Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Thranduil]

The document is back live until/unless someone can explain to me what the big deal is.

That's your decision, but I regret it. There is no mystery here as to why I encouraged and begged you to take down the document. First, I think posting it violates the board's rules, even with the redactions. Second, beyond that, Dehlin and Rosebud have injected themselves into the pubic debate and have become public figures, at least limited purpose public figures. But, the document you posted refers to people who have not injected themselves into the public debate, and I believe that morality thus prohibits the post. To be sure, the document does not use real names, but that does not change the calculus for me. And, we can all read the document and say "oh who cares, this is no big deal," but that is not for us to decide, and one person mentioned in the document has already objected to its posting.

In these circumstances, I believe posting the document is just wrong, flat wrong, and I don't think it is even a close call. I deeply regret that I had anything to do with its posting.

PS: the post has been reported.

[Jersey Girl]

The document is back live until/unless someone can explain to me what the big deal is.

That's your decision, but I regret it. There is no mystery here as to why I encouraged and begged you to take down the document. First, I think posting it violates the board's rules, even with the redactions. Second, beyond that, Dehlin and Rosebud have injected themselves into the pubic debate and have become public figures, at least limited purpose public figures. But, the document you posted refers to people who have not injected themselves into the public debate, and I believe that morality thus prohibits the post. To be sure, the document does not use real names, but that does not change the calculus for me. And, we can all read the document and say "on who cares, this is no big deal," but that is not for us to decide, and one person mentioned in the document has already objected to its posting.

In these circumstances, I believe posting the document is just wrong, flat wrong, and I don't think it is even a close call. I deeply regret that I had anything to do with its posting.

PS: the post has been reported.

State the rule, please.

[Thranduil]

Thranduil can you tell me in private messages what in real life you are objecting to?

Are you an Admin?

[Thranduil]

That's your decision, but I regret it. There is no mystery here as to why I encouraged and begged you to take down the document. First, I think posting it violates the board's rules, even with the redactions. Second, beyond that, Dehlin and Rosebud have injected themselves into the pubic debate and have become public figures, at least limited purpose public figures. But, the document you posted refers to people who have not injected themselves into the public debate, and I believe that morality thus prohibits the post. To be sure, the document does not use real names, but that does not change the calculus for me. And, we can all read the document and say "on who cares, this is no big deal," but that is not for us to decide, and one person mentioned in the document has already objected to its posting.

In these circumstances, I believe posting the document is just wrong, flat wrong, and I don't think it is even a close call. I deeply regret that I had anything to do with its posting.

PS: the post has been reported.

State the rule, please.

To repeat:

Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website. This also includes information harvested from Facebook.

Note that this rule does not say "do not reveal in real life information that uses the real name of a poster" -- it just says "about any poster." JP's document clearly violates this rule.

[jpatterson]

Note that this rule does not say "do not reveal in real life information that uses the real name of a poster" -- it just says "about any poster." JP's document clearly violates this rule.

What "in real life" information was revealed?

[jpatterson]

The only thing I can think of is that Mayan Elephant doesn't want it know he came to Rosebud's defense on the old board?

[Thranduil]

What "in real life" information was revealed?

I'm not going to repeat it, but one example is the statement about the character of a member of this board. You cannot seriously argue that this statement is not about "real life," whether you believe that statement or not, or whether the statement is true or not. It is about "real life" which triggers the rule.

[jpatterson]

What "in real life" information was revealed?

I'm not going to repeat it, but one example is the statement about the character of a member of this board. You cannot seriously argue that this statement is not about "real life."

John's statement was clearly referencing ME's online persona. That's how I took it at the time and how I take it now.

This may be black and white to you, but it's not to me or apparently others.

[Jersey Girl]

State the rule, please.

To repeat:

Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website. This also includes information harvested from Facebook.

Note that this rule does not say "do not reveal in real life information that uses the real name of a poster" -- it just says "about any poster." JP's document clearly violates this rule.

So just ME? There were one or two other names there. One appears to be a screen name "E" and the other is a "B" name--first name. There might have been a third first name mentioned.

[Jersey Girl]

It's been deleted.

So is that satisfactory to all?