Alert!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Alert!

Post by _Gadianton »

I've been very, very busy with work and other things lately and when I get this busy I sometimes forget threads I'd been posting on. I was alreted via PM that a certain post of mine had perhaps been read incorrectly and caused the "seriousness bar" to be raised. I had to hunt around for this post, I found it, I am a little surprised that my "tounge-in-cheek" comment was misinterpreted. My remark actually wasn't construed to accuse anyone of anything illegal. Believe it or not.

I believe that it is quite obvious, painfully obvious, that a certain institution operates entirely "by the book" and that because this is so obvious, the sarcastic reference otherwise was merely intended to underscore the fact that a certain person's role is this institution differs from what this certain person believes about his role in the eyes of the administrators.

To avoid any confusion on the matter, I greatly edited the post in question so I do not believe it could be read as offensive to anyone at this point.

I will also for good measure, cease all interaction with a certain participant here for a time, just on the off chance my already too complicated life situation would be made more complicated by any kind of revenge.

I would also ask certain people to consider the "tone" of their own sarcasm. A sarcastic comment on this forum was made a few weeks ago about the very thought of a friend of mine making the poster want to go get his gun. Well, to the person on the receiving end of the sarcastic comments, the intentions and meanings are not always as transparent as they are to the person making the comments.

I'm not calling for "universal peace everywhere" but just hopefully fixing one misunderstanding that became more serious than I'd like to see misunderstangs be and letting a situation cool down.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Gadianton wrote:I believe that it is quite obvious, painfully obvious, that a certain institution operates entirely "by the book" and that because this is so obvious, the sarcastic reference otherwise was merely intended to underscore the fact that a certain person's role is this institution differs from what this certain person believes about his role in the eyes of the administrators.

In other words, I was paid $20K per annum to serve as chairman of the FARMS board but was unaware of that fact.

Right.

Gadianton wrote:I will also for good measure, cease all interaction with a certain participant here for a time, just on the off chance my already too complicated life situation would be made more complicated by any kind of revenge.

If I had chosen to do anything, it would not have been for the sake of "revenge."

I'm opposed to slander and libel on principle.

Gadianton wrote:A sarcastic comment on this forum was made a few weeks ago about the very thought of a friend of mine making the poster want to go get his gun. Well, to the person on the receiving end of the sarcastic comments, the intentions and meanings are not always as transparent as they are to the person making the comments.

I'm reasonably confident that Scartch doesn't really believe that I've threatened his life. The comment wasn't sarcastic, but it was manifestly made in jest.

If, despite my express denials, he really does think that I've threatened his life, he needs professional help. Seriously.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Alert!

Post by _Gadianton »

In other words, I was paid $20K per annum to serve as chairman of the FARMS board but was unaware of that fact



No, that your time was divided between BYU and FARMS duties and that a "fair estimate" of your time donated to FARMS in monetary value according to your salary was 20k and rightfully tax deductable. That's totally on the up and up, there is no issue. But that implies that part of your salaried duties relates to FARMS, in the eyes of the administration, and that because a subset of your duties at FARMS invovles apologetics, you have, therefore, been paid for apologetics. If you still disagree, I'll let you have the last word because really, I don't care. I'm not opening this up as an argument again, but merely explaining the context of the remark so that you might have the correct interpretation thereof. I don't consider anything I said in sarcasm slanderous at all, but if you do, and if you are that "commited" to matters of principle, I think it's a bit of an exaggerated commitment personally, but if you've ever read the story of the Zax in the valley of Prax, there is sometimes wisdom in letting things go even if you don't believe you're at fault for anything, which is what I'm doing now.

As for as your comment about Scratch, that was a single example of how you "jest". I'm just pointing out that I'm not the only one between the two of us who has "jested" or used extreme sarcasm to make a point that could be or has been taken wrongly as seriously insulting or slanderous.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _cksalmon »

Gadianton wrote:I've been very, very busy with work and other things lately and when I get this busy I sometimes forget threads I'd been posting on. I was alreted via PM that a certain post of mine had perhaps been read incorrectly and caused the "seriousness bar" to be raised. I had to hunt around for this post, I found it, I am a little surprised that my "tounge-in-cheek" comment was misinterpreted. My remark actually wasn't construed to accuse anyone of anything illegal. Believe it or not.

I believe that it is quite obvious, painfully obvious, that a certain institution operates entirely "by the book" and that because this is so obvious, the sarcastic reference otherwise was merely intended to underscore the fact that a certain person's role is this institution differs from what this certain person believes about his role in the eyes of the administrators.

To avoid any confusion on the matter, I greatly edited the post in question so I do not believe it could be read as offensive to anyone at this point.

I will also for good measure, cease all interaction with a certain participant here for a time, just on the off chance my already too complicated life situation would be made more complicated by any kind of revenge.

I would also ask certain people to consider the "tone" of their own sarcasm. A sarcastic comment on this forum was made a few weeks ago about the very thought of a friend of mine making the poster want to go get his gun. Well, to the person on the receiving end of the sarcastic comments, the intentions and meanings are not always as transparent as they are to the person making the comments.

I'm not calling for "universal peace everywhere" but just hopefully fixing one misunderstanding that became more serious than I'd like to see misunderstangs be and letting a situation cool down.


Vagueness aside, I think your mea culpa in this forum is probably adequate to pay the hypothetical legal bill.

(I haven't seen any "revenge" threatened.)

One solution, in future, is to just not to post accusatory (and potentially libelous) comments about matters obviously incompetible for you (and for me, for that matter).

Libel is prosecutable for good reason.

Yes, the Internet makes one stupid, but, I'm pretty sure, at some remove, there's a Real World back of it.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Gadianton wrote:But that implies that part of your salaried duties relates to FARMS, in the eyes of the administration, and that because a subset of your duties at FARMS invovles apologetics, you have, therefore, been paid for apologetics. If you still disagree, I'll let you have the last word because really, I don't care.

Good. Then I'll tell you that your speculation is flatly false.

My time was bought from my department to allow me to direct and edit the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative.

Gadianton wrote:I don't consider anything I said in sarcasm slanderous at all, but if you do, and if you are that "commited" to matters of principle, I think it's a bit of an exaggerated commitment personally

I simply warned you and Scartch and Shades. I contacted no lawyer.

But I do think, yes, that slander and libel are deeply wrong, and that the laws against them are justified.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Alert!

Post by _Gadianton »

(edit) better not at this point to risk misinterpretation of agreement with you.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _Moniker »

I keep editing this post and now I'm just deleting it.

Shades can cope with it.

Delete!
Last edited by Guest on Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Alert!

Post by _Jersey Girl »

According to a recent post by skippy the dead,

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=182609#p182609

certain assertions/allegations/inferences are not only absurd (my take) but also actionable.

Wake up call y'all
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _Tarski »

I get the sarcasm now but I didn't until it was explained as such.
Gad is often quite subtle.
Subtle can be dangerous.

I think the point was that since DCP and FARM really don't cheat on taxes, maybe this means that they are payed for apologetics after all.

Well, does that really follow? I can't tell because I don't know tax law or proceedures and I can't make myself think about money/taxes etc. It's not my thing so to speak.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Alert!

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Moniker wrote:I keep editing this post and now I'm just deleting it.

Shades can cope with it.

Delete!


You shouldn't have edited or deleted it. I'll bet it was perfect the first time.

Tarski wrote:I think the point was that since DCP and FARM[S] really don't cheat on taxes, maybe this means that they are payed for apologetics after all.


He said that his time was bought so he could work on the METI, not so he could work on apologetics.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply