Eric.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Eric.

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray,

I understand that you are someone who cared enough about Eric to speak with him personally and listen to whatever it was he chose to share with you. You stated that his comments had a "ring of truth".

How willing are you to show Eric where his posts on this thread go wrong? His comments here have little to nothing to do with the reality of the situation as it unfolded here. nor any of Daniel's claims. Do you think that showing respect to someone requires you to stand back while he makes a fool of himself?

In your OP, you stated that someone "got wind" of the post that Eric made. DCP "got wind" of the post because he was on the distribution list for the email in question and recognized it.

That email was not a personal/private email. It was sent to a round of contacts. When Eric chose to post it on this board, he did so knowingly taking a risk that someone here (DCP or possibly crock) would see it. Did Eric not see Daniel's email address on the list of contacts?

I disagree with Daniel's choice to inform step-dad about the post. I stated so at the time it was brought to our attention here. I still disagree with it.

Having said that, if you are someone who respects and appreciates Eric, why the HELL are you enabling this stupid pissing contest between him and Daniel? His posts on this thread make NO reasonable sense, Ray, and yet you are content to watch this play out while he trips all over himself.

The truth as I see it, is that Eric has always been highly and openly critical of his family on this board. He participated on this board and was openly critical of his family in full public view of Daniel and others, and while he remained anonymous, he knew that he was surrounded by people like Daniel and crock.

Eric's full name is all over the Internet and why? Because he chose to disclose his name in reference to his efforts against West Ridge.

Tell me, what the hell possible difference does all of this make now?

Had Daniel never contacted step-dad, Eric's full name would still be all over the Internet, along with his announcement on this board posted as GoodK regarding the Mormon Gulag website, and it would be no effort whatsoever to identify the posts in question as being posted by Eric Norwood regarding the family.

Eric chose to post the email in full view of Daniel who was on the distribution list.
Eric chose to post as GoodK announcing his Mormon Gulag efforts.
Eric chose to disclose his name in connection with the MG website.

While I don't agree that Daniel should have bothered the family with the post, Eric didn't allow it to remain the scenes either. He dragged it on to this board, along with his criticisms of his step-dad and his religion and if you had any respect for Eric or his family at all, you would be telling him to stop dragging this all over the board and go work on building a relationship with his family.

Daniel notified the parent twice. TWICE. Since that time it has been dragged all over this board like the Jerry Springer show and this time, YOU brought it up.

In your estimation, do you think that Eric's family would want to check in on this board only to see themselves splattered and USED all over it in multiple threads for over a year?

This really needs to stop, Ray.

Now be a good friend and tell Eric:

-That because his mom doesn't know DCP, it doesn't follow that his step-dad doesn't know him.

-That his mom doesn't monitor every phone call, email and meeting that her husband has.

-That Eric's knowledge of DCP showing up to his home once, doesn't rule out other meetings and other types of contact elsewhere.

-That his step-dad obviously knows DCP well enough to put him on the distribution list for the email that started this whole thing in motion.

You tell him that, and tell him to work at building his relationship with his family if that is what's important to him and take responsiblity for what he does on the Internet. His name is forever connected to the post in question because HE chose to identify himself.

That's what a good friend would do, Ray, not dredge up this BS for the umpteenth time in over a year and imagine that you're doing something out of respect for Eric and his family.

You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag if it came with both ends open.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Eric.

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Ray wrote:But of course DCP is deeply offended at anyone even slightly questioning the motives and deeds of faithful Mormons, and beckons all of us to "hear the other side", which as has been pointed out is strangely inconsistent with abundant Mormon hagiography


What? When has he asked us to "hear" the other side? When? Show me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Ray A

Re: Eric.

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

You simply don't.

I'm trying to warn you off, since you're actually making an unwitting fool of yourself (to be perfectly blunt) -- I don't doubt your sincere good intentions (within your ideological constraints, of course), but you really don't know enough about this and really should be a bit more circumspect -- but, if you resent the warning, there's really not much more that I can do.


Having (hopefully?) averted a lawsuit, maybe you haven't learned your lesson.

Listen, you really think I'm naïve. You really think I don't know what teenagers get up to, even in more serious areas of the law. I worked in a juvenile detention centre. There are lots of things you don't know that I know which I can't tell you publicly either (not about Eric or his family).

If we're going to talk about being "circumspect", then stop insinuating that if we knew such and such about Eric we would all flush him down the toilet. You are only insinuating this to try to totally discredit him, because you're not the least bit interested in Eric, and quite offended at his "mocking the priesthood" and his general disbelief in Mormonism. If he was a "good Mormon kid" who went astray your mercy would know no limit, and you know that. We had a Mormon poster here who threatened Gramps, and Gramps took this seriously enough to report it to the police and FBI. We are not talking about a "kid", but a grown man with a suspected criminal history, but he was a convert to Mormonism. The faithfuls' arms are always open and very understanding to such, especially if they defend Mormonism, no matter how bad they were in the past.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: Eric.

Post by _truth dancer »

Dan,

I'm trying to warn you off, since you're actually making an unwitting fool of yourself (to be perfectly blunt) -- I don't doubt your sincere good intentions (within your ideological constraints, of course), but you really don't know enough about this and really should be a bit more circumspect -- but, if you resent the warning, there's really not much more that I can do.
(bold mine).

About what are you warning Ray?
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Ray A

Re: Eric.

Post by _Ray A »

Jersey Girl wrote: In your OP, you stated that someone "got wind" of the post that Eric made. DCP "got wind" of the post because he was on the distribution list for the email in question and recognized it.


That was one paragraph of my OP, and you've seen how Eric feels about DCP. That (how he feels) didn't happen by accident.

Jersey Girl wrote:That email was not a personal/private email. It was sent to a round of contacts. When Eric chose to post it on this board, he did so knowingly taking a risk that someone here (DCP or possibly crock) would see it. Did Eric not see Daniel's email address on the list of contacts?


I don't know. There is such a thing as blind copies to recipients. But I don't know. Even if he did see DCP's name there, maybe he thought it would be beyond him to inform his father. Maybe because he was posting anonymously he felt no one would make a connection. DCP "worked it out".

Jersey Girl wrote: I disagree with Daniel's choice to inform step-dad about the post. I stated so at the time it was brought to our attention here. I still disagree with it.


That's one of the things I like about you. I was in two minds for a while, probably because I weigh issues too much and don't see the obvious immediately. It wouldn't be the first time.

Jersey Girl wrote:Having said that, if you are someone who respects and appreciates Eric, why the HELL are you enabling this stupid pissing contest between him and Daniel? His posts on this thread make NO reasonable sense, Ray, and yet you are content to watch this play out while he trips all over himself.


I've already stated my view, and my disappointment that his has become all about the DCP/Eric episode. I've already stated above that DCP is in fact a minor player and latecomer in Eric's experiences, and that none of his public comments about the Gulag have any reference to DCP (such as the article that originally appeared in Orato). That is an MDB focus, and Google doesn't even pick up all the discussions here. I'm not going to try to control threads, and I think you know that, but I also felt I had to report this aspect of Eric's negativity towards DCP, and the reason why he stopped posting here. I would like to see him come back without some Mormons shouting him down and saying "you don't know what you're talking about!" And continually, and disrespectfully trashing him to discredit him with "there's another side". Sure, there's another side to Joseph Smith too, but Mormons still adore him. I've defended DCP more times than I care to count. Here, and on MAD. In fact I recently had some exchanges with Doctor Scratch, wondering why there was so much focus and obsession with DCP. Maybe you missed that. It's not as if I'm batting in a biased way. But in view of this thread, it's not hard to see why there is so much (negative) obsession with DCP. He virtually invites it, and perhaps even relishes it. And he will not have his Church attacked without a reply. That's fair enough. But it doesn't need to dominate to the point where Eric is virtually drowned out altogether. There's a reason he stopped posting here, and the reason was that every time he said something the apologists (and some others) would jump him, and metaphorically speaking bash the crap out of him. That's not my idea of fairness. That's not my idea of justice. It was the continual hounding that drove Eric away.

Is he wrong in some areas? Of course. I tried through several emails to persuade him not to pursuit a lawsuit against DCP. And now Eric can barely make a comment without DCP jumping in and interjecting, "but there's another side!" Hell, man, we all know there's another side to everything. This is like a Newflash: "Rudolph Valentino Dies".

I'll continue later.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Eric.

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

truth dancer wrote:About what are you warning Ray?

I'm warning Ray that, as I believe I've mentioned previously, neither he nor anybody else on this board has any business arrogating to himself or herself the role of judging the relationships within this private family, and that he is not qualified to do so in any case.

I'm also warning him that he's making a fool of himself by stepping in ignorantly where he has no real reason to be. I won't say more, but I'll say that. He doesn't know enough to be making the comments about Eric's family that he has. He should be more reserved.

He's free, obviously, to show as much empathy and concern for Eric as he wants, and I commend him for doing so, but he would be wise not to publicly choose a side and pronounce judgment. He doesn't have to do so. He has no business doing so.

If saying so simple and transparently obvious a thing here on this board makes me an object of hatred and hostility, well, that's the way it's going to be.

Ray A wrote:Having (hopefully?) averted a lawsuit, maybe you haven't learned your lesson.

Eric is still threatening me, it seems.

That, at least, appears to be implied in his comment about me, on this thread, concerning "a blatant lie like the last defamatory post he made (which will prove to be rather costly, I hope)" [posted Monday, 29 June, at 5:43 PM]. However, I'll admit to being puzzled by Eric's remark, in the same post, that "I'll hold off on reporting about all the behind the scenes happenings with Peterson, his lawyer, West Ridge, lawsuits and my departure from this board for now," since I have no lawyer.

There's no clear lesson to be learned, anyway. I've done nothing that merits being dragged into the courts. A lawsuit, if it materializes, will be wholly unjustified.

Ray A wrote:Listen, you really think I'm naïve. You really think I don't know what teenagers get up to, even in more serious areas of the law.

No. I don't think you know enough about this particular family dispute to choose sides in it. And I don't think you have any business doing so, in any event.

Ray A wrote:If we're going to talk about being "circumspect", then stop insinuating that if we knew such and such about Eric we would all flush him down the toilet.

I've said nothing of the sort, and don't believe that Eric should be "flushed down the toilet."

Ray A wrote:You are only insinuating this to try to totally discredit him, because you're not the least bit interested in Eric, and quite offended at his "mocking the priesthood" and his general disbelief in Mormonism.

You're wrong, Ray. You don't really know me, it's plain, and you certainly don't know what you're talking about on this matter.

Ray A wrote:If he was a "good Mormon kid" who went astray your mercy would know no limit, and you know that.

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

Ray A wrote:We had a Mormon poster here who threatened Gramps, and Gramps took this seriously enough to report it to the police and FBI. We are not talking about a "kid", but a grown man with a suspected criminal history, but he was a convert to Mormonism. The faithfuls' arms are always open and very understanding to such, especially if they defend Mormonism, no matter how bad they were in the past.

Nonsense, Ray. I don't recognize this case, but if it was as you say, if this person really threatened Gramps, Gramps was entirely correct to report him to the police and the FBI and the appropriate steps should be taken.

It's simply outrageous on your part, and outrageously false, to suggest that I do or would endorse criminal threats against somebody so long as the person making the threats is a believing Latter-day Saint.
_Ray A

Re: Eric.

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm warning Ray that, as I believe I've mentioned previously, neither he nor anybody else on this board has any business arrogating to himself or herself the role of judging the relationships within this private family, and that he is not qualified to do so in any case.

I'm also warning him that he's making a fool of himself by stepping in ignorantly where he has no real reason to be. I won't say more, but I'll say that. He doesn't know enough to be making the comments about Eric's family that he has. He should be more reserved.



So the basic of this warning is that I run the serious risk of making a fool of myself. Is that it? Wouldn't be the first time. :lol:

I'll take that risk, Dan. Because I see a side of Eric you don't. Your hubris here is dismaying. And your "Christianity" in tatters.
_Ray A

Re: Eric.

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:It's simply outrageous on your part, and outrageously false, to suggest that I do or would endorse criminal threats against somebody so long as the person making the threats is a believing Latter-day Saint.


I realise anything that impugns you is "outrageous".
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Eric.

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Ray A wrote:I'll take that risk, Dan. Because I see a side of Eric you don't. Your hubris here is dismaying. And your "Christianity" in tatters.

I'm sorry you think that, Ray.

Nevertheless, I repeat: You don't know what you're talking about. Nobody here has any reason to set himself/herself up as judge or jury over Eric's family, and nobody here is qualified to do so. People on this board should resist the temptation to choose sides, and to pronounce verdicts.

If saying so reveals me as hubristic and unchristian, so be it.

Frankly, it strikes me as hubristic and unchristian to set oneself up as a judge of people of whom one manifestly knows too little and for whom one has utterly no stewardship responsibility.
_Ray A

Re: Eric.

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Frankly, it strikes me as hubristic and unchristian to set oneself up as a judge of people of whom one manifestly knows too little and for whom one has utterly no stewardship responsibility.


How Freudian, Dan.
Post Reply