Remove the Facebook posts

[_LDSToronto]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

[_Maxrep]

I made a request based on my sense of the right thing to do.

And your request is probably the right thing. I honestly just have a hard time throwing my shoulder behind Dans wheel.

You know, they went through my daughters luggage for girls camp. Had to make sure nothing inappropriate was worn in front of the other girls there.

A male member of my ward had to stay at a friends house for a good week after his wife found him looking at nude women online.

We could easily say that Pitbull was grinding up against someones scantily clad daughter in that thumbnail Dan clicked on. What if it was Dans daughter?

If we acknowledge that bishops are morally fallible, how do we reconcile that with the sometimes graphic nature of questioning that takes place with our youth from the bishop? Do we picture the Bishops as being titillated as they ask the teenage girl in front of them;

"Did he fondle your breasts"
"Was there removal of clothing"
"Did he put his hand underneath your underwear"
"Did he put his fingers inside of you"
"Did you fondle his genitalia"
"Did he put his mouth on your genitalia"

And on and on and on. Many women can vouch for this line of questioning, and even more probing than the above examples!

Just a whole lot of thoughts touching this very ironic situation.

[_Chap]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

I wouldn't quite want to put it that way. Anyone who takes on the difficult task of moderation deserves to have their motives interpreted with maximum charity for as long as possible. I do however think that it might have been better for the moderator in question to have referred the decision in this case to someone else.

DCP has exposed his in real life details massively and deliberately all over the internet, and is not a registered member of this board. Multiple images of his face are widely available, with his full consent. The post referred to broke no board rule at all, and referred to an incident that was already widely known. I am not very happy about the sudden emergence of a policy that takes the 'spirit of the rules' provision and extends it to the point where there is a risk that it will become impossible to guess in advance whether a post will fall within the rules or not.

That way the MADboard lies.

[_Yoda]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

You idiot! Haven't you been paying attention? My crush is not on Dan. It is on Kish!

[_Yoda]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

I wouldn't quite want to put it that way. Anyone who takes on the difficult task of moderation deserves to have their motives interpreted with maximum charity for as long as possible. I do however think that it might have been better for the moderator in question to have referred the decision in this case to someone else.

DCP has exposed his in real life details massively and deliberately all over the internet, and is not a registered member of this board. Multiple images of his face are widely available, with his full consent. The post referred to broke no board rule at all, and referred to an incident that was already widely known. I am not very happy about the sudden emergence of a policy that takes the 'spirit of the rules' provision and extends it to the point where there is a risk that it will become impossible to guess in advance whether a post will fall within the rules or not.

That way the MADboard lies.

Shades and I were actioning at the same time. I was truly a clone of Shades, as he wants it. Take it up with him.

[_Chap]

Shades and I were actioning at the same time. I was truly a clone of Shades, as he wants it. Take it up with him.

My comment was addressed to anyone who cares to read it. But I have deleted your emoticon to make it more Shades-friendly.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

I guess that is in his hands.

[_Kishkumen]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site. Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Good god, liz - I mean, I know you have a crush on Dan and all, but seriously, do your girl bits have to do all the thinking?

Jesus...

H.

That's pretty rude, LDST.

[_Dr. Shades]

Are you guys kidding me? Dan *has* leaked his in real life information all over the place on this site.

Right, but not that particular bit of information.

Why does he get special treatment? No rule was broken.

Believe it or not, it's not special treatment. I would extend to you the same treatment if it ever became necessary. And I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to do so, either.

I am not very happy about the sudden emergence of a policy that takes the 'spirit of the rules' provision and extends it to the point where there is a risk that it will become impossible to guess in advance whether a post will fall within the rules or not.

Here's how to guess whether a post will fall within the rules or not: Does the post contain real-life information that might jeopardize a person's employment and/or ecclesiastical standing?

Or, put another way: If there's a chance that it can get someone fired, then it shouldn't be posted. Talk about it only via private message or chat.

[_sock puppet]

Dr Shades,

DCP didn't threaten litigation again, did he?