Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Gotta say I'm feeling the same way here....so, you don't think that CEOs typically have a non-voting seat on the board, or that board members are routinely expected to donate to the organization? These are pretty standard things. They're not laws. But they are quite common.

If we're talking about things that are pretty standard, it's very standard for the board to be comprised of non-interested (ie, unpaid) individuals who hire and fire the CEO/Executive Director, not the other way around.

Immediately after the Rosebud fiasco (in 2013), John found himself with only Natasha on his board with him, who was a paid Open Stories Foundation podcaster and they brought on Dan Wotherspoon, another paid podcaster. So three paid employees were running the whole show, and deciding each others' pay. That same year, John magically got a 60% (!!) raise, even though the Rosebud fiasco had resulted in John's wish of dramatically contracting Open Stories Foundation operations so John could focus on his PhD. The year I worked for John, his pay went up again and made almost $100K despite having to bring me on to produce the podcast and run all sorts of other operations because he was doing his internship and was super super unavailable all the time.

I can tell you that's not very standard.

[drumdude]

2 Weeks later and we're still waiting for Rosebud to re-publish the documents. I can't wait to compare what she publishes to what she hastily released before!

Her pulling them was basically an admission of defeat. They're all still here for your enjoyment:

http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

[Kishkumen]

2 Weeks later and we're still waiting for Rosebud to re-publish the documents. I can't wait to compare what she publishes to what she hastily released before!

Her pulling them was basically an admission of defeat. They're all still here for your enjoyment:

http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

An admission of defeat? Sounds like a hasty judgment to me.

[jpatterson]

Her pulling them was basically an admission of defeat.

That's certainly a take. Another take is that she pulled them out of respect for the people (including Margi) whose names weren't redacted properly. It was the decent thing to do. Egg on face, for sure, but she did it regardless of the fact that people like you would have predicable hot takes like this one.

But go off.

[drumdude]

she pulled them out of respect for the people (including Margi)

I would be surprised if Margi feels she has been respected by rosebud... a bit like throwing a knife at someone and offering them a bandaid after.

[jpatterson]

she pulled them out of respect for the people (including Margi)

I would be surprised if Margi feels she has been respected by rosebud... a bit like throwing a knife at someone and offering them a bandaid after.

Come on, man. That's a pretty myopic take on a complex situation.

Of course Margi's not a Rosebud fan. That's a no brainer. But what was the right thing to do when Rosebud realized she released documents that hadn't been fully redacted? The right thing to do was to pull them, even though it obviously made her look bad and certainly doesn't help her cause at all.

You can counter that with some cynical take that "well the right thing to do would have been to never have an affair" but doing so only demonstrates that you're really only interested in scoring points here, in which case I'll refer you to Kish's timely thread.

We all have an opportunity with every single post we make to be better than we were the last post or the last page. You can give credit where credit is due without having to give up an inch of moral high ground when it comes to the larger issues on the table here.

[drumdude]

Will we have to wait another 8 years for them to be re-posted with Margi's information removed? It's been 2 weeks and surely that's a much shorter job than the original redaction.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Will we have to wait another 8 years for them to be re-posted with Margi's information removed? It's been 2 weeks and surely that's a much shorter job than the original redaction.

It would take literally, and I mean literally, about an hour or two to redact those documents by someone who understands how to use Adobe. We've offered to help her out, but obviously she's not interested in that.

- Doc

[jpatterson]

Will we have to wait another 8 years for them to be re-posted with Margi's information removed? It's been 2 weeks and surely that's a much shorter job than the original redaction.

It would take literally, and I mean literally, about an hour or two to redact those documents by someone who understands how to use Adobe. We've offered to help her out, but obviously she's not interested in that.

- Doc

Some of them yes, some of them no. Many of the documents have no metadata or are unsearchable so you would literally have to go page by page and redact manually.

[drumdude]

With optical character recognition (OCR) in Adobe Acrobat, you can extract text and convert scanned documents into editable, searchable PDF files instantly.