Tarski wrote:Well it is a bit more convoluted but it still doesn't sound like an instance of viscious gossip to me. In anycase, as I said before "gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.
Even if I were to be convinced that Dr. Peterson had done a wrong I would not go on about it for too long since I have done much worse in my life. But that's just me. "
What exactly would you classify as "harmless"? Losing one's membership in one's church? Losing one's job? Losing one's professional status? Being unable to secure a position for which you were qualified?
So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
Tarski wrote:So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
If that's what she's proposing, she must have a source of which I'm completely unaware. I doubt very much that any such thing happened.
In any event, Mike Quinn had left BYU several years prior to his excommunication -- and several years prior to the conversation for which Scratch and Rollo seek to damage my moral reputation.
So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
Well, that little tidbit of information would certainly get you fired from BYU.
I'm not so sure. One could be gay but sexually inactive and you could stay on I think. I knew of a case like this.
In any case, the question was whether anyone mentioned gay-ness in order to accomplish viscious harm against someone or was it just the same kind of "so and so is gay you know" type of stuff that comes up all the time in bull shooting sessions?
If something nefarious was schemed and accomplished then it doesn't really belong on an internet discussion board, it belongs in court and the participants ought to be totally different.
Somehow I doubt this is the case.
Tarski wrote:Well it is a bit more convoluted but it still doesn't sound like an instance of viscious gossip to me. In anycase, as I said before "gossiping is human nature and is mostly rather harmless. I am not inclined to characterize an instance of "gossip" as being viscious unless it was a conscious effort to harm in a viscious way (not just ruin somebody's lunch) or if it was a lie.
Even if I were to be convinced that Dr. Peterson had done a wrong I would not go on about it for too long since I have done much worse in my life. But that's just me. "
What exactly would you classify as "harmless"? Losing one's membership in one's church? Losing one's job? Losing one's professional status? Being unable to secure a position for which you were qualified?
So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
I'm not discussing Quinn at all. I know nothing about Quinn. You stated that gossip was "rather harmless". I asked what you would classify as "harmless", and listed several actions which may possibly result from gossip. Don't drag me into this; I have no dog in this fight.
So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
Well, that little tidbit of information would certainly get you fired from BYU.
I'm not so sure. One could be gay but sexually inactive and you could stay on I think. I knew of a case like this.
Sorry, but that stretches the bounds of credibility.
In any case, the question was whether anyone mentioned gay-ness in order to accomplish viscious harm against someone or was it just the same kind of "so and so is gay you know" type of stuff that comes up all the time in bull shooting sessions?
As if the perpetrator(s) would admit it that their oh-so-innocent gossip might have caused real harm to someone, were it dumped unceremoniously in their lap(s)? That would really stretch the bonds of credibility to the max.
You've obviously never been the victim of a whispering campaign, have you?
So you propose that someone mentioned that Quinn was gay in order to accomplish all this?
Well, that little tidbit of information would certainly get you fired from BYU.
I'm not so sure. One could be gay but sexually inactive and you could stay on I think. I knew of a case like this.
Sorry, but that stretches the bounds of credibility.
In any case, the question was whether anyone mentioned gay-ness in order to accomplish viscious harm against someone or was it just the same kind of "so and so is gay you know" type of stuff that comes up all the time in bull shooting sessions?
As if the perpetrator(s) would admit it that their oh-so-innocent gossip might have caused real harm to someone, were it dumped unceremoniously in their lap(s)? That would really stretch the bonds of credibility to the max.
You've obviously never been the victim of a whispering campaign, have you?
Yes but I ignored it and my behavior spoke for itself eventually.
As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??
harmony wrote:Sorry, but that stretches the bounds of credibility.
Nonetheless, it seems to be true.
harmony wrote:
In any case, the question was whether anyone mentioned gay-ness in order to accomplish viscious harm against someone or was it just the same kind of "so and so is gay you know" type of stuff that comes up all the time in bull shooting sessions?
As if the perpetrator(s) would admit it that their oh-so-innocent gossip might have caused real harm to someone, were it dumped unceremoniously in their lap(s)? That would really stretch the bonds of credibility to the max.
You've obviously never been the victim of a whispering campaign, have you?
However this might work out in a hypothetical case, there is no evidence of any such thing occurring in the case of Mike Quinn.
And, lest anyone forget, I'm the sole source upon which Scratch and Rollo Tomasi claim to be drawing.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tarski wrote:As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??