Dan Peterson breaks Church Rules in pursuit of Mopologetics

[_Darth J]

It doesn't matter what strikes you as ridiculous. It matters what we know about it.

What we know is that it was a violation of the church's terms of use. The end.

That is exactly it. That's the end of the discussion.

[_malkie]

...
Nonsense. He wanted Everybody Wang Chung's identity if he could get it. All he would have had to do had he gotten any matches is check to see if any of them were the owners of large law firms dealing with copyright and defamation claims.
...

I'm left wondering why he didn't tackle the problem from that end - why not check to see which of the tour participants owns a law firm?

"OK folks, look at this inscription below the statue. Notice that it looks like a "small-print" legal statement. By the way, is anyone here a lawyer? Know anything about copyright law? Do you, by chance, own a large law firm? Haha, gotcha, Everybody Wang Chung!"

[_Darth J]

...
Nonsense. He wanted Everybody Wang Chung's identity if he could get it. All he would have had to do had he gotten any matches is check to see if any of them were the owners of large law firms dealing with copyright and defamation claims.
...

I'm left wondering why he didn't tackle the problem from that end - why not check to see which of the tour participants owns a law firm?

"OK folks, look at this inscription below the statue. Notice that it looks like a "small-print" legal statement. By the way, is anyone here a lawyer? Know anything about copyright law? Do you, by chance, own a large law firm? Haha, gotcha, Everybody Wang Chung!"

And now we come to L. Ron Hubbard's vision of The Apple Dumpling Gang.

[_Kishkumen]

"Hey, hand waving and BS stories work in Sunday school! That means they will work in the real world, too!" If they already knew Everybody Wang Chung was lying, then there was no reason to have a bishop cross-check a list of customers from a third-party commercial entity with the Church's confidential member information. You don't need to research something you already know. Also, violating members' privacy by accessing their confidential church records to satisfy the personal whims of Daniel Peterson is harmful on its face. That's why the Church has the limited license in place.

QFT.

[_malkie]

...
Nonsense. He wanted Everybody Wang Chung's identity if he could get it. All he would have had to do had he gotten any matches is check to see if any of them were the owners of large law firms dealing with copyright and defamation claims.
...

I'm left wondering why he didn't tackle the problem from that end - why not check to see which of the tour participants owns a law firm?

"OK folks, look at this inscription below the statue. Notice that it looks like a "small-print" legal statement. By the way, is anyone here a lawyer? Know anything about copyright law? Do you, by chance, own a large law firm? Haha, gotcha, Everybody Wang Chung!"

And now we come to L. Ron Hubbard's vision of The Apple Dumpling Gang.

Sorry, too subtle for me. Would you explain, please.

[_harmony]

You actually brought it up.

Rollo,

Don't apologize for something you didn't start. ;)

- Doc

He was being a gentleman. Take a lesson.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He was being a gentleman. Take a lesson.

Well, if I were to receive advice from a Lady I might heed it. In your case I'll pass, Madame.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor Cameron

[_moksha]

Is there any reason Dan should not be reported to Church authorities for misuse of church records?

Under Church Security Addendum #1432, usage of such records for espionage purposes is permitted if a warrant has been properly attained by a Bishop. Since a Bishop assisted Dr. Peterson in this espionage effort, a tacit assumption of a Bishop's Warrant would make this fishing expedition perfectly sanctified. Dr. Peterson is in the clear.

[_harmony]

He was being a gentleman. Take a lesson.

Well, if I were to receive advice from a Lady I might heed it. In your case I'll pass, Madame.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor Cameron

No, you wouldn't. Mainly because you wouldn't recognize a lady were she to drop you on your sitterdowner.

[_ldsfaqs]

Wrong. DCP's bishop friend is presumably not Everybody Wang Chung's bishop---especially if Everybody Wang Chung is his own bishop. The bishop friend has no connection to Everybody Wang Chung and no right to potentially be poking around in his church records. None whatsoever. Bishops only have jurisdiction over the people who live in their own ward boundaries.

Utterly stupid argument....

Please tell us how else someone, member or church leader is supposed to find information on someone who is "anonymous", when they don't know who his Bishop is??? Please tell us....? It's by asking another Bishop to look into the matter.

So, if you see an apparent member of the Church "murder" someone, someone you don't know who they are, don't know their Bishop, you're supposed to just remain silent and not consult with a Bishop, reporting the issue? Are you really telling us this? I'm sure you're not, so how in your warped mind are lesser issues, though still serious (possible Bishop impersination and church destroying activities) for some reason are not "reasonable" reportable issues???

Are you really this dunce???

[The bishop gave Dan the information that none of the people on his list were bishops---information that Dan could not have gotten otherwise. We do not know that the bishop wouldn't have given Dan the names of matches; that strikes me as quite ridiculous.

That's right, when investigating possible crimes, information is shared with those who have the information.

There is no deception. You and Dan's defenders are arguing that it's acceptable for a bishop to access the records of people on the Internet whom the bishops have no connection to because their acquaintances suspect that they might be lying. That's just creepy. I've been called a "liar" on the Internet by fauxpologists such as yourself many times and I don't want you people thinking you have the right to access my records or my husband's records via your bishop friends just because of your hysteria.

"Bishop's" listings are not "private" information..... A Bishop telling ANYONE be it a member OR a "Reporter" that there is no Bishop, or so and so is not a Bishop is not releasing anything "private".

So, in your mind "Reporters" are also "breaking some law" when they ask Bishop's about a member or apparent Bishop, when that person is "public", and Bishop's information is also public?

Nonsense. He wanted Everybody Wang Chung's identity if he could get it. All he would have had to do had he gotten any matches is check to see if any of them were the owners of large law firms dealing with copyright and defamation claims.

Again, Bishop's information is somehow "illegal"?
Anyone has the right to know ANY dang Bishop on the entire planet if they want to know it!!!!
I got the Bishop and Stake President's contact information FROM THE CHURCH ITSELF when my wife took my children to Malaysia!!! Was the Church or anyone else breaking some "rule"??? No they weren't!

You, on the other hand, have never agreed with a criticism of him. Never. When people on here say anything critical about him, you show up with your terribad Danpologetics as sure as the sun will rise. So don't lecture me on fairness, because you don't know anything about it.

That's because Dan I've never seen him do anything actually "wrong".
But I've seen you do plenty. Name something wrong he's actually done?
I will condemn it..... Otherwise, it's all in your mind. You just hate Mormons. And when we defend ourselves and our fellow Mormons from your bigotry, you don't like it.