Gadianton wrote:Shades wrote:DCP's intent was to show how Ray A's public characterization of their private correspondence was rather extreme compared to the reality
Huh, couldn't that be read as "lying" about reality? Yet, I thought DCP said he'd never known Ray A to lie, ever, not even if it meant a great personal loss. Yet, if what you're saying is true, then Ray would have specifically been "lying", or "severely misrepresenting reality" in order to make his case look better and DCP would have been proving to his peers that Ray A had "lied". And not only "lied" but "lying" specifically in the context of misrepresenting private communication. Which means that we do, contrary to what he said elsewhere, have a pattern of Ray and "lies" in the context of private communications. In fact, the pattern is established more fully than Scratch's. In Scratch's case, DCP feels the RFM Scratch link can be established with high
probability. Yet in Ray's case, he has two points of
absolute certainty.
An interesting fork. It's either own up to gossip, or sell out Ray as "less than truthful."
Again, for the record, I don't think anyone's actions unearthed in the course of these recent conversations paints anyone as a terrible villain, I'm just interested in consistent reasoning.
DCP does not have to own up to anything. One thing you all disregard, or maybe don't know, is that when we visited together in late 2006 - we discussed these matters. Even his wife was involved, as a third party. I did not keep this correspondence, so I don't even fully remember the content. I
do recall getting angry during the correspondence (perhaps on a similar level to beastie when she got angry with Bob), and maybe my recollection of the level of that anger
was subsequently distorted. I do remember I was not proud of it, and feeling DCP
did have a case if he had posted it publicly. I
don't think exmos, at that time, would have condemned me, because I was on "their side" (Or so they thought, but not really, as my thread on the Book of Momon left them wondering "whose side I was really on")
For the record, I apologised to Dan for this, in the presence of about six witnesses, and I have never subsequently attacked him. We have had some disagreements about Mormon doctrine, by email, quite open and unreserved, but it has been nothing but amicable. We agreed to disagree on some things. And no, I would never put this correspondence to the hawks waiting to attack and twist every preposition, and try to make both of us "offenders for a word". We have had very frank email exchanges over the years, and I, personally, have felt very rewarded that I could so openly express myself to him about my doubts and disbeliefs, without so much as even a
hint of condemnation on his part. But it took to
me to change my approach, not Dan, before this could occur.