Why I am not a Mormon

[_The Nehor]

I don't think DCP's decision was a bad one.

Good grief. Don't you realize that you've just lowered yourself to the level of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and Dan Peterson?

How dare you violate the unanimity of this board???

Ooops, guess i better hide the bodies better....anyone know of a good dumping ground?

[Guest]

I guess Dan feels he is above speaking with me directly.

What??? My post to you above is addressed directly to you, in the second person singular.

But I hope everyone lurking takes note of Dan's performance.

All six of you, snap to attention!

This is the cream of the crop at F.A.R.M.S. Parents of BYU students, take note.

And that includes all of you many parents of BYU students!

Instead of owning up to what he has done and at least admitting his timing was bad, he has done his best to avoid taking any sort of responsibility while shifting the blame to me.

I've freely acknowledged what I did.

I even sent Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 2 directly to you, something that you have thus far refused to acknowledge but, at least, apparently no longer intend to deny.

I've acknowledged that I worried about the timing.

I freely accept whatever "responsiblity" this act of concern for a friend might entail.

I shift no "blame" for my action to you -- note, incidentally, the second person singular pronoun -- though I think your mockery of your father was, to put it gently, unfortunate.

Now he has stooped to threatening to post more personal information about me on the internet.

You shouldn't invite hordes of lurkers to read this thread and then immediately make so transparently false a claim.

It reminds me a bit of the old Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart, who, stung by rumors that he was having an extramarital affair, invited reporters to follow him about and see -- and was almost instantly caught with his mistress, Donna Rice, aboard the yacht Monkey Business.

Wow.

Wow indeed.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Instead of owning up to what he has done and at least admitting his timing was bad, he has done his best to avoid taking any sort of responsibility while shifting the blame to me.

This has always been his M.O. He never admits he's wrong about anything (frankly, I'm surprised he admitted he mixed up you and "Chap"). It appears that pretty much everyone (except Nehor) agrees that Dan's forwarding your post to your dad was wrong, no matter how he spins it (Dan has even made Crockett look good, a rarity around here). Dan's taken a pummeling on this bb lately, which is probably why he's 'dug in his heels' in refusing to acknowledge his obvious boneheaded mistake. Rather than admit he was wrong, he'll leave the bb in a self-righteous huff (he's done the same so many times before here and on other bb's). Dan won't admit it, of course, but he knows he was wrong and owes you an apology. But don't hold your breath ....

[_Daniel Peterson]

Instead of owning up to what he has done and at least admitting his timing was bad, he has done his best to avoid taking any sort of responsibility while shifting the blame to me.

This has always been his M.O. He never admits he's wrong about anything (frankly, I'm surprised he admitted he mixed up you and "Chap").

Which, incidentally, decisively disproves your contention that I never admit that I'm wrong about anything.

All that's needed to refute a universal negative proposition is a single counterexample. More examples are readily available, but would be logically superfluous.

This is highly amusing, though, following directly, as it does, upon the heels of a case where GoodK made a flat assertion that I immediately proved wrong, but which he has not withdrawn.

Does GoodK ever admit that he's wrong about anything? I have no idea. But it's amusing that the question isn't even being asked.

It appears that pretty much everyone (except Nehor) agrees that Dan's forwarding your post to your dad was wrong, no matter how he spins it (Dan has even made Crockett look good, a rarity around here). Dan's taken a pummeling on this bb lately, which is probably why he's 'dug in his heels' in refusing to acknowledge his obvious boneheaded mistake. Rather than admit he was wrong, he'll leave the bb in a self-righteous huff (he's done the same so many times before here and on other bb's). Dan won't admit it, of course, but he knows he was wrong and owes you an apology. But don't hold your breath ....

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

If you and your supporters will simply mentally supply my response every time, over the next several pages, whenever you repeat your claim, that will minimize the waste of valuable electrons.

I have privileged access to my own thoughts. If you're going to insist that I'm lying about what I think, what point is there in my saying anything here?

This is an even funnier place than I had realized.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Instead of owning up to what he has done and at least admitting his timing was bad, he has done his best to avoid taking any sort of responsibility while shifting the blame to me.

This has always been his M.O. He never admits he's wrong about anything (frankly, I'm surprised he admitted he mixed up you and "Chap").

Which, incidentally, decisively disproves your contention that I never admit that I'm wrong about anything.

Sorry. I'll rephrase. Everyone reading this, please replace "never" with "99.99999% of the time" Is that better, Dan?

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

I was writing to GoodK, not you, in explaining your M.O. that I have observed over the years.

This is an even funnier place than I had realized.

Thanks to your involvement, for which I salute you.

[_beastie]

Let’s take a different scenario, just for fun. Pretend that an investigator of the LDS church is posting on a board for LDS folks. The investigator obviously intends to join the church and feels bonded to the posters. This same investigator has suffered some serious criticism from his/her strictly atheist family. A member of this investigator’s family has fallen ill, is near death’s door, and the atheist father sends out an email similar to one described earlier in this thread, pontificating about how this person’s senseless suffering demonstrates the illogical proposition of the existence of God. The atheist then goes on to speculate that it’s fortunate for the sick person that his/her family are sensible atheists who won’t subject the ill individual to any religious mumbo-jumbo, and have the sanity to recognize that this person’s recovery is due to the intervention of science.

Now, the investigator is frustrated, and has been putting up with a lot of this sort of thing from his/her family. The investigator vents on the LDS board, referring to his/her father as an atheist blowhard, etc.

Does anyone imagine, even for one little moment, that if Dan actually knew the family, he would email them and inform them of their child’s transgression?

[_The Nehor]

Sorry. I'll rephrase. Everyone reading this, please replace "never" with "99.99999% of the time" Is that better, Dan?

Dangerously large sample size. I'm assuming you've counted 10 million minus 1 false assertions by DCP that he has never retracted?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does anyone imagine, even for one little moment, that if Dan actually knew the family, he would email them and inform them of their child’s transgression?

An interesting question. The fact that my religious solidarity with GoodK's father might make it more likely for me to alert him to GoodK's mockery than I would be to do something similar in a parallel case involving an atheist -- and this is most likely true, but largely only because our common Mormonism facilitates our friendship, while a Mormon/atheist divide would interfere with a friendship to some degree or another -- has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether my action was ethical or not.

I would regard a note to an atheist father as entirely, unproblematically ethical, just as I regard my note to GoodK's theist father as entirely, unproblematically ethical.

Everyone reading this, please replace "never" with "99.99999% of the time" Is that better, Dan?

Yes. It's still factually untrue, but at least it's logically tenable. That's a major step forward for you, and I congratulate you on it.

Incidentally, I don't see you or your Master admitting mistakes or apologizing very often. That trite truism seems fitting about how, when you point at somebody, the rest of the fingers are pointing at you.

[_GoodK]

You seem, however, to assume that I'm a malicious liar --

I assumed you attempted to shame me by sharing my posts with my Dad. I assumed you assumed the poor timing would reflect poorly on my character, and not your poor choice. And I assumed an email which you talked about me and referred to me in the third person was not sent directly by yourself to me.

I wanted to signal my willingness, with your permission, to furnish as much of my corroborating evidence as you were willing to allow me to furnish.

Please explain how adding the remaining nine letters of my name would accomplish this goal. You really think I would buy that, or are you just being coy?

I have to admit that I'm continually floored by the evident assumption of a fair number here that I'm entirely vicious, totally without human feeling, wholly unprincipled, and willing to stoop to any unethical act.

Your own straw man has floored you. I'm not aware of anyone here who thinks that. I certainly don't.

the monster you like to imagine me to be.

I never called you a monster. How does every thread involving you somehow turn into a discussion about how everyone thinks you are a monster, evil, etc?

I'm not much of a critic, but is that a red herring?

Overwhelmingly, the people who actually know me pay no attention to this place. They've never heard of the Crime of the Century, nor of this board, nor of you.

I can say the same. You are a medium sized fish in a very, very small pond.

What is your point?

You proceed as if I haven't just proven your denial wrong.

LOL. I know how you feel!

I have dug up the old email. Sorry it took so long, it was mistakenly filed in my "Villains" folder with those pesky chain emails from Charlie Manson.

I was in fact copied on the email (actually you were replying to an email I sent you and copied my dad regarding cognate accusatives. So you simply hit reply to all, but talked as if I was not in the conversation at all.) Forgive me.

Here is the "Aha" moment you've been waiting for Dan. Enjoy it. Relish it.

Boys and girls, Dan Peterson wins again.

I mistakenly assumed he had not copied me on an email in which he spoke about me as if I wasn't copied on the email, and posted this false information here for all of you to be decieved.

This atones for any bad deed Dan has done, is doing, or will do in the future.

My "transparently false statement" relieves Dan of any and all guilt he would feel (if he wasn't such a monster) for rubbing my Dad's nose in an anonymous post about his sick daughter and trying to make me look like the one insensitive to the situation.

This is an even funnier place than I had realized.

And you fit in all to well.

[_GoodK]

It reminds me a bit of the old Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart, who, stung by rumors that he was having an extramarital affair, invited reporters to follow him about and see -- and was almost instantly caught with his mistress, Donna Rice, aboard the yacht Monkey Business.

You really are going to run with this, aren't you? It's all about scoring points with you, isn't it?