Outing Annonymous Posters

[_beastie]

Chap,

I may be underestimating crocket's capacity for delusion, but I think he was joking with that last post. The C. Ray piece has been thoroughly debunked, which he knows, and I recently quoted Coe to him stating that the Maya system of writing was complex enough for them to write whatever the heck they wanted to write. I doubt if even he could engage in the level of denial that would be necessary to continue his former, seriously mistaken, position, which is why I thought he was actually engaged in some self-mocking joking. I could be wrong. It is hard to tell when he's joking because so many of his seemingly serious positions are laughable, anyway. But I do think this post was his form of a joke.

[_rcrocket]

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.

Sending the post to GoodK's family was a real 'dickhead' move, Bob.

Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?

[_Chap]

Chap,

I may be underestimating crocket's capacity for delusion, but I think he was joking with that last post. The C. Ray piece has been thoroughly debunked, which he knows, and I recently quoted Coe to him stating that the Maya system of writing was complex enough for them to write whatever the heck they wanted to write. I doubt if even he could engage in the level of denial that would be necessary to continue his former, seriously mistaken, position, which is why I thought he was actually engaged in some self-mocking joking. I could be wrong. It is hard to tell when he's joking because so many of his seemingly serious positions are laughable, anyway. But I do think this post was his form of a joke.

I am relieved to hear it. If I am losing my sense of humor, it really is time for me to log out and get back to the real world for a bit.

I mean, if I go on reading these posts I may come to think that Mormons really EXIST, as opposed to being bizarre characters in a text-based virtual reality game that one of my children has downloaded onto my laptop. If they were really out there somewhere, millions of them, I do not think I should be able to sleep peacefully again.

No .... the men with white shirts and badges .... they're coming up the drive .... knocking on the door .... NO!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!

[_Sam Harris]

RCrockett, that doesn't list your home information, that doesn't list anything other than the fact that you're a bad lawyer.

[_moksha]

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 anonymous.

I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.

Sending the post to GoodK's family was a real 'dickhead' move, Bob.

Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?

While doing this may not be covered in lawyer ethics, this would be a good case for a university ethics class to study. Did Bob foresee any harm his disclosure may have caused in ratting GoodK out?

[_Alter Idem]

The family GoodK pokes fun at is known by hundreds of people.

I poked fun? I expressed frustration with God getting the credit for healing someone who, by the same logic, made her sick in the first place. I expressed frustration with the idea that this horrible situation is being used to promote religion.

Don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable? These people are believers in a religion. Naturally they are going to give the credit for her healing to God--and unlike you, they don't believe God gave her the disease in the first place. Why are you taking offense because someone else professes faith in a belief you don't happen to share? If it's so offensive, "delete" is an easy solution for emails you don't want to read.

In your family's defense, I'm sure they didn't send this email to "frustrate" you. More likely they sent it to assure themselves and others of their faith in God's power and his divine influence in their lives and to share their joy that their daughter is on the mend.

Rather than post the email here so that you could complain about your LDS family with other non-believers, don't you think it might have been more constructive to talk to them about your "frustation"? Let them know that you don't wish to receive faith-promoting emails--tell them of your belief that God gave her the disease. Let them know what's really in your heart rather than talking about your frustration at them behind their backs.

Personally, I think that would have been the more honorable way to handle your "frustration".

[_GoodK]

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.

Sending the post to GoodK's family was a real 'dickhead' move, Bob.

Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?

Bob? Come on man...

The family GoodK pokes fun at is known by hundreds of people.

I poked fun? I expressed frustration with God getting the credit for healing someone who, by the same logic, made her sick in the first place. I expressed frustration with the idea that this horrible situation is being used to promote religion.

Don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable? These people are believers in a religion. Naturally they are going to give the credit for her healing to God--and unlike you, they don't believe God gave her the disease in the first place.

I don't believe God gave her the disease in the first place.

You should probably read more of the thread before you jump in... unless you don't mind looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

[_rcrocket]

Bob? Come on man...

OK. I give up. Have at me, every one.

[_Coggins7]

Like I say, nobody's perfect. Have you read my C. Ray article about pre-columbian horses? http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/40549/ ... 220_rs.jpg

Be careful Bro. Crockett, Beastie already knows there just cannot be anything to this. There just can't be. She has numerous speculatory and hypothetical scenarios, all from reputable archaeological texts, to back up here refutations. Well, no facts or evidence per se, just absence of present evidence, which always seems to pull her through.

Until, as I pointed out, the next dig. Or the next, or the next...

She doesn't have to refute your text, just quibble and nibble at the edges.

[_GoodK]

Bob? Come on man...

OK. I give up. Have at me, every one.

Do you have Alzheimer's, or just no integrity?