There are moderators here, too, Ray. Why do you keep pushing the job on me? And not just this board, but forums on this board I don't go to, AND RfM to boot. I'm not interested in the job. If you want it, you take it.
Daniel,
I'm not going to dwell on the Quinn issue. My comments stand, no matter what you call whatever conversation you had with someone else about Quinn's sexuality. You don't think it was gossip - fine, call it whatever word you want. I am satisfied that you believe you did no harm, and meant no harm. That doesn't mean harm wasn't done, but, again, I do not have adequate information about the situation to form a solid opinion on the matter. That's all I have to say about it - you want me to absolve you, but I can't, given your past tendency to make comments about knowing some unspoken information about someone - unspoken but bad. You know, and have known ever since it came up on Z, that I don't think you exercise good judgment in that type of matter. But nor can I condemn you as readily as scratch, because we really don't know enough about the situation to be able to do that.
My main interest on this thread has been why the Murphy Z thread was, in some way, a template for you and Juliann as to what was so wrong with Z. You declared that the thread represented why Z was dead. Without your input as to why you made such a statement, we're left guessing. What I guess is that the "asked and answered" policy, as implemented on MAD, would have shut that thread down long before the real information was finally - finally - divulged.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Good grief, Daniel. You're probably family, somewhere along the line. Of course I know people who know you. And of course we talk about the famous Daniel Peterson, what a stalwart upstanding amazingly brilliant member of the extended family you are. The Mormon world is pretty small, after all. But we don't gossip. Gossip is when someone tells something that is perceived as negative about the person, whispers it behind the other's back as it were. We exchange family news... you know the type of stuff: weddings, births, mission calls, Daniel's latest amazing feat. All quite harmless. Just like you claim you did with the Quinn information.
My comments here are in direct response to your on-line persona. If that's not an accurate rendition of your real self, that's not my fault.
harmony wrote:My comments here are in direct response to your on-line persona. If that's not an accurate rendition of your real self, that's not my fault.
Your comments here are in overweening response to your very jaundiced and unjust reading of my on-line persona. The error of your reading of my on-line persona is your fault, as is your arrogant judgmentalism. Don't blame me for it.
harmony wrote:My comments here are in direct response to your on-line persona. If that's not an accurate rendition of your real self, that's not my fault.
Your comments here are in overweening response to your very jaundiced and unjust reading of my on-line persona. The error of your reading of my on-line persona is your fault, as is your arrogant judgmentalism. Don't blame me for it.
You might want to go back and read some of your more... ummmm.... pithy comments to me and to others who you perceive as less than you, Daniel. Start with wazing.
You've been behaving out of character since you landed here this time. I may have to revise my judgment if you keep it up.