Plaza Fiasco Lessons

[_Paul Osborne]

The bottom right hand corner of each post has an exclamation point icon.

Wow, that's a revelation -- never noticed that.

Thanks for the good job you do as a moderator. Keep us in line. The celestial board is a special place.



Paul O

[_moksha]

Mak--Where is the documentation regarding what the eyewitnesses observed? How much did they observe of the situation? Are they included in any type of article I can refer to? Thanks!

The very first post at this article:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20090712/

This quote of an eyewitness is of course from one of the couple arrested. Actually, if the Church wanted to prove that they did not embellish their claims, I would think that the multi-camera digital recordings made by Church Security could serve as evidence. Perhaps even photos taken by BYU's Gaydar Satellite Surveillance System could stand in evidence as well.

.

[_Brackite]

Mak--Where is the documentation regarding what the eyewitnesses observed? How much did they observe of the situation? Are they included in any type of article I can refer to? Thanks!

The very first post at this article:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20090712/

How funny that these guys try to claim that they were victims. I witnessed the whole thing. First of all, these two gentlemen did much more then hold hands and kiss, they were completely all over each other. Second of all they were given ample opportunities to leave, these security guards told them politely they could stay on this easement as long as they weren’t all over each other. The two men turned things around quickly, they were drunk and completely obnoxious and rude to the security guards, cussing at them and calling them all sorts of names. That’s when they arrested them for trespassing not kissing. Funny how these two “victims” claim to be victimized, when in reality they were just picking a fight, and wanted some attention which they got.

Thanks, for the important information, maklelan! The Security Guards were clearly in the right within that situation.

[_maklelan]

In light of this new official stance, perhaps the police will amend the charge to include public intoxication.

It's the prerogative of the police officer whether or not to charge someone with public intoxication, and more often than not they have to do something to aggravate that kind of charge.

Actually, I left the last sentence of "Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know...." open so the reader could fill in their own conclusion. Is there a reason you have filled in mine with the accusation that I will always take the side opposite of the Church?

Because saying "you know. . ." is a blatant implication in this context, not an invitation to fill in the blank. It's absolutely clear what you were hinting at.

I have no reason to doubt or support any particular conflicting testimony because I wasn't there. However, I do have the opinion that this would have best been handled by allowing this couple to walk home without saying anything so this whole fiasco would not have occurred.

[/quote]

So the security personnel are supposed to neglect their duties and allow a couple to make out and grope each other in public just because they're supposed to know doing their job might make this couple lie about what happened and stir up trouble? Yes or no, is that really what you're suggesting would have been the best course of action?

[_maklelan]

This quote of an eyewitness is of course from one of the couple arrested.

I don't follow. You think because the eyewitness's name is also Derek they're the same person?

Actually, if the Church wanted to prove that they did not embellish their claims, I would think that the multi-camera digital recordings made by Church Security could serve as evidence. Perhaps even photos taken by BYU's Gaydar Satellite Surveillance System could stand in evidence as well.

We'll have to see whether or not such footage was produced at the arraignment.

[_moksha]

This quote of an eyewitness is of course from one of the couple arrested.

I don't follow. You think because the eyewitness's name is also Derek they're the same person?

While it is true that there may be more than one Derek in the Universe, would that Derek say the same thing as one of the arrested couple in his statement as posted above?

[_maklelan]

While it is true that there may be more than one Derek in the Universe, would that Derek say the same thing as one of the arrested couple in his statement as posted above?

I'm following you even less here. The statements to which I linked were far removed from those shared by the gentleman who was cited, but I honestly don't know what you're getting at.

[_moksha]

Actually, I left the last sentence of "Any variance from the official Church account is probably due to you know...." open so the reader could fill in their own conclusion. Is there a reason you have filled in mine with the accusation that I will always take the side opposite of the Church?

Because saying "you know. . ." is a blatant implication in this context, not an invitation to fill in the blank. It's absolutely.

You have probably noticed before that people hear what they want to hear. On this board, I have noticed that something written can have a different meaning depending on the reader. What may be blatant to one person may be open ended to another.

I think sometimes apologists look for slights that may not be intended. Have you ever run across this?
On another board, some say we Mormons have a persecution complex.