What Would You Do?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

If it is Danny, I urge you to reveal everything in the most gratuitous and blatant manner. ;) to Danny.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

[_harmony]

Is this the kind of literary dishonesty we can expect in your accusations against Dan Peterson?

I saw no accusation against any specifically identified person. You may be right... but then again, you may be wrong.

[_bcspace]

So, do you let it out and let the chips fall where they may? Or do you do a favor for an apologist who, at best, hasn't done you any?

I think you're full of empty threats and false accusations. Bring it on!

[_maklelan]

I saw no accusation against any specifically identified person. You may be right... but then again, you may be wrong.

The claim that Peterson "FARMS flat out attacks and seeks to destroy critic's reputations, not excluding women or those that claim to be victims of abuse" seeks to make it seem like the "women" and "those who claim to be victims of abuse" are separate and plural individuals, when in fact there is one woman who also claims to be a single victim of abuse. The writer wants to multiply the characters under attack by the big, bad, apologist. Not only is the author trying to make it sound like this is habitual and widespread, but he seems to happily accept every word of Martha Beck's accusations, even though pretty much every falsifiable accusation has been shown to be false. The only accusations that really haven't been proven false are those that cannot be falsified. Beck is equally as dishonest a wordsmith, but for many in this crowd, attacking the church exempts one from evidentiary standards and critical thought.

[_Yoda]

Eric....Just my two cents....

As a journalist, I think you need to ask the question.....Will my story be more effectively told by revealing this information, or is it just an interesting sideline?

If the information (deep dark secret) is an essential portion of the story you are telling, then, yes, I think it is fair game.

If, on the other hand, your story can be just as effectively told without revealing the information, then you should hold off.

Something else you may want to consider.....

If you hold off on revealing the information in this book, you might actually be giving yourself information for the basis of a second book should an option be picked up.

Another approach is to seek the advice of your editor. Write your story both ways.....with the information and without.

After you have both versions on paper, take a look at it and evaluate which version really makes the most sense.

Have another set of eyes take a look at it....whether it be your editor, or someone else you trust.

I have experience doing this type of work, so I would be more than happy to help you when you get to that point, if you would like an extra "pair of eyes".

[_harmony]

I think you're potentially wrong about Beck, too. He never identifies the woman or the abuse victim. You're jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

[_maklelan]

I think you're potentially wrong about Beck, too. He never identifies the woman or the abuse victim. You're jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

No, he's very clearly referring to Martha Beck. That's why the very next sentence refers to "Nibley's molestation." In addition, there's no other person to whom he could possibly be referring.

[_harmony]

Just because he obliquely refers to Beck doesn't mean he's referring to Daniel, when he talks about the LDS apologist. I think he's going out of his way to make sure everyone knows he's not referring to Daniel.

The editor of FARMS, {Obviously Daniel} who would be entangled in the hypothetical legal proceedings too, has already (not hypothetically) made intentionally false, libelous statements in order to damage my reputation in conjunction with this subject: Ethics Scenario

The potentially unlucky LDS apologist has never personally attacked me or my reputation publicly, but some of his/her acquaintances have and probably will continue to do so. Depending on the success - again, all hypothetical - of the book, I wouldn't be surprised if he was coerced into joining them.

Which part of the difference between "already" and "never" is unclear to you?

[_maklelan]

Which part of the difference between "already" and "never" is unclear to you?

The fact that this author seems to be tripping over himself in his effort to be vague and sound clever at the same time.