They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_Daniel Peterson]

How do you interpret this statement? Does this sound like a veiled threat to you? I wonder if I am overreacting.

I read it the same way.

Asking one of the Scartchii whether I'm threatening somebody or engaged in unethical behavior at any given time is like asking a parched alcoholic whether he'd like just a teeny bit of brandy.

It's just a matter of time before Bishop Dan asks your father to write another message for posting on this bb trashing you and singing DCP's virtues and fair play.

Since I've never asked him to write such a message, the odds seem low.

Dr. Peterson, you seem to be implying that you know something more about GoodK concerning this incident than you care to reveal. GoodK is saying that there is nothing more that he has to hide.

I suggest that maybe you two discuss via PM what this other matter could be, and come to some type of resolution rather than this mystery hint that something else is going on.

I like you, Dr. P., but this just doesn't seem very cool.

I've asked GoodK to give it a rest.

I don't appreciate it being publicly and falsely said that I'm responsible for the past or current state of GoodK's relationship with one or both of his parents.

Talk about uncool.

GoodK should give it a rest, and so should those who seem to be egging GoodK on in this.

I expect the next message to be much more vicious, too.

I've been tearing the legs off of little kittens all morning, just to get in the mood!

(Do you guys really believe what you post?)

I would have suggested this, but he would have to know something about me in order to do that. He is bluffing.

And no, it isn't cool at all.

Imagine - I happen to know something very, very personal about Bishop Peterson's past. I'm not going to say what it is, but I will say this to the entire board: it is reason alone to be extremely skeptical about anything DCP says about the Book of Mormon. I have been aware of it for quite sometime, as have the other parties involved. It was a particularly tragic incident.

Did anyone see the Comedy Central roast of Bob Sagat? This just totally reminded me of Gilbert Godfree's "I am sick and tired of people saying BOB SAGAT RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990. They have no evidence that BOB SAGAT RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990."

I've asked that you give it a rest. It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not true to blame me in any significant way for the past or present state of your relationship with your stepfather. I haven't asked that you say anything, and I haven't offered or threatened to do so myself. I've simply asked you to give it a rest.

[_GoodK]

It's not fair, it's not just, and it's not true to blame me in any significant way for the past or present state of your relationship with your stepfather.

I beg to differ.

We got along fine, even with our many differences of opinion, until you dragged the Shade's board into our relationship.

And yes, I believe what I post on this board.


But to be clear, I don't think it is all your fault.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I like pudding. Vanilla is my favorite, but I like chocolate too.






(Just trying to clear the air)

[_GoodK]

I like pudding. Vanilla is my favorite, but I like chocolate too.

Call me weird, but I never liked pudding as a kid.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I beg to differ.

Then I have a right to differ too, and to say that I know better.

You can't accuse me and then deny me the right to respond.

But my response will be what it has been: I deny it, and I know better.

You should be grateful that I'm not the evil, unrestrained, and wholly uncaring person that Mini-Scartch fervently imagines me to be.

It would be better, though, if you were to give it a rest.

[_harmony]

I've been tearing the legs off of little kittens all morning, just to get in the mood!

Normally, I just ignore the feuds here, but this just didn't sit well today. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the graphic stuff. My cat who'd been with me for the last 9 years was killed yesterday by a pack of dogs. So could you lay off the graphic stuff for a while?

*sigh*

[_GoodK]

You should be grateful that I'm not the evil, unrestrained, and wholly uncaring person that Mini-Scartch fervently imagines me to be.

And you should be grateful that I'm not as sinful as my step-dad imagines me to be.


I give you permission to post whatever information you think you have to defend yourself, if it will make you feel better.

It's not just "mini-Scartch" who thinks you are a wholly uncaring person, by the way.

It's pretty obvious you don't care much about what actually happened, and just how it makes you and subsequently the LDS church look.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've been tearing the legs off of little kittens all morning, just to get in the mood!

Normally, I just ignore the feuds here, but this just didn't sit well today. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the graphic stuff. My cat who'd been with me for the last 9 years was killed yesterday by a pack of dogs. So could you lay off the graphic stuff for a while?

*sigh*

I'm sorry about your cat. I'm fond of cats (and of dogs), and I know it hurts to lose pets. (Our little white dog, fifteen years old, died about eighteen months ago, and I still miss him.) And I'm genuinely sorry if my little joke caused you any pain.

But I shouldn't admit this publicly, since, according to the Scartchii and their tiny coterie of disciples here, I revel in cruelty.

[_truth dancer]

If I recall correctly, the man with whom you met at the request of the SCMC specifically did not want the SCMC involved (or said something to this effect)

No.

and you were told not to mention your involvement with the SCMC by the SCMC rep. Did the man not mention something along this line to you?

Yes.

If I recall correctly you opted to not disclose that you were indeed meeting with him at the request of the SCMC?

I didn't disclose it. Had he asked, I would have told him. The subject didn't come up.

Did the man know his wife had contacted his bishop who then contacted the SCMC who then contacted you to meet with him? Didn't this all happen without his knowledge?

I have no idea what he knew.

If I recall correctly we had a discussion on ZLMB about this (smile).

I know you see nothing wrong with this at all... but I believe reasonable people can find this scenario disturbing and inappropriate.

You're right. I think it's ridiculous to try to spin this into something sinister and menacing.

And, unless I'm mistaken, I'm the only one here who was actually present.

Dan, maybe you forgot what you wrote back on the Z:

[quote]He was calling to ask me and a BYU colleague to spend some time with a certain individual in the Salt Lake area who was having testimony problems, to see if we could help. The situation was, he said, tearing the man's family apart. The wife was contemplating divorce, and the local priesthood leaders felt that they were out of their depth. He also asked that we not identify ourselves as having been asked to help by the committee.[/quote] Bold mine.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/81 ... ml?page=10

You seem to think that because the man didn't specifically ask if you were meeting with him at the bequest of the SCMC there wasn't a problem.

I find it misleading and quite inappropriate.

I KNOW you don't see the problem but others do.

~td~

[_Doctor Steuss]

I like pudding. Vanilla is my favorite, but I like chocolate too.

Call me weird, but I never liked pudding as a kid.

*Gasp!*

I knew you were an apostate, but I didn't know you were that much of an apostate.

I will pray to Bill Cosby tonight on your behalf.