Why I am not a Mormon

[_Sam Harris]

Well, everyone has a portion of who they are that they have to hide from someone else in order to maintain a civil society. Imposing your will onto others through state implementation, or institutional discrimination, or to a lesser degree butting into familial affairs is the difference. Until atheists succeed in cowing religionists to the degree religionists have cowed atheists I'm not sure the two can be equated in regards to their attempts to "push their agenda".

And you are right about that. I don't know if this country will ever get to the point where it feels that "All-American" isn't white, Christian, and patriotic to the point of almost despising other nations. It's sad, because on one hand we claim to be such a "melting pot", but we don't have the ability to let the other veggies in the pot contribute to the overall flavor of the stew. Sucks...

I hide my murderous thoughts every time I see my mother's sisters. And knowing that I'll be huge in belly the next time they see me is not appealing. I swear I'll smack someone if they touch me...

[_GoodK]

Is there a mod out there that can move this off-topic stuff somewhere?

I would appreciate it.

Not quite ready to see this thread go to hell yet.

In any event, I'm happy to be forthright on this: I don't see anything even remotely ethically problematic in calling someone's attention to a post on a public board.

In case any one lurking is inclined to believe that DCP's tattling had to do with the content of my post (the derision, the mocking, oh the horror) let me just remind you that this is not the only instance in which Dan has "called someone's attention" to this public board. Some of you may remember his email to my dad stating that I started posting as the sockpuppet Chap.

Of course Dan can still be expected to find nothing even remotely ethically problematic with his pattern of being a tattle tale and attempting to effect my personal relationships because I choose to participate in an on-line discussion board anonymously. Cue the dismissive reply...

[_Sam Harris]

*snarky comment at stupidity*

[_Chap]

OMG, I'd so love to go to England. I finally got through the first season of the Tudors, though I'm pissed at what changes they did make in the actual historical happenings for the sake of time and "thrills". Margaret married into Scotland, not Portugal! Mary married into France! The kings that each woman married did not die by murder from the wife's hands, one was killed on Flodden Field (Margaret's) and one died of old age and too much sex (Mary's). That's exciting too!

Humph...

I just want to see all those castles, especially Hampton Court.

OK, let's go Old Testament:

Please excuse me if you are a seasoned traveller, but I would recommend France as an alternative to England if you are interested in medieval buildings (including castles) and townscapes, plus their associated history. Some reasons are:

1. It has the same population as England, but has a greater land area, and so is less crowded, and generally greener and more peaceful.

2. It has clear freeways (OK you pay a bit to drive on them), and an uncrowded and efficient public transport system.

3. Food and accommodation are markedly cheaper, and generally better.

4. It has a great deal of amazing medieval and Renaissance stuff. For centuries it was richer and at a higher cultural level than England, and it shows. There are many little unspoiled towns clustered round fascinating castles and wonderful palaces or churches.

You can't run out of stuff to see, and you will enjoy the in between bits immensely.

Don't get the idea that I am saying you won't enjoy England. But if you look at a few of the green Michelin guides to some of the regions of France I think you will see what I mean. And so long as you are willing to learn the French for "please", "thank you", "excuse me" and so on (and remember to say "Bonjour" in a shop before you say anything else), you will find the people are really friendly and welcoming, including to Americans.

Oh yes, and they have probably the world's lowest rate of positive response to LDS missionaries, I believe. That can't be bad, can it?

Back on topic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Give it whatever word you want, but in my view it was simply wrong to do what you did.

While, in my view, it wasn't.

We can repeat ourselves a few dozen more times, but do you see any point in that?

In any event, I'm happy to be forthright on this: I don't see anything even remotely ethically problematic in calling someone's attention to a post on a public board.

In case any one lurking is inclined to believe that DCP's tattling [sic] had to do with the content of my post (the derision, the mocking, oh the horror) let me just remind you that this is not the only instance in which Dan has "called someone's attention" to this public board. Some of you may remember his email to my dad stating that I started posting as the sockpuppet Chap.

Here's the sum total of what I wrote to GoodK's father about "Chap's" post, which has to be understood in the light of my acquaintanceship with his father over roughly a quarter of a century, and which occurred as part of a particular correspondence that had been sparked and fed by the fact that my friend's daughter was lying critically ill in the intensive care unit of my local hospital:

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Daniel C. Peterson <XXXXX> wrote:
It seems that your son is posting as "Chap" now, rather than as "GoodK."

What I admit that I don't understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I'm wrong but that I'm either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who've never met their patient, they're discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It's really pretty funny.

Any news about your daughter?

-dcp

Plainly, I was wrong in my assumption that "GoodK" had become "Chap." (I can't now recall why I assumed that. I'm not the dedicated student of this board and its participants that some imagine me to be, and I hadn't looked in for a while.) But my attention was indisputably focused on the content of what "GoodK" (as I mistakenly thought) and some of his friends were posting here. And, while I realize that some here will insist that I was motivated by malice and a desire to harm GoodK and disrupt his family, I don't think that a reasonable reader will be able to derive proof of malevolent intent from what I actually wrote.

Of course Dan can still be expected to find nothing even remotely ethically problematic with his pattern of being a tattle tale and attempting to effect my personal relationships because I attempted to participate in an on-line discussion board anonymously.

I'm happy that you aren't surprised by my failure to find this ethically problematic, let alone horrific. What's even more shocking, despite your effective use of bold letters, is that I don't even plead guilty to a "pattern" of being a "tattle tale." This was simply the second part of a portion of the same conversation.

Cue the dismissive reply...

What else would you expect from somebody of my ilk?

[_GoodK]

delete

[_Sam Harris]

*snarky comment at stupidity*

**Much better than you're misuse of yet another word**

Do you feel better now?

[_solomarineris]

Are you done with your testimony?

Yes. As indicated by the period. Good contribution.

Calm down, I'm on your side.
Your Testimon(ke)y, is right on the money.
And of course when you elicit Jafar's responses, that's a great bonus.

[_GoodK]

*snarky comment at stupidity*

**Much better than you're misuse of yet another word**

Do you feel better now?

No. I'm hungry, hot, and sleepy.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In any event, I'm happy to be forthright on this: I don't see anything even remotely ethically problematic in calling someone's attention to a post on a public board.

In case any one lurking is inclined to believe that DCP's tattling [sic] had to do with the content of my post (the derision, the mocking, oh the horror) let me just remind you that this is not the only instance in which Dan has "called someone's attention" to this public board. Some of you may remember his email to my dad stating that I started posting as the sockpuppet Chap.

Here's the sum total of what I wrote to GoodK's father about "Chap's" post, which has to be understood in the light of my acquaintanceship with his father over roughly a quarter of a century, and which occurred as part of a particular correspondence that had been sparked and fed by the fact that my friend's daughter was lying critically ill in the intensive care unit of my local hospital:

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Daniel C. Peterson <XXXXX> wrote:
It seems that your son is posting as "Chap" now, rather than as "GoodK."

What I admit that I don't understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I'm wrong but that I'm either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who've never met their patient, they're discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It's really pretty funny.

Any news about your daughter?

-dcp

Wow. I had forgotten about this. You were actually keeping tabs on GoodK to his father?! This clearly shows that your forwarding GoodK's message to his dad was not an isolated incident. I remember you once accused Mr. Scratch of "stalking," but that's precisely what you've been doing to GoodK (on this bb, at least) by keeping his father updated on what he says here. Dan, you've got some real issues, and that you don't recognize any problem with your behavior speaks volumes.

Plainly, I was wrong in my assumption that "GoodK" had become "Chap." (I can't now recall why I assumed that. I'm not the dedicated student of this board and its participants that some imagine me to be, and I hadn't looked in for a while.) But my attention was indisputably focused on the content of what "GoodK" (as I mistakenly thought) and some of his friends were posting here.

Ageed. Ergo, my "stalking" comment above.

And, while I realize that some here will insist that I was motivated by malice and a desire to harm GoodK and disrupt his family, I don't think that a reasonable reader will be able to derive proof of malevolent intent from what I actually wrote.

It may not be "malevolent," but you certainly appear "unstable" when it comes to GoodK.

Of course Dan can still be expected to find nothing even remotely ethically problematic with his pattern of being a tattle tale and attempting to effect my personal relationships because I attempted to participate in an on-line discussion board anonymously.

I'm happy that you aren't surprised by my failure to find this ethically problematic, let alone horrific. What's even more shocking, despite your effective use of bold letters, is that I don't even plead guilty to a "pattern" of being a "tattle tale." This was simply the second part of a portion of the same conversation.

Watch your back, GoodK -- the good professor thinks his behavior is normal and acceptable.