Turns out - rcrocket is a bishop -

[_Mercury]

I respect you all, even if you are vile sinners.

I thought our Theology taught that all of us are vile sinners.

Some sinners are more equal than others in Mormonism

I must have missed that lesson.

the pig joe is a fine example of this.

[_guy sajer]

There isn't a reasonable right-thinking person anywhere who will agree that saying nasty things about somebody anonymously is a good character trait.[rcrocket

Robert, you tossed the softball, so here's the swing.

And is your contention that saying nasty things about somebody under one's own name IS a good character trait?

From one who posts anonymously to hurl vulgarities at me? Chuckle.

rcrocket

Nice dodge, Robert.

So, let me try again, albeit rephased.

Would you consider your tendency to insult people using your own name on an internet bulletin board to reflect positively or negatively on your character?

My, or anyone else's behavior, is irrelevant to your answer.

Another question, why are we even debating Robert on this point?

His argument that we have some kind of ethical responsiblity to post under our own name on internet bulletin boards is silly on its face. Why indulge this particular non-sensical argument; it only gives it credibility.

Also, why even debate Jason Bourne on his argument that one has no moral standing to criticize someone using that person's belief system if the former doesn't share the belief system? This argument is also silly on its face. Accepting this argument would make it impossible in cases to critique hypocrisy and to alert society to demagougues and charlatans.

If one claims certain standards of behavior, morals, ethics, etc., it is perfectly legitimate to criticize this person according to these standards, even if we do not share them.

[_The Nehor]

I respect you all, even if you are vile sinners.

I thought our Theology taught that all of us are vile sinners.

Some sinners are more equal than others in Mormonism

I must have missed that lesson.

the pig joe is a fine example of this.

Don't know the arrogant pig you grew up with and presumably named Joe. Miss him?

[_Dr. Shades]

I just now saw this thread. It looks like Bond already deleted all of the material, which I would have also done had I seen it before he did.

Actually, it was me who deleted it, not Bond. :-)

[_Sethbag]

Isn't there a legal difference between acting foolishly and acting negligently? I would suspect that the law has no hold on foolish behavior, only on negligence, or more specifically criminal negligence (the law says nothing about me neglecting to exercise).

IANAL, and I'm sure Bob will correct me if I mis-speak, but the difference between negligence and acting foolishly is that negligence involves the violation of a legally-recognized duty, and simple foolishness doesn't.

Jumping in a bit late here, but I was really quite put off by the posting of Bob's personal information, and was glad that it got deleted. That said, I agree with everyone else that Bob's unending complaint against people posting anonymously is unconvincing and even rash. There are very good reasons why people might wish to remain not publicly known by name on a message board, as the posting of Bob's personal information amply demonstrated.

[_Jason Bourne]

Any argument may be reduced to the absurd. I am not impressed.

This is your coy way of refusing to give the only sane answer, of course.

Just how do you decide which belief systems merit this protection, and which don't?

Why don't you go to your friends, people of responsibility and intergrity, and ask them (without referring to the internet) if you think it is honorable to post out on a telephone pole in front of somebody's house a flyer hurling vulgarties and defamations, anonymously, at the inhabitants?

Or, buying airtime on TV anonymously to make defamatory statements, and use vulgarities, in reference to the local Mormon stake president? Local rabbi?

For instance, we have four big catholic churches in my town. Would it be honorable for me to tack onto the front door of one of those churches in the early morning hours: "Father Flaherty here supports and endorses pedophiles."

Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.

rcrocket

Now your examples are bordering on the absurd. Voicing honest concerns here about things LDS that the LDS Church really prefers not to discuss and can even get you on hot water if you discuss these things publically is not doing any of the things you describe above. Granted some here may do what you describe but most don't. Beatis doesn't, nor Liz, nor Runtu. PP and Merc do.

[_truth dancer]

Why don't you go to your friends, people of responsibility and intergrity, and ask them (without referring to the internet) if you think it is honorable to post out on a telephone pole in front of somebody's house a flyer hurling vulgarties and defamations, anonymously, at the inhabitants?

Or, buying airtime on TV anonymously to make defamatory statements, and use vulgarities, in reference to the local Mormon stake president? Local rabbi?

For instance, we have four big catholic churches in my town. Would it be honorable for me to tack onto the front door of one of those churches in the early morning hours: "Father Flaherty here supports and endorses pedophiles."

Your honorable friends would say that this is sociopathic conduct. This is no different than what you do. And, I mean you.

So, I guess if someone does all of the above and signs their name it is all OK? Or, less bad?

Of course the above examples are not appropriate or honorable behavior... they are also not appropriate or honorable behavior if someone does these things without the anonymity.



~dancer~

[_Yoda]

I just now saw this thread. It looks like Bond already deleted all of the material, which I would have also done had I seen it before he did.

Actually, it was me who deleted it, not Bond. :-)

Sorry, Shades!

;)

Thanks for once again, being our illustrious leader, and taking care of things ASAP.

:)