liz3564 wrote:Rollo wrote:I shouldn't have brought it up. I apologize.
No, you shouldn't have.
Apology accepted.
You actually brought it up.
Rollo,
Don't apologize for something you didn't start. ;)
- Doc
liz3564 wrote:Rollo wrote:I shouldn't have brought it up. I apologize.
No, you shouldn't have.
Apology accepted.
MsJack wrote:CFR, stemelbow. Cite a single place in the entire history of my message board posting where I have been "unwilling to be fair in [my] assessments." I look forward to your examples.
In any case, for those who actually are interested in how accurate my account is, the young woman in question confirmed his stalking behavior and his cursing her in the name of the priesthood in the comments on my blog (start here).
Count it however you want. I think I'm just going to run the question by DH's bishop regardless and report back on whether or not he thinks that's an appropriate use of church resources. You and liz3564 and Alter Idem all say this was a fair use of church resources, and West's behavior towards my friend was far more unhinged and creepier than anything Everybody Wang Chung ever did to Dan, so you should have nothing to worry about. Besides, I'd only be asking the bishop to look up one name, not an entire list of names.
Darth J wrote:Very good, David. Your religion has a long and proud history of saying one thing in public, but doing another in private. So yeah, asserting that the LDS Church doesn't really care about the privacy of its members personal information is a great way to make your organization look like the real church of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than a vacuous corporate bureaucracy full of empty promises. Let it not be said that the Mormontologist obsession with insular navel gazing has any bearing on how seriously the outside world can be expected to take this religion. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?
That's so not relevant at all to the issue.
No. You are hopelessly wrong. The statement you are talking about is a legal document, and the fact that it is on a computer screen instead of paper is not relevant to its status as a legal "document." It is an end user license agreement. License agreements are a type of contract, which are interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language used. It is only if there is some ambiguity in the language---which is not present here---that evidence extraneous to the words of the agreement comes in to determine the intent of the parties. And you have no evidence whatsoever to support your naked, self-serving assertion that the "spirit" of this license agreement allows a non-bishop to try to track down an anonymous nobody over a personal grudge about message board posts. Let's look at what the Utah Supreme Court says about interpreting a contract, since the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole:
Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Assoc., 2002 UT 3
¶12 In interpreting a contract, the intentions of the parties are controlling. Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, ¶ 13, 987 P.2d 48 (quotation omitted). "[W]e first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties." Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); see also Reed v. Davis Co. Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1064-1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law. Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (citing Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 770 (Utah 1995)). If the language within the four corners of the contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence must be looked to in order to determine the intentions of the parties. Id. In evaluating whether the plain language is ambiguous, we attempt to harmonize all of the contract's provisions and all of its terms. Id.; see also Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988). "An ambiguity exists where the language 'is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense.'" Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (quoting R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., Inc., 936 P.2d 1068, 1074 (Utah 1997) (further quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we first look to the plain language within the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in the pre-printed and addendum portions of the agreement.
There is nothing ambiguous about the following words:You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).
According to Peterson's brazen statements on a public message board, he had a current bishop access data that belongs to the Church---THE CHRUCH'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY---for the purpose of satisfying Peterson's obsessive need to get parity of personal information about some anonymous nobody who says on some message board that his interpretation of Mormonism is different than Peterson's. Not only did this bishop (assuming without proof that Peterson's account is accurate) violate the Church's property rights, he violated the privacy of every person on that list Peterson asked him to cross-check.
So guess what, David? If you assert that Daniel Peterson's personal grudges against anonymous internet users are an official church purpose, and one of those people decides his privacy was invaded by an agent of the Church (a bishop) acting within the scope of his employment, guess who gets sued? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to f*** the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?
EDIT: fixed a typo
stemelbow wrote:I've done that in this thread. viewtopic.php?p=694610#p694610
stemelbow wrote:There is a connection. This guy is boasting to be a bishop who attacks DCP.
stemelbow wrote:He didn't give him information, anything more than a no, as far as we know.
stemelbow wrote:I'm very curious why you would be so deceptive like this. It's not as if this example has anything to do with accessing information that the church has on you.
stemelbow wrote:he just wanted more confirmation on that
stemelbow wrote:you have clearly shows you aren't fair at all.
MsJack wrote:The bishop gave Dan the information that none of the people on his list were bishops---information that Dan could not have gotten otherwise. We do not know that the bishop wouldn't have given Dan the names of matches; that strikes me as quite ridiculous.
There is no deception. You and Dan's defenders are arguing that it's acceptable for a bishop to access the records of people on the Internet whom the bishops have no connection to because their acquaintances suspect that they might be lying.
That's just creepy. I've been called a "liar" on the Internet by fauxpologists such as yourself many times and I don't want you people thinking you have the right to access my records or my husband's records via your bishop friends just because of your hysteria.
Yes, I'm so unfair to Dan that I've defended him on this forum on multiple occasions:
viewtopic.php?p=695278#p695278
viewtopic.php?p=624756#p624756
You, on the other hand, have never agreed with a criticism of him. Never. When people on here say anything critical about him, you show up with your terribad Danpologetics as sure as the sun will rise. So don't lecture me on fairness, because you don't know anything about it.
stemelbow wrote:My goodness, guys you have a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 posting on this very board. If you need someone to help you convict DCP and his friend contact him. No need, really. He's on this board. He might not a thing about it. But, we all know he must have the connections to do something if you truly felt it was an offense worthy of all of this belly-aching.
stemelbow wrote:As it is not one piece of data was given to Dan from the directory. There was no question asked to give Dan the names of any bishops who do appear. Nothing of the sort. You are making that up because it fits well with your own vendetta.
...
It's that we all know he is lying. And it's also the case that the bishop probably realizes Everybody Wang Chung is boasting anonymously about things we know are untrue and then attacks DCP.
...
Everybody Wang Chung records were not accessed.
stemelbow wrote:It doesn't matter what strikes you as ridiculous. It matters what we know about it.
stemelbow wrote:It's that we all know he is lying.
stemelbow wrote:Everybody Wang Chung records were not accessed. [SNIP] The only people who have a complaint here, it seems, would be the names of the folks who went on the trip. If they find this all suspect, then so be it.
stemelbow wrote:Darth J wrote:Very good, David. Your religion has a long and proud history of saying one thing in public, but doing another in private. So yeah, asserting that the LDS Church doesn't really care about the privacy of its members personal information is a great way to make your organization look like the real church of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than a vacuous corporate bureaucracy full of empty promises. Let it not be said that the Mormontologist obsession with insular navel gazing has any bearing on how seriously the outside world can be expected to take this religion. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?
You see, DJ. What would happen is, no one will do anything about this. So while you think you have sucha clever point, it just so happens that no information was ever taken and exchanged from the directory. Indeed, the only effort here was to show all the more that Everybody Wang Chung was laying. They both knew he was.
That's so not relevant at all to the issue.
Sure it is.
No. You are hopelessly wrong. The statement you are talking about is a legal document, and the fact that it is on a computer screen instead of paper is not relevant to its status as a legal "document." It is an end user license agreement. License agreements are a type of contract, which are interpreted according to the plain meaning of the language used. It is only if there is some ambiguity in the language---which is not present here---that evidence extraneous to the words of the agreement comes in to determine the intent of the parties. And you have no evidence whatsoever to support your naked, self-serving assertion that the "spirit" of this license agreement allows a non-bishop to try to track down an anonymous nobody over a personal grudge about message board posts. Let's look at what the Utah Supreme Court says about interpreting a contract, since the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Utah corporation sole:
Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Assoc., 2002 UT 3
¶12 In interpreting a contract, the intentions of the parties are controlling. Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, ¶ 13, 987 P.2d 48 (quotation omitted). "[W]e first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties." Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); see also Reed v. Davis Co. Sch. Dist., 892 P.2d 1063, 1064-1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law. Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (citing Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 770 (Utah 1995)). If the language within the four corners of the contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence must be looked to in order to determine the intentions of the parties. Id. In evaluating whether the plain language is ambiguous, we attempt to harmonize all of the contract's provisions and all of its terms. Id.; see also Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988). "An ambiguity exists where the language 'is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense.'" Dixon, 1999 UT 89 at ¶ 14, 987 P.2d 48 (quoting R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Indus., Inc., 936 P.2d 1068, 1074 (Utah 1997) (further quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we first look to the plain language within the four corners of the agreement to determine the intentions of the parties, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in the pre-printed and addendum portions of the agreement.
Interesting that this is a legal case for you rather than something for the Church to determine.
There is nothing ambiguous about the following words:
You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).
And after all of the commotion here, this is the best, I would say, statement that would convict them. So I say, go ahead and turn them in. We'll see what happens.
My goodness, guys you have a member of the 2nd quorum of the 70 posting on this very board. If you need someone to help you convict DCP and his friend contact him. No need, really. He's on this board. He might not a thing about it. But, we all know he must have the connections to do something if you truly felt it was an offense worthy of all of this belly-aching.
According to Peterson's brazen statements on a public message board, he had a current bishop access data that belongs to the Church---THE CHRUCH'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY---for the purpose of satisfying Peterson's obsessive need to get parity of personal information about some anonymous nobody who says on some message board that his interpretation of Mormonism is different than Peterson's. Not only did this bishop (assuming without proof that Peterson's account is accurate) violate the Church's property rights, he violated the privacy of every person on that list Peterson asked him to cross-check.
No they've been clear that they did so because they already knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying. Therefore they also knew doing as they did would not harm anyone.
So guess what, David? If you assert that Daniel Peterson's personal grudges against anonymous internet users are an official church purpose, and one of those people decides his privacy was invaded by an agent of the Church (a bishop) acting within the scope of his employment, guess who gets sued? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Alrighty then. Go and persue a lawsuit, DJ. I mean I seriously wouldn't advocate you doing so for your sakes, but since you are so adamant you have such a wonderful case do it. Stop pouting about it and do it.
Your little cult of personality is so myopic that you hapless lapdogs have been going on for pages and pages about how wonderful it is to f*** the Church (by invading its property rights and potentially subjecting it to liability) to satisfy Daniel Peterson's personal vendettas. Why don't you just stop calling yourself "LDS" right now, and admit that you, Liz, and Alter Idem are members of the Church of Daniel Peterson?
EDIT: fixed a typo
Nice try. You can be so dramatic it's cute though.
I don't get why you don't stop pouting about harmless things and people as if your dramatic posture means something to someone. Just let things go, DJ, and I'd wager you'd have a much more delightful time.