We Do Not Support John Dehlin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lowrance
Star A
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:29 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Lowrance »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:43 am
Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:30 am


Thank you for proving my point! I did fire 20 women and not one of them ever accused me of being inappropriate towards them.
But, you don’t support women. You took everything they had to offer, and then cut them loose when you were done with them. Typical man using women and then discarding them when they don’t give you what they want. I bet if we were to talk to them they’d have plenty of juicy insights with regard to working for Bing Bong the Ding Dong.

- Doc
Thanks for still proving my point.
Lowrance
Star A
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:29 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Lowrance »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:36 am
Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:33 am
How many women accused you of being inappropriate?
What does it matter? Are you trying to argue that the existence of a single accusation, regardless of its merit, warrants a multi-year smear campaign against a person?
Perhaps you need to have the impression that all the women are telling lies so that when you watch an episode of Mormon Stories to get your recommended daily allowance of Mormon criticism, you won't view John in a negative way.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:43 am
Therefore, none is your answer, no women have accused you, right? We're not talking about a single woman with a grudge against John or a couple of his friends who have their own personal reasons for wanting revenge on him. There are 19 women involved, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of them did not know each other prior to the time when there was discussion about making this letter public.
I have explained quite clearly above what I see to be the problems with this document. Your attempt to wave around the number 19 as though it meant much of anything is mere trolling and you know it.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Lowrance
Star A
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:29 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Lowrance »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:51 am
Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:43 am
Therefore, none is your answer, no women have accused you, right? We're not talking about a single woman with a grudge against John or a couple of his friends who have their own personal reasons for wanting revenge on him. There are 19 women involved, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of them did not know each other prior to the time when there was discussion about making this letter public.
I have explained quite clearly above what I see to be the problems with this document. Your attempt to wave around the number 19 as though it meant much of anything is mere trolling and you know it.
Okay, so let's say that you're right and I'm wrong, and that the women who signed the letter did so for the reasons you say they did; in that case, how many more women would need to sign the letter for you to believe that I'm correct? 50? Maybe 100?
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:45 am
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:43 am


But, you don’t support women. You took everything they had to offer, and then cut them loose when you were done with them. Typical man using women and then discarding them when they don’t give you what they want. I bet if we were to talk to them they’d have plenty of juicy insights with regard to working for Bing Bong the Ding Dong.

- Doc
Thanks for still proving my point.
The only point you proved, Bing Bing, is that you love to fire women because they don’t play nice with you. You use them and abuse them, tossing them to the street instead of helping them reach their full potential.

Also, your stupidity is once again on full display since you lie about everything. The notion that you, Bing Bing, posting as yet another sock puppet, claiming that 20 anonymous women that you “fired,” never produced a letter or otherwise griped about you, is somehow believable just goes to show you the depths of your idiocy. How would anyone know of these women, know of you, or know what they think of you? You simply say whatever you want to say, regardless of reality, and then post it to troll the board.

Cool.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Lowrance
Star A
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:29 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Lowrance »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:05 pm
Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:45 am


Thanks for still proving my point.
The only point you proved, Bing Bing, is that you love to fire women because they don’t play nice with you. You use them and abuse them, tossing them to the street instead of helping them reach their full potential.

Also, your stupidity is once again on full display since you lie about everything. The notion that you, Bing Bing, posting as yet another sock puppet, claiming that 20 anonymous women that you “fired,” never produced a letter or otherwise griped about you, is somehow believable just goes to show you the depths of your idiocy. How would anyone know of these women, know of you, or know what they think of you? You simply say whatever you want to say, regardless of reality, and then post it to troll the board.

Cool.

- Doc
Because of this, you have no choice but to resort to name calling and false accusations because you cannot refute the evidence I presented.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:10 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:05 pm


The only point you proved, Bing Bing, is that you love to fire women because they don’t play nice with you. You use them and abuse them, tossing them to the street instead of helping them reach their full potential.

Also, your stupidity is once again on full display since you lie about everything. The notion that you, Bing Bing, posting as yet another sock puppet, claiming that 20 anonymous women that you “fired,” never produced a letter or otherwise griped about you, is somehow believable just goes to show you the depths of your idiocy. How would anyone know of these women, know of you, or know what they think of you? You simply say whatever you want to say, regardless of reality, and then post it to troll the board.

Cool.

- Doc
Because of this, you have no choice but to resort to name calling and false accusations because you cannot refute the evidence I presented.
You haven’t presented any evidence you pusillanimous retard. You make idiotic claims that you can’t back up, and then you declare victory. Bing Bong the Ding Dong just doin’ Bing Bong things.

:roll:

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by dastardly stem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:09 am

Sure! And had I not spent hours upon hours dealing with Rosebud’s bizarre and slippery drama-mongering, I might be somewhat more sympathetic and less suspicious. Had I no further knowledge about the gripes of Kristy Money I would be more liable to lend credibility to her signature. Had I not witnessed the breathtaking hypocrisy of KK, who has done nothing less than crusade against John Dehlin, even using the Midnight Morons to do so, I would be significantly less cynical.
How do the 3 discredit the other 16? It’s as if they are all maligned because they agreed to condemn john Dehlin’s behavior. John says 0 for 19 when all he did is say a few things about the 19 he knows. 0 for 19 what? They’ve all seen or have seriously consider his behavior, I’m assuming, and found him to be a problem. Yeah. I mean duh. He’s shown that. Here. Even recently. Women and everyone should be cautious around the dude. He’s an egomaniac and can’t help but get a ton of self-satisfaction, apparently, by defending himself for behaving poorly. Every slippery excuse he could muster as it relates to rosebud came out from his lips. Yeah he’s sorry. He’s sorry his ploy got exposed. And guess what? He still has a host of fans who’d tear down anyone for daring to say a negative thing about him? And he’ll be leading that charge.

[quoteUnfortunately, I know too much about some key elements behind this document, and those problems are fatally compromising to its credibility, in my opinion.[/quote]

I don’t see how your similar sounding complaints about 3 women on the list does much more than offer a complaint about the 3 women.

No, what it is is a thinly veiled smear campaign. If my kids start pointing fingers at each other, I hear out the accusations. I try to get to the bottom of what informs the emotional complaints. Often I find that people, even people I like and respect, are capable of using accusations in very self-serving and vindictive ways.
Love you, kish, but this isn’t helping. There are 19 signatories not 3. If all of them are doing nothing but acting out in self-serving and vindictive ways that’d be nuts. No doubt. But come on. “I’m mad as hell he gets attention and I don’t. That’s it. I’m signing a letter warning other women to be careful around him. That’ll satisfy my lust for attention and my utter contempt that he’s getting attention and I’m not.” Really? They all be that crazy? If we grant 3 are acting in self-serving and vindictive ways does that really give us reason to think that the 16 others are too?
It is vague inasmuch as it does not back up its position. As the reader, I want to know why he should not be trusted. If I know that the unstated answers to these questions are things like, “he paid me the same as his other podcasters and I wanted more,” or, “I never met the man in my life, but I support my friend who wanted higher pay,” then I see why they don’t provide any justification for claiming John Dehlin is “unsafe.” If they told us, they would start losing support pretty quickly. Better to leave that vague claim unsupported by any specifics with all of those signatures under it.

I find it appalling, frankly.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe John’s rendition of why any of these three want to warn others should be taken seriously. Can anyone confirm kristy money was paid fairly? How because John said so? Could there not be more to her complaint? There may be unconfirmed complaints here, but as I see it they are legitimate.

Because people are complicated and life is complicated. I love my parents and their politics frankly scare me. I completely disapprove of the campaign against John Dehlin, but I want Rosebud to be a happy, healthy, and successful person. I don’t care for a number of things John Dehlin does, but that does not mean that I have to approve of the campaigns to malign him publicly.
I think you’re genuine in your well wishes. But accusing 19 women of manufacturing a campaign to malign someone, because they’re jealous he has an audience is a baseless charge. They are clearly concerned with his behavior. Signing their name to a document isn’t a campaign. If they started a podcast to detail their complaints about Dehlin or anything of that sort…well, that’s a campaign. Wanting to make clear that they want women to be warned about his behavior, that is obviously not a campaign. John’s gone on the offensive against Mormon people for their behavior. That’s fair… but as soon as someone points out his similar bad behavior they are vindictive and are on a campaign to malign him?

Nah. I say he ought to clean up his messy act. What he has been guilty of is just as egregious or worse than anything he’s accusing any Mormon of, with perhaps few exceptions. But somehow he’s a victim. Yeah, I buy that.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:50 am

Perhaps you need to have the impression that all the women are telling lies so that when you watch an episode of Mormon Stories to get your recommended daily allowance of Mormon criticism, you won't view John in a negative way.
No, I don’t. And I don’t need a daily allowance of Mormon criticism from you or anyone else.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

Lowrance wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:01 pm
Okay, so let's say that you're right and I'm wrong, and that the women who signed the letter did so for the reasons you say they did; in that case, how many more women would need to sign the letter for you to believe that I'm correct? 50? Maybe 100?
I want evidence. Group action does not create truth.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply