rcrocket wrote: It seems that if somebody discusses their private lives here on the board (as you sometimes do, as does Harmony and others), isn't that fair game for comment?
Only for friendly and supportive banter. The process of attacking one another with items they have shared is really wrong. For instance, if Loran shared something about a problem with alcohol, the only comments that should ever be made is to congratulate his sobriety and encourage his resolve if he has a relapse. If GoodK where to share about a strain between he and father and his sister having an illness, then the only proper response would be to wish his sister well (and offer prayers for those of us who are religious) and to wish him a reconciliation with his father sometime in the future.
You are a very decent person.
I agree with Moksha as well. The jibes, attacks, harangues, etc. are all part of internet discussion board fun. There is a line, and it has been crossed in this case by some.
What I find incredible is the number of people who take internet discussion board stuff seriously. I mean, this is akin to a pickup b-ball game--we do it for sport, diversion, fun, companionship, competition, etc., but once you leave the gym, it's on with your life. Anybody who carries the pickup game over to his life is a fool, just like anyone who carries the discussion board over into their life.
I agree but RCrocket is willing to take it to anyone's private life and even into the court room.
But I also think it's unethical for a lawyer to try to discredit an expert witness by prying into his/her private life - for example, whether or not that expert witness spends time on the internet bashing a "major religion".
Crocket replies
Lawyers are guided by codified ethics. There is nothing in our code that declares this "unethical." A lawyer is obligated to use every means necessary to advance a client's interest without violating other ethical codes (such as lying, or advancing evidence known to be false, etc.).
Few judges would permit inquiry into a private life, whether it be sexual orientation or possessing porn (unless, somehow, the case related to the issue). Witness Alex Kozinkski's disqualification in a case for maintaining what he thought was a non-public porn site, but it was because he was trying a case about porn.
Postings on public boards are not considered private. Anonymity does not make them private. These board are, by definition, public. The were referred to in the early days of the internet as "Public Bulletin Boards." Postings bashing religion and spewing forth hate about the persons in charge of the religion (for instance, bashing the Pope or here, as Harmony does, the Brethren) might and could get in under the circumstances I've described Some judges would, some wouldn't.
But it gets much easier when an expert's qualifications are at stake. I have pointed specifically to the example of Guy Sajer weighing in on this board as to the reasons he left BYU. That would be very fair game.
What do you think of C. Ray's Smithsonian paper describing modern pre-Columbian horse finds in America? That's public.
I agree with TD, he enjoys inflicting pain. Ethics? Bishop material? Not a chance.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
truth dancer wrote:I think it is more than this... it seems to me there is actually enjoyment in the hurt.
I sense the same thing, which makes this even more sad.
If anything it seems to me representatives of Christ's church would want to, at the very least give the impression they are decent and caring people.
Perhaps Bob's (and DCP's) behavior toward GoodK and his family is better addressed to Church leaders, because he is giving an awful impression of LDS, in my opinion. That he is a current bishop only compounds this. The venom he typically displays here is one thing, but trying to hurt GoodK's relationship with his father (not only by trying to contact GoodK's dad, but also alerting DCP to all this, which led to DCP's contacting the dad) was way over the line for anyone who claims to be a Christian (and is in stark contrast to Russell Ballard's recent instructions to LDS about their behavior on the web in defense of the Church).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
GoodK wrote:... it comes across as extremely combative.
That Kimbo Slice is one tough dude.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote:That is correct. It really is important to me to try to be decent to people. I fall short often. I have been mean so some here. Droopy, Merc at times in past days, Boaz, Infymus, even Scratch. I always feel rotten when I am nasty/
I feel your anger, young Bournewalker... Your hate makes you strong! Give into your anger and come to the Darkside, it is your destiny!
Never!!! I will never give into the Darkside........Oh evil Jedi Master.....Are you really my father!!!??
I can't see how any of this is relevant to his practice as a lawyer. From what I've read I see no professional error or anything that would reflect as such. I think it's in poor taste to mess with someones life and livelihood over a petty personal argument.
In fact I think this illustrates the point of why anonymity on a message board like this is ok.
Bob Crockett didn't "alert" me to GoodK's post about his Dad. I wead it aw by my ittie bittie widdow sewf.
I don't "enjoy inflicting pain."
I'm probably not "bishop material," but not at all for the reasons my critcs here (who don't know me) suggest. As I try to help the people who come to see me, I'm painfully aware of my manifold inadequacies. But I do what I can.
I don't believe that my sending a link to GoodK's father did any serious harm (nor even any non-serious harm) to their relationship. GoodK's father certainly doesn't think that it did, and GoodK hasn't told me that it did. I didn't think that it would. Had I thought so, I would not have forwarded the link.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Bob Crockett didn't "alert" me to GoodK's post about his Dad. I wead it aw by my ittie bittie widdow sewf.
Bob told GoodK that he alerted you to the post.
I'm probably not "bishop material," but not at all for the reasons my critcs here (who don't know me) suggest. As I try to help the people who come to see me, I'm painfully aware of my manifold inadequacies. But I do what I can.
Too bad you don't apply that philosophy here.
I don't believe that my sending a link to GoodK's father did any serious harm (nor even any non-serious harm) to their relationship.
Doesn't matter. What you did was wrong, period.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Perhaps Bob's (and DCP's) behavior toward GoodK and his family is better addressed to Church leaders...
I have the uncomfortable impression that the church leaders would side with Daniel and the Crock, which is, of course, the reason why some of us are here in the first place. We see this kind of self-destructive, selfish, self-congratulatory, arrogant behavior condoned, and those who engage in it given temple recommends and leadership callings.
Here we go again: live a life worthy of the gospel, not a life worthy of the church.
harmony wrote:We see this kind of self-destructive, selfish, self-congratulatory, arrogant behavior condoned, and those who engage in it given temple recommends and leadership callings.
My sending a link to my friend was not only "arrogant" but "self-destructive"? And "selfish"? And "self-congratulatory"?
This is new doctrine. I'll have to ponder it for a while.
harmony wrote:Here we go again: live a life worthy of the gospel, not a life worthy of the church.
But a "life worthy of the gospel," I'm guessing from this and many prior comments of yours, still leaves abundant room for harsh judgments of other people, including people you've never met. Right?