The apologist head in a basket

[_charity]

I do have one more question for Charity regarding this mess. If the person in question was not a poster on this board, then what was the relevancy of the posted rumor in the first place?

The relevance was that the reason given for leaving the Church fit that scenario. And my mother always taught me that if you didn't say the name or identifying characteristics, it wasn't gossip. So I couldn't say, for instance, "I won't say the name but their intials are K. G." And mama always said if the circumstance was correct, it wasn't rumor.

It is not my fault that Kevin took the scenario, applied it to himself, recognized himself in it and then accused me of lying about him because the circumstance didn't fit him. Why am the only person who can see how inconsistent that is?

[_dartagnan]

It is not my fault that Kevin took the scenario, applied it to himself, recognized himself in it and then accused me of lying about him because the circumstance didn't fit him. Why am the only person who can see how inconsistent that is?

I didn't "take" this scenario you idiot. I didn't "apply" it to myself. You brought it up because it was fed to you by the rumor mill at FAIR. It had already been applied to me by the stooges you call friends. You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made. Everyone here knew what you were doing. When CK said you were referring to me, you didn't deny it. Everyone here saw what you wrote and immediately knew you were referring to me.

I never accused you of lying "because the circumstance didn't fit" me. Your pacman/schryver version of teh incident is a lie because it is based on psychoanalysis. I now accuse you of lying because you're trying to save face by applying this to some mysterious poster you don't have the guts to name. In the interests of full disclosure, would you be willing to have this person come here and explain his or her side? No. You're scared for any of us to find out who he/she is because we could then send an email and get the real scoop. All you're willing to do is share the name with Runtu only if he crossed his heart and swore never to repeat it. And you think this somehow verifies your claim. What an idiot.

Why won't you share the name? Oh yea, because you're a sweet lady who is simply looking out for this person, even though you have never spoke with one another, yet felt it necessary to ridicule him/her. Talk about inconsistency. The fact is this person would receive more sympathy and empathy from us than you were ever willing to give. Remember, this person you used to prove how people like him/her leave the Church over bruised egos.

[_asbestosman]

The relevance was that the reason given for leaving the Church fit that scenario. And my mother always taught me that if you didn't say the name or identifying characteristics, it wasn't gossip. So I couldn't say, for instance, "I won't say the name but their intials are K. G." And mama always said if the circumstance was correct, it wasn't rumor.

You may not have gossiped to us about the mystery person, but there are some questions I do have about this now. First off, even if you didn't share the name with us, isn't it true that the circumstances in which you learned this information was gossip because you do in fact know the name? Secondly, isn't this an admission that others on the FAIR list are engaging in gossip? I mean, that post from Pacman did seem like gossip to me and it saddens me that they would engage in that behavior. Finally, since you have told Runtu the name, does it now become gossip to Runtu even if he does not share the name?

And by the way Charity, I believe you when you say you weren't referring to Kevin Graham. I do not see you as a liar. My personal opinion is that those who believe you were lying will continue to believeing so while those like me who believe you do not lie will also continue beliving in your integrity.

[_Blixa]

And my mother always taught me that if you didn't say the name or identifying characteristics, it wasn't gossip. So I couldn't say, for instance, "I won't say the name but their intials are K. G." And mama always said if the circumstance was correct, it wasn't rumor.

I for one can not resist returning this easy lob: Your mama.

And she's wrong. Insinuations can be as much gossip as direct assertions. Same with rumor: if you've made the statement impossible to verify then by definition its a rumor.

[_charity]

You may not have gossiped to us about the mystery person, but there are some questions I do have about this now. First off, even if you didn't share the name with us, isn't it true that the circumstances in which you learned this information was gossip because you do in fact know the name? Secondly, isn't this an admission that others on the FAIR list are engaging in gossip? I mean, that post from Pacman did seem like gossip to me and it saddens me that they would engage in that behavior. Finally, since you have told Runtu the name, does it now become gossip to Runtu even if he does not share the name?

This is the way it came up. I was on another message board, and someone made a comment that there was a rather prominent poster who "had his head handed to him in a basket" and there was great laughter and hilarity at the idea that someone would be ridiculed and humiliated in public. Pitiful bunch of little grinches that group was, to take pleasure in another's pain.

I didn't necessarily believe the little grinches were being accurate. I have seen grave errors in these assessments. So I went to the FAIR e-list to ask for details for what really had happened. Since I am fledgling apologist I wanted to know if there were arguments out there that were credible. I was tiven the name and circumstances. No speculation. No unholy hilarity. Just the facts, ma'am.

Then I used that as an anonymous example. I don't see that as gossip. And since runtu is being honest and trustworthy and not divulging a confidence, then I don't see it as being gossip. Although I can see how that could be an interpretation.

And by the way Charity, I believe you when you say you weren't referring to Kevin Graham. I do not see you as a liar. My personal opinion is that those who believe you were lying will continue to believeing so while those like me who believe you do not lie will also continue beliving in your integrity.

I think you are right. Thanks.

[_charity]

I didn't "take" this scenario you idiot. I didn't "apply" it to myself.

This directly contradicts your later statement just a couple of sentences down. Which I have placed in red, but which I will quote right here. You said: "You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made." So how is it you didn't apply it to yourself? Please explain.

You brought it up because it was fed to you by the rumor mill at FAIR. It had already been applied to me by the stooges you call friends.

I believe you have referred to Will Schryver and DCP in connection with this "rumor." I don't know either man personally. Well, I did meet DCP at the August FAIR conference, but I doubt he remembers me. I think I might have met Will, but when I try to think of his face, the only face I can come up with is someone else's. At any rate, and intrroduction at a conference with over 350 people in the room hardly qualifies me as on their buddies list.

You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made. Everyone here knew what you were doing.

I really am flabbergasted at your admission of the facts of the situation. But a little surprised that you evidently think of your experience as unique.

When CK said you were referring to me, you didn't deny it.


I must have missed that post. But you can't really maintain that I didn't repeatedly deny it.

Everyone here saw what you wrote and immediately knew you were referring to me.

And everyone was wrong. As I have subsequently shown.

In the interests of full disclosure, would you be willing to have this person come here and explain his or her side? No. You're scared for any of us to find out who he/she is because we could then send an email and get the real scoop.

I don't pull anyone's strings. And no one pulls mind. Any individual who wants to post here can, I assume. If that person choses to do so he will. I have no control over him. I don't even know the person in real life.

Why won't you share the name? Oh yea, because you're a sweet lady who is simply looking out for this person, even though you have never spoke with one another, yet felt it necessary to ridicule him/her. Talk about inconsistency.

I have not ridiculed anyone. I leave that to the grinches among us.

[_Trinity]

Did I take a wrong turn and end up in a Relief Society presidency meeting by accident?

[_dartagnan]

This directly contradicts your later statement just a couple of sentences down. Which I have placed in red, but which I will quote right here. You said: "You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made." So how is it you didn't apply it to yourself? Please explain.

Why did you ignore the next statement? I said I didn’t apply it to myself, but it had already been applied to me by your ilk: “It had already been applied to me by the stooges you call friends.” Your buddies over there had long since applied this to me, whether the details are accurate or not. There is nothing contradictory in what I said. To say something wasn’t applied by me, is not to say something hasn’t been applied.

If someone says there is an American living on my street, it naturally applies to me and only me. Everyone in my neighborhood knows this. I don’t have to take any action and apply it to myself. It already does. The problem here, as usual, is that you’re an idiot.

I believe you have referred to Will Schryver and DCP in connection with this "rumor." I don't know either man personally. Well, I did meet DCP at the August FAIR conference, but I doubt he remembers me. I think I might have met Will, but when I try to think of his face, the only face I can come up with is someone else's. At any rate, and intrroduction at a conference with over 350 people in the room hardly qualifies me as on their buddies list.

I don’t think it was DCP. I am pretty sure pacman, Will and Bokovoy were involved in recreating that event in this manner. But you cannot pretend you are not hearing this over there. For crying out loud, pacman just posted a PM to you where he just happens to say this exact rumor. You’re telling us this is the first time you’ve heard it? Go ahead. Lie some more.

I really am flabbergasted at your admission of the facts of the situation. But a little surprised that you evidently think of your experience as unique.

It is unique in the sense that people on your home team have been applying this to me for many, many months now. It comes up almost as many times as my name is mentioned over there. Pacman’s comment the yesterday proves my point. If you think it isn’t unique, then go ahead an name names of people who fit this description laid out by Schryver and pacman. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re looking out for those people.

I must have missed that post.

Are you blind now? He said there could be “no doubt” you were referring to me. You responded and didn’t deny it.

But you can't really maintain that I didn't repeatedly deny it.

You denied it only after you realized accolades were not in order. You quickly realized this forum doesn’t congratulate spiteful rumor-mongering, as it is over at MAD. So you started back pedaling, and tried to convince us you had some anonymous “other” in mind.

And everyone was wrong. As I have subsequently shown.

Shown? You have asserted, but nothing more.

I don't even know the person in real life.

And this is supposed to go to your credit? You don’t know the person. All you know is you heard a rumor and you then use this rumor as your evidence that people don’t leave the Church because of message boards. Your point makes no sense whatsoever unless this person was a message board participant. Your point makes no sense unless this person was a poster on this forum.

I have not ridiculed anyone.

No? You admittedly spoke ill of someone you never conversed with. Someone you never met. You said he “got his head handed to him in a basket.” You said he “got his pride whomped.” You then said he, “wanted to blame his bruised ego on the Church, the general authorities, and every TBM who wouldn't lick his wounds to make him feel better.”

In what corner of the universe is this not considered ridicule? The fact that you admittedly know nothing about this person or the veracity of the “rumor,” tells us little about this person, but speaks volumes about charity.

[_Pokatator]

I didn't "take" this scenario you idiot. I didn't "apply" it to myself.

This directly contradicts your later statement just a couple of sentences down. Which I have placed in red, but which I will quote right here. You said: "You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made." So how is it you didn't apply it to yourself? Please explain.

You brought it up because it was fed to you by the rumor mill at FAIR. It had already been applied to me by the stooges you call friends.

I believe you have referred to Will Schryver and DCP in connection with this "rumor." I don't know either man personally. Well, I did meet DCP at the August FAIR conference, but I doubt he remembers me. I think I might have met Will, but when I try to think of his face, the only face I can come up with is someone else's. At any rate, and intrroduction at a conference with over 350 people in the room hardly qualifies me as on their buddies list.

You knew it applied and you knew this connection would be made. Everyone here knew what you were doing.

I really am flabbergasted at your admission of the facts of the situation. But a little surprised that you evidently think of your experience as unique.

When CK said you were referring to me, you didn't deny it.


I must have missed that post. But you can't really maintain that I didn't repeatedly deny it.

Everyone here saw what you wrote and immediately knew you were referring to me.

And everyone was wrong. As I have subsequently shown.

In the interests of full disclosure, would you be willing to have this person come here and explain his or her side? No. You're scared for any of us to find out who he/she is because we could then send an email and get the real scoop.

I don't pull anyone's strings. And no one pulls mind. Any individual who wants to post here can, I assume. If that person choses to do so he will. I have no control over him. I don't even know the person in real life.

Why won't you share the name? Oh yea, because you're a sweet lady who is simply looking out for this person, even though you have never spoke with one another, yet felt it necessary to ridicule him/her. Talk about inconsistency.

I have not ridiculed anyone. I leave that to the grinches among us.

And previously Charity wrote:

It is not my fault that Kevin took the scenario, applied it to himself, recognized himself in it and then accused me of lying about him because the circumstance didn't fit him. Why am the only person who can see how inconsistent that is?

I think that the connection was obvious and was your fault. How do you explain the moniker Voldemort? You know that was in reference to Kevin. Did you do anything to correct any reference to Kevin?

All we have is a name given to Runtu. And he is an honest choice. But I feel you have set him up and us up. It shows nothing. I still see that whole communication as being between you and Pacman about Kevin unless you show more.

[_charity]

[quote="dartagnan"]
quote]

I am sorry, but I have hit my head up against this stone wall long enough. Refusing to see the truth when it is put in front of your face is hard to understand. Every bit of evidence on my side is out there. You have repeatedly refused to accept it. That is your perogative. But to my mind we have gone back and forth between "did to" and "did not" long enough. I think asbestosman had it right. You aren't going to change your mind about me no matter what.

I want to go discuss things where we work at the formal operational level of thought, and don't have to be stuck in concrete operational thinking.

Maybe you can do that on another thread.

Edited to add: In the spirit of good will, I am removing your statement from my sig line. If I canfigure out how to get the edit feature to work on profile.