DCP and Quinn

[_barrelomonkeys]

I would have liked the option of "WHO CARES? HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS? WAS I WATCHING THUNDERCATS AFTER SCHOOL WHEN THIS HAPPENED?"

Tsk tsk.

This is a very serious matter. It's extremely important to the two Scratches to portray me as an unethical person. Scratch Senior, in particular, has devoted many, many hours to harvesting materials that he hopes to use against me, and it is really quite unkind of you to treat his crusade so lightly.

I voted for the maximally negative judgment, above, because it matters so very much to certain people.

I apologize to all. I obviously did not realize what serious subject matter this is.

snarf. snarf.

[_Mister Scratch]

I.e., it would be one bad thing to merely gossip on the FAIR/MADboard (as DCP has done about his neighbor), but it is another thing entirely to be doling out gossip that involves private ecclesiastical matters.

Therein lies the crux: Forgive me, but it seems to me that such things became "private ecclesiastical matters" only after DCP became aware of the "gossip." So DCP couldn't have doled it out.

Huh? That's exactly it though, Shades. Consider the timeline:
1) This "sad incident" occurs.
2) Paul Hanks blabs about it to DCP's friend.
3) DCP's friend blabs about it to DCP.
4) Quinn is ex'ed.

(cut to several years later)
5) DCP blabs about all of this on FAIR.

I think the Good Professor would have had plenty of time to figure out the private nature of this stuff. The fact is that he simply didn't care, and chose to tell the entire FAIRboard about it anyhow.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I already voted 1 because I'm in the camp that believes in never giving DCP the benefit of the doubt. At least I hope there's a camp. Maybe it's just me.

The high quality of evidence and objective analysis that goes into each individual's vote in this poll is what gives it its striking importance and remarkable credibility.

If you ever get tired of the donut thing, maybe you'd like to be called "Mr. Obvious Man"?

[_Mister Scratch]

I already voted 1 because I'm in the camp that believes in never giving DCP the benefit of the doubt. At least I hope there's a camp. Maybe it's just me.

The high quality of evidence and objective analysis that goes into each individual's vote in this poll is what gives it its striking importance and remarkable credibility.

And yet there's not a single person who doesn't think that you gossiped. Keep flailing about, Professor. Keep joking. Or just admit the truth: You gossiped.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The inclusion of the SP has to do with the sensitive nature of this particular gossip. You know, about how it involves matters of confidentiality and all that. E.g., if an attorney blabs about something a client told him, and you hear about it from your friend, it seems slightly worse that gossip you pass along about your next door neighbor. The SP's involvement in this adds the extra layer of violation of a social contract.

Except, of course, that, as I've pointed out 1387 times previously, the stake president had not met Mike Quinn at that point and, so, seems only to have been alluding to publicly available knowledge rather than divulging the confidential disclosures of a confessional situation (which would, indeed, have been a deeply unethical act).

The lone charge has been that he was spreading some pretty ugly gossip on the FAIRboard. That's it.

And it ain't much. I was making the point that lots of people, including believers and unbelievers and (it would seem) Mike Quinn's stake president, were aware of Quinn's sexual orientation before his "formal" coming out of the closet. Others have agreed with me on this point, claiming to have heard of it quite independently of me.

I didn't reveal Quinn's homosexuality. He himself did that, a number of years ago -- even if one has reference only to the date of his first public statement on the subject. To have "outed" him would have been ugly indeed, and morally reprehensible. To note that lots of people appear to have known about his sexual orientation prior to his announcement is quite another matter. What, exactly, is "ugly" about that? How does it slander Mike Quinn?

How about if it is purposefully leaked in order to sully somebody's reputation?

Am I alleged to have done this? If so, where?

Sort of like what was going on with the Tom Murphy incident?

Am I alleged to be somehow responsible for that alleged incident? If so, how?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And yet there's not a single person who doesn't think that you gossiped. Keep flailing about, Professor. Keep joking. Or just admit the truth: You gossiped.

You could conceivably line up five hundred people to testify that I have green eyes. It wouldn't change my eye color.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you ever get tired of the donut thing, maybe you'd like to be called "Mr. Obvious Man"?

Gosh. You mean to say that this board isn't thickly populated with my friends and supporters, and that, just maybe, the vote here could turn out not to be unanimously in my favor?

What an earth-shattering shock that would prove to be!

And how very, very important!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, I need to announce in advance that I leave tomorrow morning for some more time away from home and away from my computer.

The trip has been planned for about a year, so, clearly, I will be fleeing in terror from the two Scratch-threads.

[_Tarski]

If this goes on much longer then google will spit this thread out as the top hit for searches on Michael Quinn.
I'm just sure he will appreciate that. Just exactly who is effectively gossiping here?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

If you ever get tired of the donut thing, maybe you'd like to be called "Mr. Obvious Man"?

Gosh. You mean to say that this board isn't thickly populated with my friends and supporters, and that, just maybe, the vote here could turn out not to be unanimously in my favor?

What an earth-shattering shock that would prove to be!

And how very, very important!

No, I meant that nobody takes internet polls like this one to be important or scientific.