DiscussMormonism.com

moksha wrote:The article tries to make Romney's billionaire seem more of a slippery villain with his pyramid scheme vitamin products than other billionaires. Is that fair? Just because he is a Mormon does not mean he should be held in a higher ethical disdain than the Soros-Moore-Buffet trio that Bcspace writes about!!!

Oh yeah, since when did those last three try to cover up a scouting pedophile ring just because it involved the scouting programs for the LDS Church? Soros-Moore-Buffet would have hired the law firm of Selek, McConkie and YahooBot for after the fact damage control. They would have used denial without intimidation.


Edited to reduce chance of reprisal litigation.

moksha wrote:

moksha wrote:The article tries to make Romney's billionaire seem more of a slippery villain with his pyramid scheme vitamin products than other billionaires. Is that fair? Just because he is a Mormon does not mean he should be held in a higher ethical disdain than the Soros-Moore-Buffet trio that Bcspace writes about!!!

Oh yeah, since when did those last three try to cover up a scouting pedophile ring just because it involved the scouting programs for the LDS Church? Soros-Moore-Buffet would have hired the law firm of Selek, McConkie and YahooBot for after the fact damage control. They would have used denial without intimidation.


Edited to reduce chance of reprisal litigation.

Careful. I have been a life-long Democrat and an Obama supporter. Even though I switched to Republican last year, I still support the Pres.

Romney's support of a mutlti-level marketer is little different than the various scumbags who support both parties. Whereas I think multilevel marketers prey upon the poor, I don't think government should be in the business of telling the poor they should invest in lotto tix but not an MLM scheme.

And somebody has to defend the boy scouts and church from persons who claim to be pedophile victims. Might as well be yours truly. So far, 8 to 0.

Samantabhadra wrote:

And somebody has to defend the boy scouts and church from persons who claim to be pedophile victims.

WHAT?

Bot is a special brand of twisted screw. Bizarre.

Samantabhadra wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:And somebody has to defend the boy scouts and church from persons who claim to be pedophile victims.

WHAT?

Don't expect Yahoo Bot's posts to be very coherent. Mostly he posts because he is annoyed by a poster and wants to insult them in some say.

But in this case he is right. The only way we can be sure that if an organization is found liable for improper conduct in a pedophilia case it almost certainly is guilty, is if that organization gets to hire smart lawyers to test the plaintiff's case as far as the law and the judge will let them.

On the other hand, if in such a case the organization is not judged to be liable, that does not mean we can be sure that it did nothing wrong, merely that the admissible evidence in that case was not good enough to assure a careful judge that the case was proved.

The typical fact pattern is that the kid or parent says they went to the bishop to complain that the kid was being abused by a "high priest", "elder" or "priest" and the church didn't call the cops.

In the typical fact pattern, the bishop says that nobody ever told him that and had he been told, he would have called the cops. Further, the typical assertion is that the parents were a better judge of things and could have called the cops themselves.

A deviation on the typical fact pattern is that nobody told the bishop, but that the bishop "should have known" that something was going on because the older man was spending too much time with the kid outside of church.

In almost all of the cases, the older man is either inactive or doesn't have a calling in the church. [In one of my cases, the bishop couldn't even recall the perp; he was not active.] In the one case I've handled where the older man was an active high priest, he was abusing his own kids, and nobody knew outside the family, but the victims sued the church because their dad was a high priest. [In that case, both parents were ex'd because the mom procured her own kids for the abuse.]

In all these cases, the plaintiff's lawyers would hold press conferences focusing upon the fact that the perp was a "priest," and "elder" and a "high priest" in the church. There certainly is two sides to every story in the cases, but if a case gets knocked out before trial or a very small amount is paid in settlement, it usually is a signal that somebody's at fault but not the church.

In Eric Norwood's case with his lawsuit against West Ridge Academy, it will be interesting to see what happens. I note that the case is pending in a federal, not a state, court. Federal courts are notoriously anti-plaintiff. For instance, a plaintiff doesn't need a unanimous verdict in state court and it is far easier to toss out a case before trial in federal court. I have big question marks as to why Eric chose to sue in federal, rather than state court. No reasonable plaintiff's lawyer would have ever done that. [Maybe he was anticipating a removal petition, for you lawyers.]

Yahoo Bot wrote:The typical fact pattern is that the kid or parent says they went to the bishop to complain that the kid was being diddled by a "high priest", "elder" or "priest" and the church didn't call the cops.

In the typical fact pattern, the bishop says that nobody ever told him that and had he been told, he would have called the cops. Further, the typical assertion is that the parents were a better judge of things and could have called the cops themselves.

A deviation on the typical fact pattern is that nobody told the bishop, but that the bishop "should have known" that something was going on because the older man was spending too much time with the kid outside of church.

In almost all of the cases, the older man is either inactive or doesn't have a calling in the church. [In one of my cases, the bishop couldn't even recall the perp; he was not active.] In the one case I've handled where the older man was an active high priest, he was diddling his own kids, and nobody knew outside the family, but the victims sued the church because their dad was a high priest. [In that case, both parents were ex'd because the mom procured her own kids for the abuse.]

In all these cases, the plaintiff's lawyers would hold press conferences focusing upon the fact that the perp was a "priest," and "elder" and a "high priest" in the church.

This post is quite off-topic for this thread. Further, I suggest that the use of the term 'diddled' to refer to sexual molestation of children by adults in positions of trust and authority (or indeed by any adult) is likely to be offensive to most normal people, though not of course to Yahoo Bot.

Diddling is a felony. My use of the term does not diminish the offense.

Chap wrote: I suggest that the use of the term 'diddled' to refer to sexual molestation of children by adults in positions of trust and authority (or indeed by any adult) is likely to be offensive to most normal people, though not of course to Yahoo Bot

Yahoo Bot wrote:Diddling is a felony. My use of the term does not diminish the offense.

Let readers read, and judge.

If that's the worst thing you can say about my post, I'll take that as a compliment.

And here is the OP again:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billion ... e_critics/

I do hope that a moderator will soon remove Yahoo Bot's irrelevant and offensive material.