Voldemort = He Who Must Not Be Named = Kevin?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Using an incident anonymously is not spreading malicious gossip.

You used the anonymous example in order to insinuate that the same might be true of the other people on this forum. Yet not only is such a generalization methodologically invalid from the get-go, your example is also totally unverifiable. Such things are better left unsaid; rather than trying to discover people's secret motives, we should give them the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I don't doubt that a desire for attention, etc. comes into play for some people in major life decisions. In fact, I'd suggest that it comes into play to one degree or another for ALL of us. But people's motives are complex, and to try to reduce somebody's deconversion to a single absurd motive is precisely the kind of derogatory reductionism that most irritates me. At this point, I could really care less whether you were referring to Kevin Graham, Chris Tolworthy, or John C. Bennett. Let's just make sure that we maintain some appropriate sympathy for other people's motivations.

Best,

-Chris

[_Mister Scratch]

Kevin, you keep reading things into what is posted. I never said I was protecting the identity of the person I was referring to at his request. I don't even know the person. I have never communicated with the person. I heard about the incident, and asked for information I was told what happened.

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

I think you are confusing two different incidents, Mister Scratch.

Yes, clearly I am. Though I think I've nearly caught up to speed!

1. On one thread, I posted information, anonymously, about an apologist who "got his head handed to him in a basket." This person was not Kevin. It was someone else. I have given the person's name to runtu, so he could verify there was such a person, but not have the name blatted on the message board.

Okay, I'm following you so far. Would it be possible to get a link to this particular thread?

2. I pm'ed pacman when he made a statement on the MA&D board about not knowing what Kevin's status was with regards to the Church. The only information I gave pacman was verbatim what Kevin had posted on this board about his status. Pacman put it out on the MA&D board, with his own added speculations. Kevin, and others here, call what I did rumor mongering, etc.

Why did you decide to PM Pacman? What did you hope to accomplish by PMing him?

So you see, there are TWO separate events.

Okay, I understand now, but still don't understand why you wanted to PM Pacman.... What did you expect that Pacman's reaction would be?

[_Trevor]

You used the anonymous example in order to insinuate that the same might be true of the other people on this forum. Yet not only is such a generalization methodologically invalid from the get-go, your example is also totally unverifiable. Such things are better left unsaid; rather than trying to discover people's secret motives, we should give them the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I don't doubt that a desire for attention, etc. comes into play for some people in major life decisions. In fact, I'd suggest that it comes into play to one degree or another for ALL of us. But people's motives are complex, and to try to reduce somebody's deconversion to a single absurd motive is precisely the kind of derogatory reductionism that most irritates me. At this point, I could really care less whether you were referring to Kevin Graham, Chris Tolworthy, or John C. Bennett. Let's just make sure that we maintain some appropriate sympathy for other people's motivations.

Charity, "I wasn't gossiping about Kevin! I was gossiping about someone else, dammit! And to repent, I refuse to tell you who that non-Kevin person was. So there!

Oh, and don't forget that all of you who left the Church have a sinful skeleton in the closet, and I love to imagine what he is doing."

[_charity]

Second, you obviously did not just report what Kevin said. You said something in such a negative fashion that pacman cried out that it was "disgusting"!!

Good point. There was something about pacman's comments that rubbed me wrong. Well, actually everything he said did, but it just didn't bode well with charity's explanation. It seems he was pretty excited about juicy data charity had shared with him. What was "disgusting," I wonder?

For you people who don't get it on the first, or second or third repeat. This is it in total:

THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN A PM TO PACMAN.

1. Kevin said he no longer holds a temple recommend because he does not pay tithing or support the leaderhip of the Church.

2. Kevin said he considered himself a cultural Mormon.

3. Kevin said his bishop consider him the smartest person in the ward and wants him to take callings, which he doesn't do.

That's is it. Nothing more. Now, if pacman found something in juicy, that is pacman's interpretation. Maybe he thought not holding a temple recommend was "juicey." I don't know. But those were my words. My total words.

Of course, the paranoid among you will say I am lying and that I must have said more than that. But I didn't.

[_Mister Scratch]

For you people who don't get it on the first, or second or third repeat. This is it in total:

THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN A PM TO PACMAN.

1. Kevin said he no longer holds a temple recommend because he does not pay tithing or support the leaderhip of the Church.

2. Kevin said he considered himself a cultural Mormon.

3. Kevin said his bishop consider him the smartest person in the ward and wants him to take callings, which he doesn't do.

That's is it. Nothing more. Now, if pacman found something in juicy, that is pacman's interpretation. Maybe he thought not holding a temple recommend was "juicey." I don't know. But those were my words. My total words.

I get it, Charity---thank you very much for clarifying. Now, if you don't mind: Why did you tell Pacman, and how did you think Pacman would react to this information?

[_Runtu]

Yes, yes, you promised, but I think Charity should let you off the hook.

In that case, Charity should give the name, not Runtu.

No, I placed myself in a stupid position, but I gave my word.

[_Trevor]

I get it, Charity---thank you very much for clarifying. Now, if you don't mind: Why did you tell Pacman, and how did you think Pacman would react to this information?

Well, you see Scratch, charity is like a goodwill embassador between MA&D and MDB. She knows that sometimes people over there misconstrue things about people over here, and she is kindly providing them with straight poop from the horse's mouth and all that. This is especially valuable since most people at MA&D would evaporate into a puff of ash if they were tainted by the evil of one second's glance at MDB. They simply couldn't take it. We should therefore thank charity from the bottoms of our little black hearts for this vital service she is providing.

[_Runtu]

Well, you see Scratch, charity is like a goodwill embassador between MA&D and MDB. She knows that sometimes people over there misconstrue things about people over here, and she is kindly providing them with straight poop from the horse's mouth and all that. This is especially valuable since most people at MA&D would evaporate into a puff of ash if they were tainted by the evil of one second's glance at MDB. They simply couldn't take it. We should therefore thank charity from the bottoms of our little black hearts for this vital service she is providing.

Wait a minute. I thought that was Sput's calling.

[_asbestosman]

Would it be possible to get a link to this thread?

Unfortunately I do not recall seeing that particular thread. All I remember seeing is Kevin and others quoting that thread.

Okay, now I see where I was confused, but doesn't this still constitute rumor-mongering? I.e., this dangling of "juicy" information about some critic who "apostacized due to pride"?

Perhaps, but in any case it isn't rumor-mongering about Kevin Graham which is what Charity is maintaining.

---For whatever reason, Charity contacts Pacman, via PM, and gives Pacman Kevin Graham's own comments about himself. Charity maintains this was to help remove some misconceptions about Kevin Graham.

Here's an interesting question worth considering: Was her "clarification" mean to help or hurt Kevin Graham's reputation? Also, Why did Charity deem it necessary to contact Pacman in the first place? What was the "whatever reason"?

It appears that I may be wrong about whether Charity's information to Pacman on Kevin Graham was meant to clear misconceptions about Kevin. It appears that maybe Pacman asked a question and Charity answered it. The "whatever reason" Charity gives is that Pacman asked for said information.

[_dartagnan]

THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN A PM TO PACMAN.

1. Kevin said he no longer holds a temple recommend because he does not pay tithing or support the leaderhip of the Church.

2. Kevin said he considered himself a cultural Mormon.

3. Kevin said his bishop consider him the smartest person in the ward and wants him to take callings, which he doesn't do.

That's is it. Nothing more.

Now, if pacman found something in juicy, that is pacman's interpretation. Maybe he thought not holding a temple recommend was "juicey."

Well this is the suspicious part, really. Nothing you posted could in any sense be considered “disgusting” now can it? He also put the word “revelation” in quotes. What revelation is he referring to? It just sounds like he is responding to something more, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Of course, the paranoid among you will say I am lying and that I must have said more than that. But I didn't.

I think it is downright hilarious that you keep calling me paranoid; assuring us that nobody at FAIR thinks of me. I don’t show up on their radar you say. Yet, what do we find here?

You and pacman have been exchanging private messages about me. What the hell for? Oh, because, as you said, you were just responding to him because there was another discussion about me.

Get a life people, and stop pretending you aren’t gossip machines.