They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

collegeterrace wrote:And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.

Erste Dame. Du willst vermuthlich wissen, warum die Fürstinn dich heute so wunderbar bestraft?

Papageno. (bejaht es.)

Zweyte Dame. Damit du künftig nie mehr Fremde belügst.

(Emmanuel Schikaneder and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte 1.3)







#################################################################################################
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Jersey Girl »

collegeterrace wrote:Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.


Holy crap.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.


That's debatable, of course. I'm sure that plenty of the people whose emails you gleefully posted at SHIELDS didn't exactly feel as if their "confidence" had been kept. Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.
_collegeterrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:28 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _collegeterrace »

Jersey Girl wrote:
collegeterrace wrote:Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.


Holy crap.
Only if he wears the old school one piece Jesus jammies with the poop chute in the back. Then it is crap that has "passed through the veil."
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Here, DCP makes a claim regarding confidentiality:

DCP:
I would not, however, violate a confidence.


And Porter responds by injecting a situation with GoodK that had nothing to do with confidentiality:

Porter:
Right.

And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.


I love it when you answer on point, Porter.


Previously, I made this brief comment:

Jersey Girl:
Not this again.


And Porter sees my comment as a "defense":

Porter:
Well, well, lookie who is here to defend Danny.


Uh. Nowhere on this thread or any other thread on this board, have I defended Daniel's choices regarding GoodK, quite the opposite is true. If you feel differently, please repost any post where I defended Daniel in that regard.

Do not mistake my criticism of your remarks as a defense of Daniel's choices regarding GoodK.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_collegeterrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:28 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _collegeterrace »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
collegeterrace wrote:And Goodk would still have the warmth of a family to turn to when the world feels cold.

Erste Dame. Du willst vermuthlich wissen, warum die Fürstinn dich heute so wunderbar bestraft?

Papageno. (bejaht es.)

Zweyte Dame. Damit du künftig nie mehr Fremde belügst.

(Emmanuel Schikaneder and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Die Zauberflöte 1.3)
Is the show over? Did the fat lady just sing?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.

That's debatable, of course.

No, actually it's not.

Mister Scratch wrote:Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

This simply never happened.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Jersey Girl »

I dunno about anyone else, but I find it odd that any person would evalute these:

Not this again.
omg.
Holy Crap.

As a "defense" of anyone or anything.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:You may be right, mms, that I wouldn't be able to help you.

I would not, however, violate a confidence.


That's debatable, of course. I'm sure that plenty of the people whose emails you gleefully posted at SHIELDS didn't exactly feel as if their "confidence" had been kept. Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.


Quinn again. Why do you persist in raising an issue that had no personal impact on you?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:That's debatable, of course.

No, actually it's not.


Oh? Do Infymus and SusieQ, among may others, share your opinion? At the time, did Ray A appreciate your "privately sharing" emails he'd sent you?

Mister Scratch wrote:Furthermore, your "leaking" of supposedly private ecclesiastical information pertaining to Mike Quinn pretty much torpedoes your claim.

This simply never happened.


Remember this?:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Unless I’m much mistaken, Quinn’s stake president had never met Quinn when my friend spoke with him, but he was already well aware of Quinn’s sexual orientation. (And, frankly, of more than merely his orientation. A sad incident within his stake had brought the matter very painfully to the stake president’s attention.) And I don’t believe that it was my friend who raised the issue of Quinn’s homosexuality, nor even of Quinn in general. As I recall, it was the stake president, an old friend of his, who broached the subject. The visit was not about Quinn, but was simply an encounter between two long-time friends, and the topic of Mike Quinn emerged in passing.


Uh, yeah. That sounds exactly like the sort of information that should be blabbed to everyone on the FAIR/MAD board.

As to your intent, what about this?:

It’s deeply ironic for me to be accused as the impresario of a conspiracy to besmirch Mike Quinn, because, although I knew about his sexual orientation for 11-14 years before he openly acknowledged it, I consciously chose never to write or publish anything at all referring to it. I sat on it, quietly.
(emphasis added)

Meaning, of course, that you knew that mentioning it would damage his reputation in LDS circles.
Post Reply