Remove the Facebook posts

[_Kishkumen]

You're fine with Facebook splashing it across the Internet to hundreds of millions, but not it being republished here at little MDB? (Now I am implying something.)

Bite me. (I am implying something.)

[_sock puppet]

You're fine with Facebook splashing it across the Internet to hundreds of millions, but not it being republished here at little MDB? (Now I am implying something.)

Bite me. (I am implying something.)

So you have lodged a request with Facebook to take it down?

[_sock puppet]

You're fine with Facebook splashing it across the Internet to hundreds of millions, but not it being republished here at little MDB? (Now I am implying something.)

Bite me. (I am implying something.)

I only caught the explicit, not the implicit there.

[_Kishkumen]

So you have lodged a request with Facebook to take it down?

Daniel's participation on Facebook is his own affair. My compassion for others being abused on this board against the spirit of board rules is another matter. If you have a problem with Shades' decision, take it up with him.

I appreciate you showing me where you stand. Now I am done talking to you about this. I am not interested in quibbling about this with you any further.

[_Doctor Scratch]

for what it's worth, I don't object to the image being removed. That said, I can't see that any of the rules have been broken. DCP is no longer a member of this MB community. He could easily register if he wanted material deleted, as other people have done in the past. (E.g., Mike Parker.) Further, there has been DCP-related Facebook material posted here in the past--remember the scolding that was doled out to him by LoaP and the narrator on Facebook? A good deal of that exchange was re-posted here. I also remember Kevin Graham doing a thread entitled "Mormon Meltdown on Facebook" that also culled material from Facebook.

So I don't think any of the rules were broken. That said, I don't object to the removal of the images. What I'm hoping at this point is that Prof. P. offers up some post along the lines of, "For 72 hours, Socialcam has sought to defame me. That's seventy-two (72 hours). I hereby dub Socialcam My Malevolent Facebook App. It has tried to portray me as salacious, dishonest, and as being inappropriately interested in "boners" and "booty shaking," and I don't appreciate it."

[_Shulem]

So you have lodged a request with Facebook to take it down?

Daniel's participation on Facebook is his own affair. My compassion for others being abused on this board against the spirit of board rules is another matter. If you have a problem with Shades' decision, take it up with him.

I appreciate you showing me where you stand. Now I am done talking to you about this. I am not interested in quibbling about this with you any further.

You're so goddamn righteous, kishy. Go back to church. You're out of my kingdom, I want no such men in it!

Paul O

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I can't see that any of the rules have been broken. DCP is no longer a member of this MB community. He could easily register if he wanted material deleted, as other people have done in the past. (E.g., Mike Parker.) Further, there has been DCP-related Facebook material posted here in the past--remember the scolding that was doled out to him by LoaP and the narrator on Facebook? A good deal of that exchange was re-posted here. I also remember Kevin Graham doing a thread entitled "Mormon Meltdown on Facebook" that also culled material from Facebook.

So I don't think any of the rules were broken.

You're correct on all counts.

When it came to the LoaP and Kevin Graham criticisms, those things wouldn't have gotten him (or anyone else) in trouble with his employer or ecclesiastical leaders. This, on the other hand, *might* have some sort of repercussion in those arenas. It's my personal philosophy that this board shouldn't have any sort of palpable effect on anyone's "real life"--registered user or not.

[_Maxrep]

Kish,

I appreciate your sense of humanity. May I point out why others may not feel so generous in this regard?

1. Perhaps passively at first, Dans employer has accommodated his daily practice of message board participation. In addition this time consuming practice, he has also stated on podcasts, that he spends a sizeable amount of time in personal email correspondance with regards to personal questions from members about church history. My perspective is that Dans workload at BYU now actively accommodates his online activities. I could be difficult to claim that his presence online is not a professional one at this point. I do not find his behavior professional or a reflection of LDS values.

2. Dan has publicly stated his support for the use of ad hominem, and employs this tactic with regularity. As Oaks has implied, we are the enemy as apostates. As such, often we are extended a "second tier" type of treatment.

3. Eric. Dan operates from a very tenuous history of violating personal boundaries. When the "truth" is on your side, very little becomes off limits in the name of God.

4. If Dans past participation online had included more humanity, and if apologetics was only something he did "off the clock", support for cutting him slack would be quite simple.

P.S. as an aside, why would anyone assume that just because this bootie-gate became public knowledge through a Facebook fluke, that this was the first and the worst of his internet viewings? Joseph had a very healthy libido.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, Maxrep-

I made a request based on my sense of the right thing to do. No one had to agree with me. I made no threats. My decision to do what I think is right makes no reference to the behavior of any apologists. Shades said it best: this is about the Golden Rule. I want others to cut me slack, so I will cut them slack. I want others to protect me from harm, so I will protect them from harm.

A world without apologists' personal attacks will not result from personal attacks on apologists. I aspire to do better, as flawed as I may be. My only regret is that I did not speak up immediately.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, Maxrep-

I made a request based on my sense of the right thing to do. No one had to agree with me. I made no threats. My decision to do what I think is right makes no reference to the behavior of any apologists. Shades said it best: this is about the Golden Rule. I want others to cut me slack, so I will cut them slack. I want others to protect me from harm, so I will protect them from harm.

A world without apologists' personal attacks will not result from personal attacks on apologists. I aspire to do better, as flawed as I may be.

I hope, Kish, that your gestures on this thread result in DCP at last removing the allusions to your in real life life from his blog. One good turn deserves another, as they say.