Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Pokatator]

It doesn't sound like a joke it sounds like a threat.

I expect that is what it was intended to be..

Who knows? Maybe it was some kind of test?

[_asbestosman]

Posters here should understand that, if I'm obliged to defend myself, everything and everybody connected with this board is potentially liable to factor into the ensuing litigation.

I wonder if you will discover who Mister Scratch is.

I sincerely hope this whole thing will be settled out of court.

I also intend to permanently leave this place, but mostly because of something William Schryver made me realize--I need to work harder on my religion.

I might like to say more, but I will not with lawsuits looming. I wish to stay away from the courtroom even though I appreciate the proper application of justice. Likewise, I also appreciate the proper application of mercy. This appreciation should in no wise be taken as a preference of one over the other nor should it be taken to mean I value them equally.

.

[_Inconceivable]

Good questions and suggestions, Cinepro, all of them. I, too, am curious as to what GoodK hopes to get out of this. It's hard to get blood out of a donut even if you are right.

It seems evident what he hopes to gain.

Regardless of GoodK's intent, lawsuits are like tar babys. The bishop has already had one all over him. Wonder why he'd want to entice another one to play with him rather than just back-off and quit his annoying meddling.

[_Pokatator]

Good questions and suggestions, Cinepro, all of them. I, too, am curious as to what GoodK hopes to get out of this. It's hard to get blood out of a donut even if you are right.

It seems evident what he hopes to gain.

Regardless of GoodK's intent, lawsuits are like tar babys. The bishop has already had one all over him. Wonder why he'd want to entice another one to play with him rather than just back-off and quit his annoying meddling.

I agree, I said before if I was going to sue someone here I wouldn't say a word about it I would just do it. I feel that the more that GoodK posts he hurts his case if he has a case. It goes the same for the Dr. and the Lawyer.

Wonder why he'd want to entice another one to play with him rather than just back-off and quit his annoying meddling.

Maybe he's a slow learner and a fast forgetter.

[_karl61]

virtually everything Robert Crocket of Newhall, California has said about me personally is a lie.

Maybe I can ask you to quit posting personal information about me.

As I said earlier today, I have to bail on this board; too costly in many ways for me to be here. Too few gospel-related threads any more. Best wishes.

I think you posted a link to your law firm and some of your accomplishments in life.

[_Alter Idem]

Posters here should understand that, if I'm obliged to defend myself, everything and everybody connected with this board is potentially liable to factor into the ensuing litigation..

This is not a joke.

I feel that I owe everybody here a warning, so that they're not caught by surprise when and if they're dragged into this situation. Again, I regret it.

You are threatening this board and it's participants. This is a thinly vieled fear strategy you hope will put pressure on Eric to drop his lawsuit against you. Shame on you!

Now I like you even less.

This is between he and you, "gun to my head" drama queen.

I think that you are quite miserable, pretty much all by yourself on this one.

Goodk also poses a threat to all participants of this board when he threatens to sue other posters on the board. If you are angry with DCP, you should also be angry with Goodk. rrocket and DCP now....but, who will he sue next?

[_Alter Idem]

Posters here should understand that, if I'm obliged to defend myself, everything and everybody connected with this board is potentially liable to factor into the ensuing litigation.

I wonder if you will discover who Mister Scratch is.

I sincerely hope this whole thing will be settled out of court.

I also intend to permanently leave this place, but mostly because of something William Schryver made me realize--I need to work harder on my religion.

I might like to say more, but I will not with lawsuits looming. I wish to stay away from the courtroom even though I appreciate the proper application of justice. Likewise, I also appreciate the proper application of mercy. This appreciation should in no wise be taken as a preference of one over the other nor should it be taken to mean I value them equally.

.

And this is the danger of what Goodk is doing. I suspect others will wonder if it is worth it to continue to post here when the threat of lawsuits is very real. This was supposed to be a "free speech" board--but who wants to get sued for exercising their free speech?

I think Shades is going to have to do something or this could really hurt the board--it has the potential to drive posters away as well as suppress the whole premise for which the board was created.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, my mention of a potential counter suit against GoodK is most definitely a threat and a promise. I'm serious about it, and he needs to understand that I am.

Whether such a counter suit is legally practical or not, I don't know. But, if GoodK's threat materializes, I'll definitely pursue it energetically with my counsel. And GoodK needs to be aware that I'm now well equipped with offers of professional legal help, which I will use to the fullest extent possible.

[_Ray A]

Goodk also poses a threat to all participants of this board when he threatens to sue other posters on the board. If you are angry with DCP, you should also be angry with Goodk. rrocket and DCP now....but, who will he sue next?

Another perspective here. DCP once conidered a lawsuit against Scratch, but was advised that its chances of success were minimal, if I recall correctly. He chose, instead, to confront Scratch directly, on this board. The end result is, after some three years, that Scratch is gone. The lawsuit was avoided on practical grounds.

It's not difficult for me to understand why GoodK is angry at persistently being called a "liar" by Crockett, especially when there's no evidence for this except Bob's "suspicions". DCP's initial "experiment" post was definitely not the best idea, though the retraction was. I take it that this was GoodK's "final straw", which sent him over the edge.

I do not believe he's a "threat" to "all posters", far from it. Only those he believes have perisitently "antagonised" him, and interfered in his family life, and his step-dad's post here would not have helped. This isn't just any case, it's a very personal one.

The genesis of all this is GoodK's treatment at UBR, compounded by being accused of being a "liar". That (the UBR experience) is what set off his anger at the Church and leaders who supported UBR, and he has said on his website that he doesn't want to harm the Church per se, but make it more accountable for what happened at UBR, and distance itself from UBR. This is not only not happening, but the Church media are trying to portray UBR as a seamless, "loving" place. In other words, they are ALL in denial. This must anger GoodK even more. As for the merit of his claims, many others have said the same things he has, and there's a process going on that, I presume, will bring all of this to light to eventually be scrutinised by authorities. The accusations of lying, and the personal attacks against GoodK have not helped. Those who do not have evil intentions against GoodK also want all of the truth to come out, and so far I have no reason to believe he's lying, nor those who have backed him who were also there. It's quite possible too for abuse to occur to some, and not others. All of this is the result of a compound of negative experiences.

[_Inconceivable]

Yes, my mention of a potential counter suit against GoodK is most definitely a threat and a promise. I'm serious about it, and he needs to understand that I am.

Whether such a counter suit is legally practical or not, I don't know. But, if GoodK's threat materializes, I'll definitely pursue it energetically with my counsel. And GoodK needs to be aware that I'm now well equipped with offers of professional legal help, which I will use to the fullest extent possible.

Of course you will. You believe your priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, but you also know it doesn't mean you have to.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

(New Testament | Matthew 5:39 - 40)

Have fun with this one Dan.

..maybe you meant righteously possible?