Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Jersey Girl]

So. You can find this by YouTube searching her knowable first and last name. It's a public channel. I am confident that this is her. Her name appeared on the previous version of MDB on a GFM she set up to raise funds for the board, her first and middle(?) name appears in the not-fully-redacted documents she herself posted to her website when I read them. Her Facebook and it's photos, are likewise set to public.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfoWQR ... yXg/videos

If interest in this topic is anything to go, her number of views is going to go through the roof. If she monetises, that will pay for college for the kids.

This must be her. The topic of the videos on the channel are basically related to some of the problems she shares regarding her marriage. She seems confident that she is knowledgeable on this.

She has an online class on udemy too on the same topic.

Yeah. Except for the fact that she started that a year ago and continues to shoot herself in the foot (to a bloody stump as Lem put it) all over the Internet. She is her own worst enemy.

And yes, it's definitely her. She appears in the announcements/introductions portion of a MSP video. I am sure she appears in others but I only checked out one that was of interest to me...and there she was.

Again. Her own worst enemy.

ETA: Excuse me, she started 3 years ago.

[pistolero]

Documentation has all been removed from Rosebud's website, citing redaction errors, including the fact that JD's wife's name was not redacted.

JP Bat Signal Alert.

Rosebud to JP... I need some shoddy redaction doing please, free of charge.

That said, they need to be redacted more fully in order to better protect innocent parties. As I can’t stand to redact myself since I never want to look at them, timing will be dependent upon volunteer work.

[Jersey Girl]

Documentation has all been removed from Rosebud's website, citing redaction errors, including the fact that JD's wife's name was not redacted.

JP Bat Signal Alert.

Rosebud to JP... I need some shoddy redaction doing please, free of charge.

That said, they need to be redacted more fully in order to better protect innocent parties. As I can’t stand to redact myself since I never want to look at them, timing will be dependent upon volunteer work.

Yes and if it wasn't for this hole in the wall insignificant board, they likely wouldn't have noticed the errors. How many days were those documents public? Proof read much?

[consiglieri]

The world owes this board so much.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

JP Bat Signal Alert.

Rosebud to JP... I need some shoddy redaction doing please, free of charge.

Yes and if it wasn't for this hole in the wall insignificant board, they likely wouldn't have noticed the errors. How many days were those documents public? Proof read much?

I could’ve done the whole batch in a few hours and redacted names AND replaced them with initials or whatever in order to maintain continuity for the reader. Seems like Rosebud picked the wrong man for the job.

- Doc “you had ONE job” NC4Me

[consiglieri]

Never let someone else do a job you can cock up yourself.

[Jersey Girl]

Yes and if it wasn't for this hole in the wall insignificant board, they likely wouldn't have noticed the errors. How many days were those documents public? Proof read much?

I could’ve done the whole batch in a few hours and redacted names AND replaced them with initials or whatever in order to maintain continuity for the reader. Seems like Rosebud picked the wrong man for the job.

- Doc “you had ONE job” NC4Me

Yeah! Yeah! And I would have proofed the docs just for the hell of it. Anything to get the show on the road and get it right the first time.

Speaking of roads...I think she should get herself a jeep and do guided fall leaf peeping tours out there. Get up enough cash to put herself through trucking school and get that CDL. Except for the fact that the log books are all digital now and she'd probably mess that up too.

[Lem]

No. She posted that while she was not an employee. It was despicable and disgusting, possibly libelous, but not sexual harassment.

So sexual harassment can take place only within a work environment?

And then only from the top down?

Regardless of anything the subordinate may do or not do?

This definition is far too limited for such a broad category as sexual harassment, I think.

One would almost get the idea it was intentionally fashioned in such a limited manner so as to achieve a desired result.

Were you planning to answer my question? You asked me to answer yours first, which I did.

I await your reply to my question.

If Rosebud had ceased and desisted as JD asked, there is no reason to suspect the board would ever have gotten involved.

Rosebud could still have been working for Open Stories Foundation doing the thing she loved if she had just backed down when asked and cooled her jets.

Sexual harassment can be a two-way street.

When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.

What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?

Bumped for consig, you asked me to answer your q first, so I did. Please answer mine.

[drumdude]

When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.

I'm sorry but this is more than inappropriate, this is sexual harassment. It's got the same feel and purpose as revenge porn.

[consiglieri]

So sexual harassment can take place only within a work environment?

And then only from the top down?

Regardless of anything the subordinate may do or not do?

This definition is far too limited for such a broad category as sexual harassment, I think.

One would almost get the idea it was intentionally fashioned in such a limited manner so as to achieve a desired result.

Were you planning to answer my question? You asked me to answer yours first, which I did.

I await your reply to my question.

When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.

What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?

Bumped for consig, you asked me to answer your q first, so I did. Please answer mine.

Sure thing, Lem.

The problem I have in answering your question is it is framed in such a way as to bear only a superficial resemblance to the case under consideration.

You have a remarkable skill at framing issues in such a way as to tilt in your favor. And I mean that as a compliment.

But the way you get it to tilt in your favor is by removing what I find to be relevant facts from the equation.

Sort of like winning a tug-of-war by systematically removing the strongest pullers from the other side of the mud pit.

Anybody can win the game under these circumstances.

What I specifically object to in this regard is your phrasing the question in terms of JD being “finished with her as a sexual plaything.”

I see little to conclude JD viewed AP in such a singularly sinister light, nor that he treated her so simplistically and two-dimensionally as your language suggests.

I do, however, find it likely that had AP stopped pursuing JD sexually when he told her to stop, she would be with MS today.

But AP wouldn’t stop.

She wanted JD. She wanted MS.

She wanted the whole damn fish.