lawsuit, supposed blackmail attempt....

[_the road to hana]

I really can't figure out what these folks are trying to do with their lawsuit.

Isn't it called going after the deep pocket? A pure example of greed, in my opinion.

Charity, have you even read the complaint?

One of the things that's frustrating and tiresome in dealing with you is that you frequently talk about things that you don't know anything about. You haven't read Martha Beck's book; that's clear. You haven't read this complaint; the print was too small, you couldn't be bothered, you jumped to conclusions, and still you're making assertions that are making people "guilty until proven innocent," in your eyes.

I don't think skippy was even talking about greed or money when she asked her question. I think she's referring to the hodgepodge of complaints mixed together (the second plaintiff, for example, just complicates the issues).

It would help if you'd stop professing that people are "innocent until proven guilty," and then lodge inflammatory assertions their direction.

[_charity]

I really can't figure out what these folks are trying to do with their lawsuit.

Isn't it called going after the deep pocket? A pure example of greed, in my opinion.

Charity, have you even read the complaint?

One of the things that's frustrating and tiresome in dealing with you is that you frequently talk about things that you don't know anything about. You haven't read Martha Beck's book; that's clear. You haven't read this complaint; the print was too small, you couldn't be bothered, you jumped to conclusions, and still you're making assertions that are making people "guilty until proven innocent," in your eyes.

I don't think skippy was even talking about greed or money when she asked her question. I think she's referring to the hodgepodge of complaints mixed together (the second plaintiff, for example, just complicates the issues).

It would help if you'd stop professing that people are "innocent until proven guilty," and then lodge inflammatory assertions their direction.

I have read Beck's book. And evidently, unlike you, have read other materials by knowledgable people refuting the major claims of her book. With facts. Not partisan opinion.

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church? Or did you skip over that, too? Oh, and accusers aren't innocent until proven guilty. It is the accused that are. The accusers are demosntrating their behavior in front of the world. We are all the "jury." I see any case which is presented which reputable lawyers will say cannot be won in court as being done for nuisance value. They know they can't win, but they hope that their victim will settle out of court just because it is cheaper to do so. Laywers who take those cases are called shysters. Claimants who press those kinds of claims are called scammers. If you don't want to be calle a scammer, don't scam. Very simple.

[_the road to hana]

I really can't figure out what these folks are trying to do with their lawsuit.

Isn't it called going after the deep pocket? A pure example of greed, in my opinion.

Charity, have you even read the complaint?

One of the things that's frustrating and tiresome in dealing with you is that you frequently talk about things that you don't know anything about. You haven't read Martha Beck's book; that's clear. You haven't read this complaint; the print was too small, you couldn't be bothered, you jumped to conclusions, and still you're making assertions that are making people "guilty until proven innocent," in your eyes.

I don't think skippy was even talking about greed or money when she asked her question. I think she's referring to the hodgepodge of complaints mixed together (the second plaintiff, for example, just complicates the issues).

It would help if you'd stop professing that people are "innocent until proven guilty," and then lodge inflammatory assertions their direction.

I have read Beck's book. And evidently, unlike you, have read other materials by knowledgable people refuting the major claims of her book. With facts. Not partisan opinion.

Which "facts" are those? One person's "fact" is another person's "partisan opinion."

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church? Or did you skip over that, too? Oh, and accusers aren't innocent until proven guilty. It is the accused that are. The accusers are demosntrating their behavior in front of the world. We are all the "jury." I see any case which is presented which reputable lawyers will say cannot be won in court as being done for nuisance value. They know they can't win, but they hope that their victim will settle out of court just because it is cheaper to do so. Laywers who take those cases are called shysters. Claimants who press those kinds of claims are called scammers. If you don't want to be calle a scammer, don't scam. Very simple.

I rest my case.

You didn't read the complaint, did you?

[_charity]

Which "facts" are those? One person's "fact" is another person's "partisan opinion."

I'm glad you aren't on a jury. Facts are facts. If you want a point by point refutation of Beck's charges we could do that in another thread. But her book was shown on the facts to be mostly fabrication. But would really distract from this topic. If you want to do that you could start another thread. I will participate if you do.

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church? Or did you skip over that, too? Oh, and accusers aren't innocent until proven guilty. It is the accused that are. The accusers are demosntrating their behavior in front of the world. We are all the "jury." I see any case which is presented which reputable lawyers will say cannot be won in court as being done for nuisance value. They know they can't win, but they hope that their victim will settle out of court just because it is cheaper to do so. Laywers who take those cases are called shysters. Claimants who press those kinds of claims are called scammers. If you don't want to be calle a scammer, don't scam. Very simple.

I rest my case.

You didn't read the complaint, did you?

I already said I didn't. But I trust skippy. Don't you?

[_the road to hana]

Which "facts" are those? One person's "fact" is another person's "partisan opinion."

I'm glad you aren't on a jury.

Not half as glad as I am that you're not.

Facts are facts.

Her brother-in-law was present when she was a little girl alone with her father? Please.

If you want a point by point refutation of Beck's charges we could do that in another thread. But her book was shown on the facts to be mostly fabrication. But would really distract from this topic. If you want to do that you could start another thread. I will participate if you do.

No thanks. I dispute the conclusion that her book has been shown to be "mostly fabrication." You dispute the conclusion that Joseph Smith fabricated anything. I'm not sure any new threads on either is going to change your mind, or mine, particularly if it's one of those long Provo hairdresser and gynecologist discussions.

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church?

Yes, I even agreed with her. You must have missed it.

[_charity]

Her brother-in-law was present when she was a little girl alone with her father? Please.

No, but her brothers and sisters were. And you don't think they would have noticed a dad parading around in a full Egyptian costume? Or how about events going on in a bunk bed with sis on the other half? Talk about Please!

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church?

Yes, I even agreed with her. You must have missed it.[/quote]

I did miss that. Then why are you standing up for a frivolous claim? [/i]

[_the road to hana]

Her brother-in-law was present when she was a little girl alone with her father? Please.

No, but her brothers and sisters were. And you don't think they would have noticed a dad parading around in a full Egyptian costume? Or how about events going on in a bunk bed with sis on the other half? Talk about Please!

Having grown up in a pretty full house myself, I'm aware that there can be times when not everyone else is present, as hard as that is to believe. And the brother-in-law, who writes the most critical responses, wasn't there at all.

Did you read skippy's very erudite analysis that there is no basis for a claim agaisnt the Church?

Yes, I even agreed with her. You must have missed it.

I did miss that. Then why are you standing up for a frivolous claim?

What makes you think I am?

It would be easier to have this discussion if you'd actually read the claim. It isn't just against the church. It's complicated, and has several layers. I clearly stated I don't think it will go anywhere. That's not the same thing as saying I think that her father couldn't possibly have abused her.

I think skippy and I are more on the same wavelength than I perceive you and skippy to be, but again, you haven't read the claim, so you're not up to speed on it. Still, you're going into this discussion with a lot of preconceived biases that you wouldn't likely shed in any event.

[_charity]

I did miss that. Then why are you standing up for a frivolous claim?

What makes you think I am?

It would be easier to have this discussion if you'd actually read the claim. It isn't just against the church. It's complicated, and has several layers. I clearly stated I don't think it will go anywhere. That's not the same thing as saying I think that her father couldn't possibly have abused her.

I think skippy and I are more on the same wavelength than I perceive you and skippy to be, but again, you haven't read the claim, so you're not up to speed on it. Still, you're going into this discussion with a lot of preconceived biases that you wouldn't likely shed in any event.

Why would it have helped to wade through the claim to protest the inclusion of the Church in what is claim for sexual abuse against a father? I didn't say that the abuse couldn't have happened. Good grief, hana. Read what I say! But going after the Church shows greed. Deep pockets.

I thiknk we each think we understand the other. I don't know that we do, but we have been going back and forth. I am tired of assumptions made that I think or state soimething that I neither think nor state. I just hate to see money that could have been spent in worthwhile ways squandered on frivolous law suits.

Actually, I hope this woman gets all that she deserves.