For heaven's sake, Daniel, you admitted yourself that if a friend apostatized from the church it would alter and strain your friendship. The idea that you thought there was no chance tattlemailing GoodK's father could damage their relationship is confusing, to say the least.
What's ironic about this whole incident is that crocket is the first one who suggested that online behavior could damage a lawyer.
rcrocket's posts regarding skippy, a fellow lawyer:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... c&start=21
I try jury trials for a living. I can assure you that if you were an expert testifying in your area of expertise before a jury, and it came out that you regularly insulted and maligned a major faith and its adherents all in the worship of the false god of anonymity, you'd be discredited and laughed from the stand. I can also say that those California lawyers who participate on this board with anonymous smears of known and living people put themselves in direct opposition to the promises they made when they were sworn in as lawyers.
As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)
Oh yes indeed. I scour the internet for whatever the expert has written on any subject. I hire expert investigators to locate this stuff. Usually, in the cross-examination of experts, I have free reign. Particularly as to things they write. And, I find some pretty good stuff. Obviously, anonymous posts are hard to find.
The expert gets hit with a subpoena to produce all things he publicly has published That would include things like this Board -- anonymous or otherwise.
People like Guy Sajer are particularly at risk. I imagine he has or might testify as an expert -- it is not too difficult to figure out who he is.
Nobody's going to be all that interested in a poster liike me or Dr. Peterson who defends his faith. There's going to be a lot of fodder in a poster who denigrates the faith of another -- after all, religious classification is a protected class under the constitution. Under the eyes of the law, at least, an attack upon one's religion is the same as an attack upon one's race.
As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)
So why is it that the state bar would be extremely interested in another lawyer's anonymous criticism of "a major faith" (I guess it's ok to criticize minor faiths, they have less pull), and yet would not have the slightest interest in crocket's behavior?
I am going to go out on a wild limb and guess that they're really not interested in either, and crocket was full of baloney in his huffery and puffery to skippy, and was just one more tired version of his endless quest to bully critics of the church into silence.