stemelbow wrote:I would think most people wouldn't have a problem with it.
You think most people wouldn't have a problem if someone who had a problem with them had a friend access a confidential database to ferret information out about them?
I think you're stunningly ignorant of how most people think.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
stemelbow wrote:I would think most people wouldn't have a problem with it.
You go sticking your fat ass into any password protected data base trying to learn anything to do with me and I'll have a big f*****g problem with it and then so will you. Got it[name deleted]?
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make. Could you please stop beating around the bush.
hobo1512 wrote:No data whatsoever? What were they seeing then?
Assuming that all the bishop did was run a search: not only does "No hits returned" constitute data, it was useful data. Dr. Peterson actually used the data, for example, and a few posters here have (perhaps ill-advisedly) continued to document this data's usefulness on a daily basis.
hobo1512 wrote:No data whatsoever? What were they seeing then?
Assuming that all the bishop did was run a search: not only does "No hits returned" constitute data, it was useful data. Dr. Peterson actually used the data, for example, and a few posters here have (perhaps ill-advisedly) continued to document this data's usefulness on a daily basis.
sock puppet wrote:If it was the 'altruistic' Mormon purpose Dan is feeding you, and your are obliging by posting for him, then Dan, having been a bishop, would know the proper protocol would have been to provide what he knew--before asking a friend to access limited database info--to the COB and let them handle it. Dan's "for the Church" claim is a claim that he is a rogue vigilante, going outside the proper LDS bureaucratic channels and protocols. But, that's just Dan's smokescreen. The reality is he convinced a bishop friend to access a restricted database, limited to use for that bishop's calling, for Dan's own personal crusade and vendetta purpose.
A perfect summation of what really happened and why.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Alter Idem wrote:Another mistake is thinking that church records were checked by someone with no ecclesiastical authority--first, no member records were checked. This was a directory of presently serving Bishops.
It does not matter. Dan went to his bishop/friend with a list of names, and if it had turned out Everybody Wang Chung was, indeed, a bishop, Dan would have had his in real life name. Neither Dan, nor his bishop/friend, had any legal OR ecclesiastical right, nor any business, to that information, and the fact that no bishops turned up on the list does not acquit Dan of illegally attempting to acquire it.
Elphaba
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~~Walt Whitman
It does not matter. Dan went to his bishop/friend with a list of names, and if it had turned out Everybody Wang Chung was, indeed, a bishop, Dan would have had his in real life name. Dan had no right, nor any business, to that information, and the fact that no bishops turned up on the list does not acquit Dan of illegally attempting to acquire it.
Dan is supposed to be this super clever guy, but then there are moments like this. And the time he unwittingly admitted getting paid to do apologetics, after he swore up and down that he didn't.
