Chap wrote:Please provide a decrypt ...
gut feeling, wish I had not said anything, you caught it too quick
Chap wrote:Please provide a decrypt ...
liz3564 wrote:Chap wrote:I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.
Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.
May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.
I actually have made it a practice to tell Dan exactly that. The only reason I mentioned anything here was because there was so much speculation on what Dan did and didn't know. Since he had been accused of putting the squash on David's hiring, or there was speculation in that direction, and I knew for a fact that that wasn't the case, I chose to say something. If that was wrong for me to do, so be it.
Chap wrote:I don't criticize the choice you made in this particular case. It is just that I don't think it would be healthy for it to become a pattern for DCP's communications. If he doesn't fancy posting here, I don't think it is a good idea for people to get into the habit of channeling him ...
Doctor Scratch wrote:To clarify: I was told, simply, that some "Old Guard" associate at the Maxwell Institute "commissioned" the assembly of this dossier. I'm not sure whether this is accurate, or what it means, exactly. DCP says he's "certain" that no MI employee put together the dossier, but is he also certain that no one "associated" with the MI did it this, or commissioned it? I.e., could it be that someone not necessarily employed by, but with close ties to, the MI commissioned it? And by "Old Guard," my informant seems to be referring to the more mean-spirited and attack-minded Mopologists--which would include DCP and Hamblin, but would also include people like Gee, Midgley, and Roper. Then again, maybe my "informant" was simply wrong, and the dossier was put together by people in the Religion Dept.
liz3564 wrote:Doctor Scratch wrote:To clarify: I was told, simply, that some "Old Guard" associate at the Maxwell Institute "commissioned" the assembly of this dossier. I'm not sure whether this is accurate, or what it means, exactly. DCP says he's "certain" that no MI employee put together the dossier, but is he also certain that no one "associated" with the MI did it this, or commissioned it? I.e., could it be that someone not necessarily employed by, but with close ties to, the MI commissioned it? And by "Old Guard," my informant seems to be referring to the more mean-spirited and attack-minded Mopologists--which would include DCP and Hamblin, but would also include people like Gee, Midgley, and Roper. Then again, maybe my "informant" was simply wrong, and the dossier was put together by people in the Religion Dept.
It sounds to me like your informant was likely flat-out wrong in this case.
RockSlider wrote:Seems even Will knew about it a long time back when he prophesized to David on MAD that he was being watched and his career was in jeopardy.
If Will knew of it, must not be a huge mystery to the insiders and those employed by BYU who was involved.
I seriously doubt that Will knows diddly squat about anything. He strikes me as a blow hard who tries to make people think that he knows a lot more than he really does.
The Dude wrote:What am I missing? Will knows where the dirt is, he's motivated to make his old enemy fail - to make his prediction come true - and he gets a hard-on at the thought of being an insider. I put my money on Will as the man behind the dossier.