Remove the Facebook posts

[_MCB]

I would rather rise above someone else's offenses, than stoop to validate them by repeating them.

[_bcspace]

It's good that Barack Obama is not registered here,

You don't know that.

I checked the Members list and Barry Soetoro is not among them.

[_zeezrom]

Just doing my superficial feminist fishing here...

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.

Why use euphemisms?

[_Kishkumen]

Either we have censorship or we don't. I believe Liz's friendship with Dan has influenced her judgment. No, I don't believe the story as it's being told. Liz, in my books, is untrustworthy when it comes to moderation and her intents.

I'd really like to hear how posting a picture of Dan's 'mistake' can do serious harm to his career. I mean, this pic is now floating around Facebook, for god's sake, as is Dan's response.

I have little sympathy for a man who engages in or supports ad hominem attacks on those he deems critics of the Church. If this misstep damages his ability to be taken seriously in that regard, the world is better for it. At least he might think twice about saying s*** that damages the reputation of others.

H.

What we are willing to do to others says something about who we are. What we are willing to watch others do to someone says something about who we are. Daniel's personal morality in treating someone else in a particular way does not prompt me to abandon my values; it sharpens my determination to live up to my aspirations.

[_sock puppet]

What we are willing to watch others do to someone says something about who we are.

What does it say about who Daniel is that he is willing to watch Pitbull bump and grind his crotch on J.Lo's butt?

(I realize that your context suggests you meant something else--but this must be free baseball day--so many homerun pitches coming my way today!)

[_RayAgostini]

I'd really like to hear how posting a picture of Dan's 'mistake' can do serious harm to his career. I mean, this pic is now floating around Facebook, for god's sake, as is Dan's response.

Well here's some information:

Curiosity Killed the Cat

Over the past few weeks I have seen an ever increasing amount of Socialcam updates to my friends on Facebook. And many of these updates, I’m fairly confident they would not want others to know they were viewing these videos. Many of these friends have teaching jobs, police officers, company VPs and CEOs. I would hate to hear that any of their employment was affected by innocently clicking a link to view a video they were curios to find out about and not knowing what was in the video and it turns out to be something they would never had looked at if they knew the contents.

Here was part of DCPs explanation:

Surprised that he would watch it, but REALLY surprised that he would (as I thought) choose to ANNOUNCE that he had watched it, I watched it, too, to see if there was something funny or significant in it that would lead him to want to announce it to all of his Facebook friends. (There wasn't.)

Is that justification for you to refer to him as "porno Peterson"?

[_zeezrom]

I am so lost.

Back to my work!

[_Doctor Scratch]

This may help provide some context for this thread:

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years, and especially over the past several months. He seems to spend much of each day sneering at and deriding "apologists" in particular, but also, to a remarkably large extent, Mormons in general. And, while he's rigorous to the point of blatant injustice with regard to the flaws he sees in those targets, he's remarkably serene (to the point of blissful unconsciousness) about the obvious flaws on his side.

The old Popular Front slogan and implicit rule of thumb was Pas d'ennemi à gauche ("No enemy to the left"), which meant, in practice, that the preferred enemy was always somebody or something on the right. For Kishkumen, there seems to be no enemy, nobody to be seriously criticized, among critics of the Church and of those who seek to defend it. But he subjects defenders of the faith to withering disdain and moral indignation, often on remarkably flimsy and even downright illusory grounds. And he's notably credulous with respect to often extraordinarily wild charges leveled against them.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/526 ... e__st__300

I wasn't aware that DCP had been "extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years." I knew that they had had their up-and-down moments, but wasn't aware that the animosity extended back that far. I would guess that's he's livid over the fact that J Green has spoken of Kishkumen in complimentary terms.

[_cafe crema]

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.

Not likely I've read DCP bagging on Kish just yesterday and he's never shown himself to be of a conciliatory nature in anything I've seen him post, ever.

[_zeezrom]

Yes, but can we do better?

It seems Kish is running the high ground despite what happens on yonder lame board.