utah County.

What about his new wife?

The women who engaged in an affair with a married bishop with children?

Well, I guess the question to ask is would a faithful Mormon send their child to be spiritually molded by a man who abused his leadership position in the church, cheated on his wife, and was excommunicated?

Ummmm, yes! (Think Joseph Smith here. I'm not saying Joseph Smith was excommunicated, but yeah, people follow leaders and justify whatever they need to, to do so).

Only a certain type of parent would send their child to the MG, and my guess is that they are not concerned about the previous conduct of the director but more about how they will get their child to walk their version of the straight and narrow.

"Roy's" past behavior won't matter in any way shape or form. Disclosing it may however, diminish the respect others have for you.

Take the high road!

~td~

truth dancer wrote:Let me get this straight Dan.... you tell lies about someone on the board to test other board members?

I'm not even sure how to respond to this Dan... other than to say I don't think telling lies about someone as a way to test others is all that cool.

I posted an inflammatory falsehood about GoodK in order to see whether certain participants here favor irrelevant and inflammatory personal falsehoods against everybody or just about me. Moreover, I defended it (or, perhaps better, declined to defend it) in terms borrowed very exactly from chap.

I publicly withdrew the inflammatory falsehood about GoodK precisely forty minutes after first posting it, in precisely the same venue where it was posted and before the identical audience that first saw it. I even highlighted my withdrawal in blue, in order to ensure that nobody would miss it.

truth dancer wrote:And, who exactly are the "participants" in your test?

Chap was my principal research subject, and he performed brilliantly.

I assume that we'll now go on for a while attacking me, while GoodK's wholly irrelevant and false aside about my supposedly making public personal information about Mike Quinn will be completely accepted as a simple truth that justifies . . . attacks on me. What a surprise!

Beautiful.

Some Schmo wrote:Chap wasn't initially remarking on the validity (or lack thereof) of those claims, only on your propensity to turn threads that aren't about you into threads about you.

LOL.

GoodK: "Yada yada yada blah blah blah Peterson is a scoundrel so maybe that justifies my being a scoundrel too blah blah blah and etc."

Peterson: "I'm not a scoundrel."

Chap: "Stop trying to make this about you!"