Ethics Scenario

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK:

Have you thought about mentioning the excommunication and nothing else? If you really want to do as the Mopologists do, then that's what you ought to do. No need to mention affairs or anything like that. The ex'ing is all TBMs would need to know about it order to dissuade them from sending their kids. The apologists knew this quite well, and used it to their full advantage against Quinn. In fact, they went even further, insinuating on FAIR/MAD and elsewhere that the ex'ing came as a result of some kind of homosexual sin. Just ask DCP: he'll tell you all about it. After all, he was more than glad to tell anyone who would listen on the FAIR/MADboard.

I hadn't thought of just floating the fact that he was excommunicated and leaving it at that, but you are right. As we can see from the examples of the pros, when poisoning the TBM well - so to speak - less is more.

I would be curios to hear Jersey Girl's opinion about that.

Just a thought...you could read my reply further up the thread.

I tend to support the idea (if you feel you must say something about the man's status) however, consider what you wrote here:

If I have to show restraint in my expose for every staff member that has a child, there will be no cause. The worst of the worst people at the Mormon Gulag are married with children. I can't do anything to change that.

GoodK...if you intend to write an unrestrained expose of what those involved in the facility do in their personal lives, you are clearly missing the mark. You need to expose what is going on INSIDE the facility, not outside of it.

A smear campaign really isn't the way to go. If what you allege about the facility is true...get proof of it or give it up.

One more devil's advocate remark. Why should I believe the sincerity of your condemnation of the man in question when you yourself made light of it in your own sexual remarks to Nehor?

I'm done with this thread. My parting advice to you is to be something better and more honorable than those you accuse.

[_Yong Xi]

This information is already public to a large degree. The man apparently committed adultery with a ward member while acting as her bishop. They are now married. I would guess that made the rounds in the ward and stake pretty rapidly.

Yes, you could broaden the extent of the public knowledge, but to what end? If you could find a way to use restraint and refrain from further public disclosure, you might find that personally empowering. Wouldn't it feel great to know that you are capable of exacting some level of revenge (perhaps even deservedly so) but choose not to?

[_Jersey Girl]

Here are your remarks to Nehor, Goodk:

Shouldn't you be working on losing your virginity? I know this board is fun and interesting, but, priorities man... Married bishops are getting more action than you are.

Action? Getting more action? If you're going to rag on a Bishop for immoral behavior, you need to figure out whether or not you want to be taken seriously. The sexual remarks regarding loss of virginity, the "action" remarks with the lol emoticon...make you look like a young man who wants to expose immoral behavior but who cannot resist making light of it in the next post.

You lose credibilty every time you do that and every time you lose credibility, you lose a chance at seeing your cause become reality. And when you lose that chance, the boys lose theirs.

Okay, now I'm done. (maybe ;-)

[_Yoda]

GoodK--

How long ago was "Roy" excommunicated? Is he still attending Church? Was he rebaptised?

I would think long and hard about whether or not this is really a wise move. If "Roy" is still involved in the Church, you are going to be putting his children (from both marriages) and his ex-wife, who is an innocent victim, through hell. Is placing something like this in the public light really fair to these innocent people?

YES, I know that this bastard is involved with abusing children. As far as I'm concerned, he should be castrated and rot in hell for it.

But, I want to see you succeed at taking this place down. If you go down this road, I'm afraid that it might backfire. I think that the emphasis should be on the atrocities that this place committed. If those things can be 100% verified, and you can get social services and legal action involved, then EVERYONE involved with the organization is going to crumble...this idiot included.

Just food for thought.

[_Yoda]

As I predicted -- I guess the test has taken on a life of its own! -- the flagrant double standard here doesn't bother you a bit, and the utter irrelevancy of GoodK's casual claim that I unethically publish personal details about other people (which I've denied every time it's been broached) doesn't bother you even slightly. I remain in the cross hairs. All is right with the MDB world.

If you want to be dramatic and call it a lie, I guess you're technically correct. I don't, personally, see much wrong with a falsehood that is put forth, for a specific reason, to a very small and finite audience and then almost immediately acknowledged to be a falsehood to that very same very small and finite audience with an explanation of the reason that it was put forth.

I can tell you why it's bad form in my book, Dan. Simply put, whether it's fair or not....I expect more out of you.... as a person, and as a Bishop, a judge in Israel, and a priesthood holder.

Yes, Scratch has maligned you repeatedly. And yes, on this thread, GoodK accused you of certain actions. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with you defending yourself, and putting things into proper perspective as far as your own cases are concerned.....but the "tit for tat" action does not become you. It simply puts you on the same level. Is that really what you want?

This is consistent with the advice I have given to GoodK, by the way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can tell you why it's bad form in my book, Dan. Simply put, whether it's fair or not....I expect more out of you.... as a person, and as a Bishop, a judge in Israel, and a priesthood holder.

Yes, Scratch has maligned you repeatedly. And yes, on this thread, GoodK accused you of certain actions. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with you defending yourself, and putting things into proper perspective as far as your own cases are concerned.....but the "tit for tat" action does not become you. It simply puts you on the same level. Is that really what you want?

I don't agree at all. Not even a tiny bit.

A transparently over-the-top accusation, repudiated within just slightly more than half an hour, in the very same thread, in a bright blue color, done without any malice and clearly not intended seriously but solely as a test (which the test-taker failed spectacularly), doesn't strike me as an offense at all, let alone a serious one. It's wrong even to think of it as a "tit for tat," since it was never even really about GoodK at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with vengeance; it was just a canvas on which Chap illustrated his own double standard.

We can discuss it, if you like, and others can denounce me to their hearts' content, but I feel fine about the test. It made my point perfectly. And the denunciations continue to make my point rather nicely (though they're just icing on the cake, and not intrinsic to the experiment): The double standard on this board is empirically demonstrable; I've just demonstrated it.

[_Yoda]

I don't agree at all. Not even a tiny bit.

Then, we'll have to agree to disagree.

A transparently over-the-top accusation, repudiated within just slightly more than half an hour, in the very same thread, in a bright blue color, done without any malice and clearly not intended seriously but solely as a test (which the test-taker failed spectacularly), doesn't strike me as an offense at all, let alone a serious one. It's wrong even to think of it as a "tit for tat," since it was never even really about GoodK at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with vengeance; it was just a canvas on which Chap illustrated his own double standard.

But it was still done at GoodK's expense. It was his reputation that was temporarily sullied.

The bright blue coloring of the post didn't really signal to me that what you were writing was false, or was some sort of "test".

I have to admit...I know that you are friends with GoodK's family. It was quite feasible to me, upon reading your post, that what you had said might have had some truth to it. If I felt that way, couldn't others have felt that way as well?

Now, yes, thank heavens, you did publicly denounce what you had said...but, again, I just didn't think that the nature of that "test", or the lies that were stated about GoodK were kosher at all.....And the fact that they were presented merely to prove a point was just not cool.

[_asbestosman]

We can discuss it, if you like, and others can denounce me to their hearts' content, but I feel fine about the test. It made my point perfectly.

To whom? I don't think anyone has changed their minds or been enlightened in the least. Chap's admonition struck me as problematic from the start and you initial response to his challenge seemed more the adequate to me. Perhaps someone else in cyberspace has been enlightened because of your experiment, but I'm skeptical.

I'm sure many were entertained by the experiment. Indeed since that is the main reason I come to this board, I suspect that entertainment was the main purpose. But then I suppose I should be careful not to make every thread about me.

[_Ray A]

Actually, all DCP's experiment really did for me was persuade me even more of Eric's integrity.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, all DCP's experiment really did for me was persuade me even more of Eric's integrity.

It had little more to do with Eric -- incidentally, is it permissible to use his real name now? did I somehow reveal that private fact? -- than with a solution to Fermat's theorem, but everybody is plainly free to use it as a launching pad to anything he or she likes.

But it was still done at GoodK's expense. It was his reputation that was temporarily sullied.

For just under forty minutes, before an audience of, perhaps, three.

The bright blue coloring of the post didn't really signal to me that what you were writing was false, or was some sort of "test".

It was the content of that bright blue post -- in which I said that what I had written was false, and that it represented a kind of test -- that should have signaled to you that what I had written was false, and that it represented a kind of test. The bright blue color was intended to make that statement stand out from the rest of the thread.

As to the rest, I disagree completely. And I mean completely. Sorry. Scratch will be happy, though, to point out to you and everybody else that I have a long (even virtually uninterrupted) history of vicious, hateful, and unethical behavior, so you shouldn't have been surprised.