Mister Scratch wrote:Keyes is discussing the nature of the conversation, and using it to portray Bachman as a dissembler. Furthermore, what part of "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" do you not understand?
I don't understand how discussing the nature of the conversation has anything to do with client confidences. It has nothing to do with it. But you know that.
You made a brazen accusation that President Keyes acted unethically by denying that he said what Bachman claims he said. You have been unable to provide any support for such an accusation, other than your own opinion. Now you are simply being a stubborn old mule.
Have a nice day.
(So, do i get a dossier entry in your blog now? :D )
bcspace wrote: Yes. We are waiting to see what else Tal has made up. I'm sure he's working on it now.
Considering that you accused me of lying about something I KNOW I wasn't lying about, I consider your personal, spiritual discernment in these matters to be faulty.
Mister Scratch wrote: For your position to hold any water, you'd have to demonstrate that word of Keyes's "doubts" would harm his character.
Let's try this one more time and see if we can come to a meating (make sure to crack another funny joke regarding a simple misspelling) of the minds although I doubt it. Tal's story had been online for a period of time. Pres. Keyes becomes aware of it as a result of the thread I started here at MD. Pres. Keyes writes a rebuttal. In the rebuttal he expresses his testimony of the divine calling of Joseph Smith and calls into question Tal's story. And here we are.
If Pres. Keyes is truly TBM, then it becomes obvious (go back and read Tal's story again if you need to) that Tal's story is damaging to Pres. Keyes in the sense that the very nature and/or reality of his religious beliefs are being challenged. This is where the besmirching takes place. Making public something that isn't so, and thus potentially damaging another's reputation through fabricated innuendo heaps unwarranted/unwanted dirt on the other. Pres. Keyes' relationships could be muddied up, and his reputation with his peers also.
Is that not besmirching?
Now if Pres. Keyes actually has doubts, then it's a different story. And of course, that's where you're coming from because you're more likely to believe Tal's story than Pres. Keye's testimony.
Coggins7 wrote:I think Tal's loss is, for the most part, internal, and has to do with ego and self justification re his apostasy from what, at some level, he may still know to be true.
Now that, Coggins, was both clever and funny.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
I'm not aware of any evidence that Tal has "lied". Can you provide some?
I think it's obvious that at the very least Tal heard what he wanted to hear and has continued to perpetuate that lie if he did not outright make it up himself. It's not common for an SP to so publically respond so I guess Tal felt safe telling it, until now.
You apologists are very confused about the meaning of the word "lie." That in itself might be considered quite revealing.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Coggins7 wrote:How many times, Scratch, are we going to go around and around this sugar bowl in which Tal tells us his version of events and you support it because you have left yourself no other psychological or intellectual option?
Geez, Coggins, take it easy on me here. My ribs are starting to hurt. This is genuinely funny and well written!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Coggins7 wrote:Kant and Locke? Is your personal library finally expanding from Quinn and Metcalf into broader pastures?
Stop! please! ROFLMAO!!!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Aside from the fact that Tal shot his mouth off about it in many circumstances, Keyes had no right to defend his position.
Hysterical.
And I do not agree that he had no right to defend his position.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
LifeOnaPlate wrote: Let me speak simply: Tal publicly discussed his conversation with Keyes (which was neither related to Keyes' counsel as a professional or Church discipline). Keyes disagreed with how Tal represented him and cleared the record from his perspective by issuing a public open letter.
That's all.
I realize your fanaticism cannot allow you to concede to anything, least of all such a simple concept as the above, but what more can I say?
I have no problem making concessions when they are due. (by the way: are you ever going to get around to describing, in full detail, KC's submission process to FARMS Review?) However, it seems to me that you are avoiding the issue. So, I'll ask you again: which of the above named circumstance, from the AAPC Code of Ethics, does this situation fit?
LifeOnaPlate wrote: Let me speak simply: Tal publicly discussed his conversation with Keyes (which was neither related to Keyes' counsel as a professional or Church discipline). Keyes disagreed with how Tal represented him and cleared the record from his perspective by issuing a public open letter.
That's all.
I realize your fanaticism cannot allow you to concede to anything, least of all such a simple concept as the above, but what more can I say?
I have no problem making concessions when they are due. (by the way: are you ever going to get around to describing, in full detail, KC's submission process to FARMS Review?) However, it seems to me that you are avoiding the issue. So, I'll ask you again: which of the above named circumstance, from the AAPC Code of Ethics, does this situation fit?
The process went like this:
[in one instance] Christenson wrote a book review and mailed it to the FARMS office (the address is listed on their website). He was contacted by the editor. He was informed that the article would be peer reviewed, and then possibly published. It was, and was.
PS: The "code of ethics" to which you refer has absolutely no application to this situation.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam