Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_stemelbow]

Since you left Liz's board I guess we have to discuss this with you here.

Well, on Liz's board I was taunted by Dan's cheer leaders and Dan to report him. They were sure that that would somehow make a fool out of me. I felt there was in real life possible harm for Dan and/or his buddy and so would not act on their taunts. Thus I proposed to write up a nameless scenario changing the basic story somewhat, which I did and posted for their approval/modification.

No one taunted you and no one acted as Dan's cheerleaders. After you refused to listen to anyone's arguments and continued to beat the same incessant drum that Dan had committed a violation, I told you that if you were certain he was wrong, then report him--that way you would have a clear conscience AND you'd find out the truth. Then rather than go ahead and report it yourself, you had the gall to try and get someone else to do it for you! Since NONE of the rest of us had any interest in reporting it, for various reasons, why on earth would any of us want to do it????
This was one of the most outrageous things I've seen you do--and then to have the nerve to complain about it!

I was then going to send two questions to the privacy department of the church; 1. would this scenario be a violation of policy? 2. what would be the punishment for such a violation be?

I proposed to send this off in an email with Liz copied and to then have Liz report the answers.

Yes, this was all your proposal, no one wanted any part of it. I think only Harmony was concerned about it being a violation, but even she had no interest in reporting it--ONLY YOU. A number of us reiterated that if you were so committed to the belief that it was a violation, you should take care of it, not try to drag others into your plan.

Dan immediately posted a response somewhat similar to: "do what you must quickly". Of course comparing what I was doing to Judas being a traitor to Jesus.

I took this to mean that Dan was indeed worried about this and that I would be pulling the ultimate betrayal if I was to send it (which I dropped at this point)

Once again, you read things into what other people say. I think he meant that you ought to do what you felt you had to do. Was it a nice thing to do? To turn Dan in and try to get him in trouble? Not in any normal world it is not, but in my world, if you feel so strongly that a wrong has been committed, you should act, if for no reason than to feel that you did the right thing.
I just do not get you, Rock. You are still going on about this and complaining about others who disagreed with you?

It's amazing that he is now taunting the public to again turn him and Greg, um I mean his buddy in.

Crazy s***

This continual naming of a person you think is 'guilty' when you have no proof is not cute. And no one is 'taunting' you. They are asking you to act on your conscience if that is truly what is bothering you. But, if you act out of spite and hatred, you will have to live with yourself.

good post.

[_stemelbow]

Gee, Jersey Girl never voiced an opinion on rather Dan's buddy violated policy. I assume that was because she would agree that he did. Everything you note in this post had nothing to do with this topic stem, but of course you had me on ignore and did not follow this topic closely.

Did anyone attack you with terms like liar over there? or was that just me when you lied about me here? Because constantly attacked as a liar doesn't quite characterize reality. Jersey Girl and others called you out when you were relentless rude to them--remember all the vitriolic remarks you made to her?

That you're trying to deceive people about it now is just ridiculous.

[_stemelbow]

Stem had me on ignore long before this, he is simply echoing the boards general pro-Dan can do no wrong, critics are liars sentiments (MDDB2). He has no statements to report.

No one there thinks Dan can do no wrong--Dan included on that. And there are critics there, Rockslider. I don't' get the impression that any of the posters there would agree that critics are liars.

It just so happens that we're generally nice and cordial to each other. Stop pretending people didn't try their hardest to be nice and cordial to you.

[_RockSlider]

Once again, you read things into what other people say. I think he meant that you ought to do what you felt you had to do. Was it a nice thing to do? To turn Dan in and try to get him in trouble?

Well A.I., if you had read my posts there, you would know that I maintained on several occassions that there was nothing to turn Dan in for, it was his buddy that violated the privacy policy, not Dan.

But of course your ears would only ever hear assumed assaults on Dan, and not what I repeated over and over. Funny part for every time I repeated my argument, there were three or four supporters repeating their opinion that nothing wrong was done. And yet I'm the villian and liar and the cause of a 10 page mega attack Dan thread (the OP was titled something like "Could Dan's buddy be in trouble").

Oh well, enough of this, glad I'm gone, run back and report your killer posting over here setting me straight.

[_Alter Idem]

Stem had me on ignore long before this, he is simply echoing the boards general pro-Dan can do no wrong, critics are liars sentiments (MDDB2). He has no statements to report.

All I did was continue to maintain that Dan's buddy had violated the Church's privacy policy, and somehow I misunderstood or lied because everyone else continued to maintained Dan's and his buddies innocience.

What I remember was posters explaining why there was no violation and being very patient while doing so. I also remember you posting responses as if you'd not read anything we'd said. It was exasperating to feel that we were not even having a conversation. Finally, we suggested that if you felt so certain that there had been a violation, you ought to act upon it--and THAT was considered an attack. I really don't know what you wanted from us, except to change our minds, which we weren't going to do, because you were wrong.

Of all the tempests in teapots that have been cooked up here at MDB, this is one of the most ridiculous!

Rock, I don't remember our interactions being so negative--I remember board members being supportive and letting you know that your participation was valued, but since your experience was so different and your feelings towards us so negative, you did the right thing by leaving Geeks. Since you have such horrible memories of people taunting you, and calling you a liar, I think you're better off here with people you feel more comfortable with and who seem to appreciate your perceptions and views.

[_Kishkumen]

Of course, if one is the lone gun on one side of the argument, it is practically impossible to respond to everyone on the other side of the issue. I'm just surprised he hung around in that group.

[_Stormy Waters]

What I remember was posters explaining why there was no violation and being very patient while doing so.

Again,
Thank you for clarifying that you and other members don't think of this as a violation. Anonymous posters should be aware that church databases may be used in attempts to sleuth out their identities.

[_Kishkumen]

What I remember was posters explaining why there was no violation and being very patient while doing so.

Again,
Thank you for clarifying that you and other members don't think of this as a violation. Anonymous posters should be aware that church databases can be used in attempts to sleuth out their identities.

No kidding. Sheesh!

[_Darth J]

In summary, the official LDS Church business for which Daniel Peterson had his bishop friend access confidential member information was ________________________.

[_Alter Idem]

Once again, you read things into what other people say. I think he meant that you ought to do what you felt you had to do. Was it a nice thing to do? To turn Dan in and try to get him in trouble?

Well A.I., if you had read my posts there, you would know that I maintained on several occassions that there was nothing to turn Dan in for, it was his buddy that violated the privacy policy, not Dan.

Actually, I did read your posts and commented on this. You kept insisting you needed Dan's friend's name so that you could turn him in, and we all told you that you didn't. All you needed to do was tell them what Dan did and IF it was followed up on, he'd have to supply the name--to the proper authorities. NOT to you, so you and your friends could drag another innocent party into this mess or go on some witch hunt.

But of course your ears would only ever hear assumed assaults on Dan, and not what I repeated over and over. Funny part for every time I repeated my argument, there were three or four supporters repeating their opinion that nothing wrong was done. And yet I'm the villian and liar and the cause of a 10 page mega attack Dan thread (the OP was titled something like "Could Dan's buddy be in trouble").

Rock, if you say something over and over again, ad nauseum, it does not make it true.

You are wrong about this. There was no improper use of the directory by Dan's friend or by Dan.

Oh well, enough of this, glad I'm gone, run back and report your killer posting over here setting me straight.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not interested in discussing this with others and they aren't interested in discussing you either.

I spoke up because what you are doing here is very unkind to Liz, who was and still is (surprisingly) a good friend to you and she doesn't deserve this insensitive treatment by you.

If you have even a shred of loyalty to past friends, you'll stop trying to build yourself up by tearing her down.