John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Commenting on anyone's obsession in all this is a red herring.

Whether it's Mayan Elephant's "obsession" with mormonstories, Dr. Scratch's "obsession" with DCP, or my "obsession" (according to my TBM sister) with criticism of the church, claiming someone else is "obsessed" is a distraction. Passionate is a better word. Interested is a better word. Fascinated with is a better term. Obsessed has a negative connotation and is often an unfair comment on the mental state of the person the term is directed towards.

[_mormonstories]

Commenting on anyone's obsession in all this is a red herring.

Whether it's Mayan Elephant's "obsession" with mormonstories, Dr. Scratch's "obsession" with DCP, or my "obsession" (according to my TBM sister) with criticism of the church, claiming someone else is "obsessed" is a distraction. Passionate is a better word. Interested is a better word. Fascinated with is a better term. Obsessed has a negative connotation and is often an unfair comment on the mental state of the person the term is directed towards.

Tim - Normally I would agree. In these cases, I'm not so sure. But you could be right.

[_Quasimodo]

Commenting on anyone's obsession in all this is a red herring.

Whether it's Mayan Elephant's "obsession" with mormonstories, Dr. Scratch's "obsession" with DCP, or my "obsession" (according to my TBM sister) with criticism of the church, claiming someone else is "obsessed" is a distraction. Passionate is a better word. Interested is a better word. Fascinated with is a better term. Obsessed has a negative connotation and is often an unfair comment on the mental state of the person the term is directed towards.

I'm not sure I agree, my friend Tim. There are some obsessive posters here. You named a few. There are also those that go out of their way to expose the in real life identities of members here. I find that both childish and dangerous.

They seem to belong to both sides of the arguments. You all know who you are.

[Guest]

From a Neutral Observer, it seems that you, Rock Slider, are at least as obsessed with Mayan Elephant's JD obsession as Mayan is obsessed with JD. There are approximately as many people who can't resist commenting on Mayan's commenting on JD threads as there are people who can't resist commenting on JD threads.

Well, I'd call it annoyance, but whatever ... Mayan has been like others before him where their posting becomes nothing short of spamming.

But thanks to JD's "to hell with it" posts of today (in real life consequences be damned), the story becomes clear and future Mayan spamming of sour grapes will be treated as such going forward.

I hope NOM readers get a good read of this thread as well. I assume this will help solve your annoyance with my annoyance ..etc.

Mayan == mental ignore/treat as spam in future jd threads.

[_mormonstories]

I'm not sure I agree, my friend Tim. There are some obsessive posters here. You named a few. There are also those that go out of their way to expose the in real life identities of members here. I find that both childish and dangerous.

They seem to belong to both sides of the arguments. You all know who you are.

Quasimodo - Honest question. If someone is repeatedly slandering another publicly...by name, in this forum, without offering any evidence for their accusations -- is it wrong (by this forum's standards) to expose the in real life identities of that person?

[_Neutral Observer]

I'm not sure I agree, my friend Tim. There are some obsessive posters here. You named a few. There are also those that go out of their way to expose the in real life identities of members here. I find that both childish and dangerous.

They seem to belong to both sides of the arguments. You all know who you are.

Quasimodo - Honest question. If someone is repeatedly slandering another publicly...by name, in this forum, without offering any evidence for their accusations -- is it wrong (by this forum's standards) to expose the in real life identities of that person?

Honest questions. Where were you slandered? You have identified multiple pseudonymous posters by name. Are you saying all the ones you have identified have slandered you? Is it slander to falsely accuse someone of slander? You have thrown out the slander accusation with abandon and without specifics. Can you identify precisely where you were slandered in this thread?

[_Quasimodo]

I'm not sure I agree, my friend Tim. There are some obsessive posters here. You named a few. There are also those that go out of their way to expose the in real life identities of members here. I find that both childish and dangerous.

They seem to belong to both sides of the arguments. You all know who you are.

Quasimodo - Honest question. If someone is repeatedly slandering another publicly...by name, in this forum, without offering any evidence for their accusations -- is it wrong (by this forum's standards) to expose the in real life identities of that person?

Honest answer. Yes, it's always wrong to expose the in real life identities of another poster. I've seen very scary things happen to posters because their identities became known to some less-than-sane members (threats, stalking, messages to their employers, etc.).

I agree that it's very wrong for people to slander you by name here, but doing the same in retaliation cannot be condoned. Turnabout is not fair play when it involves the safety of posters. You are all wrong in this instance.

[Guest]

Good questions, Newt. As you point out, mormonstories has now escalated things by implying that I slandered him, I think I am entitled to know exactly what he is referring to. He says he only used someone's real name in this thread as retaliation for the person slandering him. Slander is a serious accusation (actually, I think it would be libel on a discussion board, but I don't want to be pedantic). What have you got, mormonstories? Care to retract your allegation? Or do you really want to keep going down this road?

Edited to add: For the record, you first revealed my real name on page 5 of this thread. The only comments I made in this thread prior to you revealing my real name were as follows (perhaps you can point out where you think I "slandered" you in these comments):

On page 3, I said, in correcting Jesse Pinkman's misstatement that you founded the New Order Mormons:

Dehlin did not found the New Order Mormon movement. He may want to give people the impression that he did, but he most certainly did not.

Do you consider this statement slanderous?

On page 5, I posted excerpts from two online articles about narcissistic personality disorder, without mentioning you by name and without any additional commentary from me. Just quotes and links. Did you consider the posting of those excerpts slanderous? If so, please explain. If not, how can you say that posting my real name was in retaliation for a slanderous statement?

Edited to change initials of real name to "mormonstories."

[_Ceeboo]

Hey mormonstories!

is it wrong (by this forum's standards) to expose the in real life identities of that person?

Without question or exception, yes!
Under any circumstance, it is entirely wrong!

Period.

Now go in peace my friend - and sin no more!

(Should you have any further questions, please feel free to skip Quasimodo - and ask me directly)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Quasimodo - Honest question. If someone is repeatedly slandering another publicly...by name, in this forum, without offering any evidence for their accusations -- is it wrong (by this forum's standards) to expose the in real life identities of that person?

Ya murdered the standard ... can't wait for the "was jd's punishment too little/much" days to follow.

The in real life names will be struck soon enough ... but its like pulling the nails out of the board ... the holes are still there! ... oh wait seems something was wrong with that analogy?

thumbs up for setting the record straight and hopefully defusing these individuals from continued slander in the future.

First in!!!!

LD$inc will not permaban JD, will MDB?