Outing Annonymous Posters

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:38 pm

It seems to me that this whole thread is a case study on why rcrocket is so anti-anonymity. Basically, he sees himself as a kind of Mormon Stasi, and he very obviously relishes the opportunity to "out" people and have them dragged before the Mormon authorities, or to have these people endure painful confrontations with family members. Bob's behavior is quite nasty, if you ask me.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:08 pm

liz3564 wrote:
As a Church member, though, I think there were a couple of things he did which were inappropriate, particularly as a Bishop.

As a Bishop, he should know better than to suggest a lunch date with a single woman, even if it is for innocent reasons. We have been clearly counseled by Church leaders not to be alone in the same room or car with a person of the opposite sex. I would think that a married bishop having lunch with a single young girl would fall into the lines of "appearance of evil". It would be much more appropriate for him to simply ask you to stop by his office at the ward building during normal interview times.

So, you think that somebody whose avatar is a woman is a woman?

I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?

That didn't happen.

rcrocket

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:12 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that this whole thread is a case study on why rcrocket is so anti-anonymity. Basically, he sees himself as a kind of Mormon Stasi, and he very obviously relishes the opportunity to "out" people and have them dragged before the Mormon authorities, or to have these people endure painful confrontations with family members. Bob's behavior is quite nasty, if you ask me.

I am against anonymity because it is cowardly. But, you are non anonymous to God. If that is nasty, so be it.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:16 pm

GoodK wrote:
I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?

Yes, this is the part that got under my skin. My family didn't need to see a post that I meant to be annonymous.

I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:24 pm

rcrocket wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that this whole thread is a case study on why rcrocket is so anti-anonymity. Basically, he sees himself as a kind of Mormon Stasi, and he very obviously relishes the opportunity to "out" people and have them dragged before the Mormon authorities, or to have these people endure painful confrontations with family members. Bob's behavior is quite nasty, if you ask me.

I am against anonymity because it is cowardly. But, you are non anonymous to God. If that is nasty, so be it.

No, Bob. It's transparently obvious, based on what has transpired in this thread, that you are looking to "out" people and see to it that they are disciplined and made to suffer. Probably, you get a giddy and sadistic little thrill out of this. Now I see that you are scrambling to edit your posts, apparently in an effort to save face. But: it's too late. Your impulses have been laid bare for all to see.

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:25 pm

Coggins7 wrote:Hi Angela. Long time no brawl.

Um, do you not have the capacity to answer a question? And my name is NOT Angela...

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:26 pm

KimberlyAnn wrote:With a title like "Mormon Blowhard", I thought your post would be about Coggins, GoodK!

KA

LMFAO

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:28 pm

rcrocket wrote:
liz3564 wrote:I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?

That didn't happen.

rcrocket

So, how do you explain this:

rcrocket wrote:I have already forwarded your post to *** even before my email to you. I consider him a good friend and feel badly about what they are going through. I can't imagine a family member making fun of the family at this time. In fact, I can't believe somebody would really do that to a family suffering like this and I wonder if you are who you say you are.

(emphasis added)

Either you *did* do something akin to what Liz described, or you lied about it. Which is it, Bishop Bob?

Post by **_TAK** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:32 pm

rcrocket wrote:
GoodK wrote:
I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?

Yes, this is the part that got under my skin. My family didn't need to see a post that I meant to be annonymous.

I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.

Yea, you are attempting to run off GoodK w/ intimidation.

By going to the family and revealing a silly post they would have otherwise never would have know about, it seems that you have caused far more hurt to the parents than anything the child had written. Creepy..

Post by **_Chap** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:45 pm

TAK wrote:By going to the family and revealing a silly post they would have otherwise know [nothing] about, it seems that you have caused for more hurt to the parents than anything the child had written. Creepy..

I think there is no need to say much more on this thread.

And of course, since the Lord Bishop is mainly concerned with seeing that the wicked, as he judges them to be, are exposed and shamed (any good, or indeed harm, done to the innocent being merely collateral) he feels just fine about it.