Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

My guess is that it was after that 2018 post when I saw that she posted a link to form that contained her in real life name. She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain the board. The link took you to the fundraiser and her name appeared on the form. She may have deleted that thread, I don't know, but that is the disclosure to which I referred a few times on this current thread.

She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain what board, Jersey? I feel like I am missing something important here.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

My guess is that it was after that 2018 post when I saw that she posted a link to form that contained her in real life name. She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain the board. The link took you to the fundraiser and her name appeared on the form. She may have deleted that thread, I don't know, but that is the disclosure to which I referred a few times on this current thread.

She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain what board, Jersey? I feel like I am missing something important here.

www.mormondiscussions.com

She wanted to maintain her record.

- Doc

[Lem]

And as far as I can tell, sometime after this was the cognitive interview. She did request no doxxing, but only after she herself had posted her story with her professional link attached. It's a minor point I know, but it leaves questions about the possible gaps in the interview.

As I have said before, I still consider that the objective evidence, in my best reading, shows that Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board sexually harassed a subordinate, the victim's difficulties notwithstanding. Her cognitive interview is less reliable in details, and in in my opinion is not necessary to establish the charge of sexual harassment.

My guess is that it was after that 2018 post when I saw that she posted a link to form that contained her in real life name. She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain the board. The link took you to the fundraiser and her name appeared on the form. She may have deleted that thread, I don't know, but that is the disclosure to which I referred a few times on this current thread.

I see. But my concerns about her doxxing claim were based on my 2017 post, which was a direct response to her posting a link, in May 2017, to her in real life professional work, connected to a very revealing and personal Rosebud post.

[Kishkumen]

www.mormondiscussions.com

She wanted to maintain her record.

- Doc

Damn. Gulp.

[Lem]

I tried to give accurate timestamps so anyone could go and compare what she said to my notes, obviously not everyone wanted to listen to the whole thing (I nearly gave up myself), but felt it could help provide a legend or guide the same way I used an earlier notes of the first two hours to help track where I was.

Your work is appreciated! Thank you.

[Kishkumen]

So, I am fine with using Rosebud. Never had a problem with it at all. She asks, I comply with her reasonable request. It’s the right thing to do, in my opinion. Now, where I differ is in her decision to post all this stuff publicly and then people like JP complain we are doxxing her as we discuss her publicly posted stuff but use the name Rosebud. As I said, Rosebud is sufficient to me. Attempts to control what people say about publicly posted material is not OK with me.

[Jersey Girl]

She posted a fundraiser to fix and maintain what board, Jersey? I feel like I am missing something important here.

www.mormondiscussions.com

She wanted to maintain her record.

- Doc

Yes, you have it exactly right. And yes, obviously Kish somehow missed that. Just as an aside comment...that was when I truly understood how deficient she is with regard to self insight and self awareness. Think about all the posts she made over the years on MDB. Who would hand their money over to her for a fundraiser? She never fully understood that there was a community here. She admitted more than once that she never bothered to read our posts.

She didn't know us and she didn't want to know us. She was using the board to create her documentation piece, such as it was.

Let's say you (Cam) posted a fundraiser or most any of us long running posters here, posted a fundraiser. The community would likely respond with donations. They in fact DID respond with donations when the issue of this new board was raised. We may have our differences and our falling outs, but in the end when the board itself is at stake, it's one for all, all for one and people will throw in.

But her? Allow her to handle funds for this board? This single minded person on a mission to destroy JD? This person who only posted here to forward her own agenda? This person who didn't understand how she came off to people and who didn't seem the least bit interested about how she was received?

No. She was never known to us as any more than a person who appeared to be obsessed and/or unhinged. She never understood that and probably doesn't understand what her public image is to this very day.

[Jersey Girl]

I see. But my concerns about her doxxing claim were based on my 2017 post, which was a direct response to her posting a link, in May 2017, to her in real life professional work, connected to a very revealing and personal Rosebud post.

Yes, I understood your purpose.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

She never understood that and probably doesn't understand what her public image is to this very day.

I’m not trying to be contrarian, but I kinda think she does and she knows she’s screwed (hence the vindictiveness of her actions). If she wants to get on with any sort of respectable organization her Internet history and any sort of Open Stories Foundation references are a non-starter. If I were her I’d just open a small practice somewhere counseling depressed kids and women (I wouldn’t want her interacting with males because her discretion might go out the window if a dude shows up and she gets the tingles).

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

She never understood that and probably doesn't understand what her public image is to this very day.

I’m not trying to be contrarian, but I kinda think she does and she knows she’s screwed (hence the vindictiveness of her actions). If she wants to get on with any sort of respectable organization her Internet history and any sort of Open Stories Foundation references are a non-starter. If I were her I’d just open a small practice somewhere counseling depressed kids and women (I wouldn’t want her interacting with males because her discretion might go out the window if a dude shows up and she gets the tingles).

- Doc

Oh I don't see that as contrarian and if it were, I would appreciate the push. I don't disagree with your idea of a private practice*. Her digital footprint is huge and doesn't make for a good professional portrait.

*ETA: Actually I think I do disagree with the private practice. I think she'd be better off choosing another type of career path entirely.