Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Some Schmo]

So either DCP has atrocious reading skills or he was using the post as an opportunity to mess with GoodK personally. If you want to talk about "what started this mess" it would have to be DCP taking a post, intentionally misreading it (or reading what he wanted to), and using it against GoodK because he could (remorselessly, I might add).

Okay. I just can't take this without response.

I provided a link to GoodK's remark, essentially without comment, to GoodK's stepfather, whom I've known for more than two decades now.

How that demonstrates "remorselessness" and "atrocious misreading" eludes me, I'm afraid.

It was a simple thing. Most here think it was a bad idea on my part to do so. Perhaps it was. (I don't think so.) But, whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a remorseless, atrocious act of misreading, or a cruel attempt to hurt anyone. I simply sent a link to somebody. It was somebody I've known (and liked) for more than two decades, who had, I must explain, occasionally discussed with me during those years some of his difficult interactions with his stepson. I did it with considerable reluctance, and said so, but I felt that I should. I reasoned that, had the roles been reversed, I would have appreciated being informed. He expressed thanks to me for passing it on.

You've said many times that you don't think it was a bad idea. Sounds to me like you're remorseless. I suppose it helps that you've completely rationalized away your poor behavior. Parental concern... That's rich.

The fact that you don't understand the point about having misread GoodK's post is hardly surprising, since it's a regular occurrence with you. The post wasn't about his family, it was about the sham that the priesthood is! You still don't get that?

And it seems even worse that you would send this link when you admit you don't know his stepfather that well and yet you're aware that their relationship is strained. I mean... sorry dude, but that just makes you a prick. (Why sugar-coat it?)

Remorseless indeed. Either that or simply devoid of common sense.

[_Inconceivable]

I cannot let him have my house and my life savings, Inconceivable. I have a wife and children.

But, if you're willing, I'm perfectly happy for him to take yours.

Here's the deal.

It's your baby and no one here is willing to help you clean the little mess it made.

I wouldn't even bother with the wipies, Dan. Stay in character. Just keep on rubbing it all over you like it's suntan lotion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Of course you see absolutely nothing wrong with this practice.

I genuinely don't.

Do you? Do you really think it's an actual violation of sound ethics to speculate with a friend about whether "Snarky Pirate" is actually your old friend Bobby Smith?

Isn't this the purpose of your l-skinny?

No. It's not at all the purpose of Skinny-L. Skinny-L is a private list of friends who talk about hiking in the mountains near Portland, Signature books publications, political philosophy, the miserable weather in Missouri, the Yankees (pro and con), anti-Mormon arguments, eating establishments in Rome, Dr. Pepper as the elixir of life (or not), BYU academic politics, and etc.

You crave gossip from your anonymous list of secret informants.

Whether I "crave" gossip or not, I don't have an "anonymous list of secret informants."

Don't forget that neither you nor my Malevolent Stalker have access to Skinny-L. I get maybe 20-50 Skinny-L messages on a typical day, and you have literally no idea what's in them. Which, incidentally, doesn't justify you in presuming that they're malicious and evil.

You've said many times that you don't think it was a bad idea. Sounds to me like you're remorseless.

You seem to have an odd definition of remorselessness.

I suppose it helps that you've completely rationalized away your poor behavior.

I never thought it was poor behavior. I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.

Parental concern... That's rich.

Are you a parent?

The fact that you don't understand the point about having misread GoodK's post is hardly surprising, since it's a regular occurrence with you. The post wasn't about his family, it was about the sham that the priesthood is! You still don't get that?

I understood his point perfectly. I called his father's attention to the post. That's all.

And it seems even worse that you would send this link when you admit you don't know his stepfather that well and yet you're aware that their relationship is strained. I mean... sorry dude, but that just makes you a prick. (Why sugar-coat it?)

Remorseless indeed. Either that or simply devoid of common sense.

You dislike me, and I can't say that I really value your opinion much. It appears that we're at an impasse.

Here's the deal.

It's your baby and no one here is willing to help you clean the little mess it made.

I wouldn't even bother with the wipies, Dan. Stay in character. Just keep on rubbing it all over you like it's suntan lotion.

It seems that it's bedtime for the adults on the board.

[_msnobody]

You really don't see the difference between speculating on someone's identity via email with another poster on the board, and contacting family members and telling them that one of their family members participates as "X" on a certain board? And you have never had the impression that doing so would be inappropriate???

I don't see them as precisely analogous. But I also see a family as having more reason to want to know about a family member's comments on a message board than a bunch of idle strangers have to know the identity of a stranger.

I don't see the rule about protecting poster identities as an absolute one, or as a fundamental ethical value. There are other obligations or interests that Trump it, and my view was that, in this situation, the stepfather's interest in knowing what GoodK was saying about him weighed more heavily than GoodK's presumption of internet anonymity -- which, again, I respected scrupulously in every other regard.

in my opinion, Dr. Peterson, it is comments like this that make you the assassin of your own character.

[_Daniel Peterson]

in my opinion, Dr. Peterson, it is comments like this that make you the assassin of your own character.

Dang. I'm still up.

I've acknowledged that most everybody here seems to think that I made the wrong decision when I provided a link to this board to GoodK's stepdad, though I disagree.

I don't see, though, how it "assassinates" my character for me to say that, though I respect internet anonymity very much and have virtually never violated it, from my point of view some things are more important than it is, and that, in the case in question, after some back-and-forth in my own mind, I decided that GoodK's stepdad ought to know.

Do you really want to try to make the argument that internet anonymity, "netiquette," Trump's all other considerations in every case?

I can't imagine any morally serious person really, seriously, advancing such a claim.

I readily admit, though, that decent people can disagree about precisely where the line ought to be drawn. Trevor and I, for example, disagree in this particular matter, but I think we recognize each other as morally serious people who try to live ethically.

Good night.

[_msnobody]

in my opinion, Dr. Peterson, it is comments like this that make you the assassin of your own character.

Dang. I'm still up.

I've acknowledged that most everybody here seems to think that I made the wrong decision when I provided a link to this board to GoodK's stepdad, though I disagree.

I don't see, though, how it "assassinates" my character for me to say that, though I respect internet anonymity very much and have virtually never violated it, from my point of view some things are more important than it is, and that, in the case in question, after some back-and-forth in my own mind, I decided that GoodK's stepdad ought to know.

Do you really want to try to make the argument that internet anonymity, "netiquette," Trump's all other considerations in every case?

I can't imagine any morally serious person really, seriously, advancing such a claim.

I readily admit, though, that decent people can disagree about precisely where the line ought to be drawn. Trevor and I, for example, disagree in this particular matter, but I think we recognize each other as morally serious people who try to live ethically.

Good night.

It is hard for me, Dr. Peterson, to understand why you would see no problem with that first of all, and secondly, why you would post publicly an email (If I recall correctly) you received from GoodK's father.

Being one outside of Mormonism, I'm trying hard to resist assuming this is a product of cult-think where people tattle on others as a service to the Lord or doing the right thing for someone's own good. I guess in Baptist circles you'd tell it followed by bless his heart.

Seriously, I'd like to ask one, well two questions, why did you feel GoodK's father "ought" to know and why you felt obligated that you should be the one to inform him?

[Guest]

I've really got to go to bed!

It is hard for me, Dr. Peterson, to understand why you would see no problem with that first of all, and secondly, why you would post publicly an email (If I recall correctly) you received from GoodK's father.

(2) As I recall, GoodK's father asked me to post it. I see no ethical problem with posting something that somebody has encouraged me to post.

(1) I'm not certain why you think it self-evident that I should see a decisive problem. Do I think, on the whole, that it's a good thing to respect internet anonymity? Absolutely. And I have. Do I think it Trump's all other social and ethical obligations? Not by a long shot. In this particular case, I decided that I should tell my friend, GoodK's stepfather, and that that obligation, and GoodK's stepfather's need to know, outweighed GoodK's presumption of anonymity. I had made no effort to discover GoodK's identity. He unwittingly revealed it. Even so, I kept it to myself (with the exception of his stepfather.)

Being one outside of Mormonism, I'm trying hard to resist assuming this is a product of cult-think where people tattle on others as a service to the Lord or doing the right thing for someone's own good. I guess in Baptist circles you'd tell it followed by bless his heart.

I don't think it has anything whatever to do with being a Latter-day Saint, or even a theist. I saw it as something that one human being should do for another human being who was his friend and a father.

Seriously, I'd like to ask one, well two questions, why did you feel GoodK's father "ought" to know and why you felt obligated that you should be the one to inform him?

I thought I should be the one to tell him because I thought I was the only one who knew. Why did I feel GoodK's father ought to know? Because, as a father, I would have wanted to know. And, as you've apparently read, that's precisely how GoodK's father felt, as well. As I've said, I would probably have resented it if I had found out that somebody had known something about one of my sons that I should know, and had deliberately kept it from me. I did not feel that I had any confessional obligation to maintain GoodK's confidence. He had confided nothing in me, personally.

Are you a parent? A parent of teenagers or young adults?


.

[_dblagent007]

Seriously, I'd like to ask one, well two questions, why did you feel GoodK's father "ought" to know and why you felt obligated that you should be the one to inform him?

Did you know that there are literally dozens of threads where DCP, Bob, GoodK and everyone in-between discuss exactly this? For a time, it seemed that every thread turned into a discussion of this issue. Perhaps you could review the old threads and we could skip any further explanations, counterpoints, and endless discussions of "netiquette."

[_marg]

I admit that it's a very troublesome area, and that airy insinuations of wrongdoing on somebody's part can be both baseless and very harmful. But sometimes, when one really does know something and others, who don't know what they're talking about, are going on and on, it's very difficult to know exactly how to respond. One can't violate confidences, but other people might be drawing spectacularly wrong-headed conclusions.

You have demonstrated that your perceptions are heavily biased in favor of anything supportive of the church and religion generally. You may have some information but from one side, the step dad and you obviously only want to hear anything which supports the church. You have no interest in showing any support to Eric. It so happens Eric has made it known he's not religious whereas the dad not only is extremely religious but financially supportive of the church and writes for F.A.R.M.S. The step dad likely hasn't told you all. He likely only wants to present information which wouldn't be too private, too embarrassing of his private life and his shortcomings in relationships.

It is wrong for you to insinuate as you have numerous time that you know things that you wish you could reveal, essentially insinuating that Eric was a bad kid. Even his step dad acknowledged in his note, this to not be the case.

You have demonstrated no interest to my knowledge in looking into the program at the UBR to assess it. This despite the fact you wish to act as an apologist for the Church and the UBR relies heavily on its connection to the church by way of its advertisement and the program includes forcing Mormon studies onto the kids. in my opinion as an apologist you have an ethical responsibility to investigate the place to determine if accusations are founded. It is connected to the Church.

While I don't do this lightly, and don't do it in even a small fraction of the cases where I could, I think it sometimes very important for people who are gabbing away about a situation to be reminded that they don't know all of the relevant context, and that there are things that, if they knew them, might alter their opinions or cause them to go silent.

You are the one insinuating you have information relevant. You are not insinuating you have anything relevant against the step dad only something relevant and negative against Eric. People "gabbing" are causing no harm to anyone, when they do not claim inside information. But in contrast your insinuations against Eric are libelous, because you do claim insider information.

In cases where people are gossiping ignorantly and too confidently, I don't believe it's a bad thing to imply that they should possibly withhold judgment because they don't know enough to have valid opinions.

Your insinuations are a bad thing, because you are highly unlikely to have all the information despite what you believe and that being the case, would be falsely maligning Erics' reputation and character. No fair investigation has been done by you.

You are the one gossiping with intent to harm, others speculating can not be considered gossip when they make no claims to insider information.

[_ludwigm]

There is a hungarian saying:
- Who tell their dreams, are stupid. The more stupid are who listen them.

What stupid being I am! I've read this thread and all another dozen about the same.
The only thing I learned that our saying above is true.