beastie wrote: DCP has repeatedly made these sort of insinuations on this board - that due to his personal knowledge of Eric's family, he knows things that he cannot share. The heavy insinuation has always been that these things would be damaging to Eric. That's why his "test" post sounded believable. ... it certainly is possible that people who know Eric have read some of these things, and have damaged his reputation.
This was exactly my reaction when I read the post that apparently disclosed (finally) all the information DCP has frequently said that he possessed about GoodK's in real life issues. I had no clue that the information in DCP's post was not real. So much so, in fact, that I felt sorrow for GoodK for all the anguish and dysfunction. I get the impression that DCP posted what he did perhaps figuring that it was so OTT that nobody would believe it and the "spoof" (or whatever) would be immediately apparent to all readers. Not so. Maybe he doesn't realize it but to at least some readers, DCP's words would have some presumed authority (as in knowledge/weight, not as in LDS doctrinal "authority") precisely because of the frequent references to knowing GoodK's family, being in communication with his stepfather, having information about GoodK's past and current circumstances, etc, and yes, being a Mormon bishop would also factor in, for many people. (Like it or not, there is some expectation for how they would speak, act, behave, interact).
I think the crux of this and other similar occurrences here is that the poster (and especially DCP it seems) thinks that their
intent is all that matters and that it is completely transparent to all readers, when this is certainly not the case.
So, coming in cold and reading that post about GoodK's supposed past problems, and having read DCP's remarks over the past year about having special knowledge, as well as remembering other comments by him and at least one other LDS poster here to the effect that GoodK is "only telling one side of the story" and that if readers knew more they would not be so sympathetic to his side/view/case (paraphrase), I took the DCP post about GoodK at face value. I then went off-board to deal with RL that morning and, even though DCP posted his retraction within the hour I didn't see it for some time after I had read the original post. So, there were a few hrs there where I did believe what DCP had written.
Not that that is any support to GoodK's potential claim for damages because what does it matter what I think about someone I don't know and comments from another person I have never met? I just want to explain my reaction to DCP's post and say I relate to what beastie said above. Again, it is not always what
we intend when we post that makes an impact, it is what we write and the effect it has (to a reasonable degree). It's often difficult to accept that the way
we see things isn't always the most important yardstick but it's a useful thing to learn and accept and reflect on when it comes to personal interactions, even on the Net. Obviously, it isn't "just pixels", as some people insist, but there are real people out there who are impacted by what we write and especially by online interactions, in many cases. (Think of the recent case of the teen girl who committed suicide after a neighbour woman and her daughter scammed her into forming an online relationship with a supposed teen boy that she ended up having feelings for to the extent that she was devastated when the apparent relationship ended, devastated to the point of despair and suicide, for which the adult woman involved were taken to court and convicted, last I heard).
If people could think less about who is "right" or "wrong" and focus more on seeing where the other party is coming from, if not being able to find at least some common ground, a lot of venom and legal actions could be avoided. I know the involved parties, who in this case may truly be wounded, may say that it is too simplistic to invoke the Rodney King approach to life (can we all just get along?) but still, I would hope, at least in this case, that the parties would back away from trying to hurt each other, which is where this thing seems to have descended to. Even if both feel that they may not go through with a suit or may not win this one, both have commented that they want to hurt each other, monetarily at least, if not in other ways too. That is the piece of this that I hope could be resolved and that would perhaps settle all the rest.
On DCP's side, I would hope that consideration for his friend, GoodK's father, would help him to back away from trying to hurt the son. On GoodK's side, I hope that focusing on his work re the UBR and other projects would take priority and that he would direct his energy and time to that rather than to this nasty turn of events. This is not to say that I don't recognize that both sides feel hurt and harmed and that there may be justification for that with both parties.
I have been hurt by others, sometimes quite devastatingly so, as have many of us. I well understand the impulse to strike out. Even though the scriptural principles that are among the most meaningful to me relate to peace-making, reconciliation (my Mennonite Brethren exposure), turning the other cheek, and heaping coals on the heads of one's enemies (biblical references), I still struggle to be so sainted as to be able to not only do that in every situation but to eradicate the thirst for vengeance from my heart that still exists in some cases (where other people's actions have resulted in demonstrable personal and spiritual harm to me). I still have negative feelings towards others I feel have wronged me, if their words or actions caused me what I consider irreparable harm. I occasionally think of how satisfying it would be (it seems) to see them take a fall. I don't beat myself up over so obviously not being able to apply the peace-making principles 100%, to the extent that I wouldn't be interested at this time in seeking reconciliation (which is an important element in the Christian denomination that I identify most strongly with - MB), but, fortunately, at least I can corral my basest impulses to where they live only in my own mind.
The scriptural principles mentioned above have helped me to keep things in perspective and find balance, not in some abstract way of grumpily following a commandment or such, but so that overall I at least try to emphasize the positive and defuse the negative, which adds immeasurably to quality of life. In the case at hand, I also think of the New Testament stricture against "taking one another to court" (as in "don't do it" - although admittedly that refers to fellow members in the faith so doesn't directly apply to the DCP-GK situation). Of course, it's hard to strive for higher ground. Especially so if the other party does not relate to the scriptures in the same way (or at all). But such is the challenge for Christians (not to be "better than" others, as I discussed on another thread, but to be better than our most base selves).
To me, in any dispute or conflict it would be a matter of applying the scriptural principles you say you adhere to (if this is the case), which would hopefully defuse the situation. I would also consider the age differences and life circumstances of myself and the other party. I would definitely not, as DCP suggested in another post, seek retribution against one-party-for-all-time for all past bad experiences and unresolved grievances as well as potential future clashes, more especially if said party were the son of a friend.
I understand this may not be a satisfying approach in the short term but I would consider that peace of mind, positive use of energy, wise use of financial and other resources, happiness in life, etc are much more desirable and productive than years of wrangling over issues that may seem mountainous now but when compared to other things amount to little enough to waste life's time and resources on. Maybe taking a few steps back and getting a different perspective could help both sides.
At the very least, if DCP were to ask my opinion (which I'm not holding my breath would happen, ha) I would suggest a measure of constraint in modifying the focus and intent such that he either reconsiders altogether or at least sees this issue as one discrete situation between himself and GoodK and not an opportunity to answer all critics and harm-doers from past to present to future, in short, making GoodK an example to warn off any potential future actions and challenges and to alleviate the disgruntlement (?word?) attached to a previous lawsuit in which he was involved.
harmony wrote:Proving that Daniel damaged GoodK's reputation anywhere would be very difficult for GoodK to do, unless he can show that he somehow suffered monetarily, suffered enough mental distress to seek counseling, or that Daniel's actions destroyed his familial relationship. As far as I can see, GoodK can't show any of those.
From what I've read here, I recall that Grosskreutz said that before the email incident he was at least in contact with his stepfather and afterwards their relationship deteriorated to the point where they no longer spoke to each other. I don't know how or if that would translate into "actual damages" in a lawsuit for libel but in terms of causing harm, that seems to indicate that there definitely were demonstrable negative consequences. That doesn't take into consideration the current situation, though. Maybe things are patched up, although I wouldn't be surprised if not.
In medical/legal cases where a plaintiff has been injured, one major factor taken into consideration, in my experience, is that of prior functionality compared to current functionality. That is, if before an accident the plaintiff could hike and ski and swim and surf and afterwards could do none of those activities and, in fact, needed a cane to get around and even so could only walk for 15 minutes before having pain or needing to rest whereas before they ran marathons regularly, then you have a before-and-after picture of the extent to which the accident has negatively impacted on the person's life. That is used to calculate damages and costs of future care, etc that also need to be factored in.
If Grosskreutz had a relationship, even a difficult one, with his s-dad before the email incident and afterwards it deteriorated to no relationship and that can be shown to be directly or even indirectly related to the email incident, there is at least a negative consequence of someone else's action, if not an actual "damage" at law.
In my work, I am exposed regularly to the sad side of life where previously healthy people experience sudden and devastating illness and injury. One minute you're teaching a university class as a world renowned expert in your field, while planning a weekend marathon race, and the next minute you can't walk or talk, perhaps ever again. That is definitely the biggest influence on me in trying to focus on the positive, maximize enjoyment of life and value relationships as well as think about my "legacy" (even if it's only in good memories I leave for all the kids and nothing world-shaking at all). I often ask if what I am doing or saying or planning at this moment were my last action before major disability or impending death, how would I feel about what I was doing or saying? (This is especially useful to me in cutting short any arguments or other negative things that may be occurring).
I'm not saying I would never defend myself or that I can't understand where either of the parties under discussion are coming from. But here's hoping that taking a second look and weighing up the pros and cons will lead to de-escalation of the conflict. That would seem to be the best outcome for both sides, whether they see that right now or not. Here's hoping that all that energy, not to mention, financial resources, will ultimately put to the most positive use possible.
No matter what happens now, this is an unfortunate turn of events, on many levels.