selek1 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) do a site search perhaps as in site:*****.com "some phrase of the email"?Potty mouth! Potty mouth! Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1 Link to comment
Calm Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) My grandkids don't allow me to use less than proper language.And for your info, I'm the one who put **** because I knew it would be edited out, so there. Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah 2 Link to comment
why me Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Funny question. Don't think its quite that bad, but there are obviously traitors and liars in the midst.Maybe so. And to answer your question: they may now be easier to uncover. And Dan may have a good idea who that person is. And Bradford too. Once it is known who got the email from dan, where it was shared, then the investigation can begin. It is unfortunate if there were a traitor or liar on MI. But all organizations are made up of people who are very imperfect. One must expect for these things to happen. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Maybe so. And to answer your question: they may now be easier to uncover. And Dan may have a good idea who that person is. And Bradford too. Once it is known who got the email from dan, where it was shared, then the investigation can begin. It is unfortunate if there were a traitor or liar on MI. But all organizations are made up of people who are very imperfect. One must expect for these things to happen.In counter-espionage work, one selectively release slightly differently worded "missives" to different people, and then one can divine which person is the "leaker". But there is perhaps only one version leaked here? 1 Link to comment
why me Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I had forgotten this.Okay, this definitely looks worse than the email just being passed around (which is bad enough but could have been just a lack of regard for someone's privacy) and eventually ending up there. My usual "willing to give the benefit of the doubt until more facts are known" stance has been altered by the "more facts" (though like you said, since he hasn't always been tight with the truth in the past I will leave open the possibility that my mind might change again....)As someone who actively posts on the other board, I was trying to inform people here that it seems that the leak has been serious for a couple of years. What has happened to Dan is a betrayal of trust by people who claim to be his friends. It is no different than having an informer reporting his every word while at the same time this informer acts like a good friend, someone who shares a burger or two on the 4th of July. Terrible. Link to comment
why me Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 In counter-espionage work, one selectively release slightly differently worded "missives" to different people, and then one can divine which person is the "leaker". But there is perhaps only one version leaked here?Since the MI is not that large, it should not be that difficult. I have been surprised that the informer has not been uncovered. It seems that some at the MI can be protecting this informer. If so, it shows hatred for Dan, if true. Link to comment
Somebodyz Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Does Lou Midgley, know he's lost his position yet or is he still away. I feel sick for those who found out, via the net, news or other disrespectful way. Link to comment
Analytics Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 OTOH, someone whose goal was to harm the Church would be positively delighted to see its defenders disarmed and/or silenced. Hence the whoops and howls of glee coming from the Sty.What's your point here? Do you think the Church has disarmed and/or silenced defenders who were defending it? In what way? Why would the church do that? Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm small potatoes, but my personal and work email accounts are password protected.My school has strict rules about leaving the email program open and unsupervised.My techie son Principe and I have been discussing how someone couldhack into an administrator account, or even know the target emails were there.Bernard Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) As someone who actively posts on the other board, I was trying to inform people here that it seems that the leak has been serious for a couple of years. What has happened to Dan is a betrayal of trust by people who claim to be his friends. It is no different than having an informer reporting his every word while at the same time this informer acts like a good friend, someone who shares a burger or two on the 4th of July. Terrible.What's worse? An anonymous poster who demands church disciplinary action against Bro. Bradford, or somebody on the MI board who leaked an email to Scratch?Somehow I think that in the final equation, God will hold to account the anonymous libeler first. Time for all good members of the Church to bring that libel to an end -- that his temple recommend ought to be revoked, that he is an incompetent manager, and so forth and so on. Time to get a life and acknowledge the realities here. BYU has spoken. BYU hasn't done this as a knee-jerk thing. BYU doesn't want Dr. Peterson's brand of apologetics in one of its university-sponsored publications. BYU has issued a press release stating that a different direction was needed, which is about as much of an endorsement as you'll get of Bro. Bradford. Now, I happen to generally like and support Dr. Peterson's brand of apologetics. I imagine I gave financial support to it last year at a level more than 99% of the Bradford-maligners here. But when I read Dr. Bradford's letter and BYU's press release, along with the revisions to the MI website, the handwriting was not only on the wall but it had been canonized. I am willing to see reason, the change of the seasons and the wisdom of the thing.What Hamblin has done with his blog and his entries has done more to hurt his own personal reputation and that of Dr. Peterson's than possibly influence anything BYU will ever do to rectify any perceived wrong. What my hero Dr. Peterson has done by savaging the gates of the temple on his way out has done a terrible injustice to his own personal reputation. That is not the way to graciously leave one's assignment at a university, or employment for that matter. I suppose it is done and people do it, but you young apologists don't ever do that to your employer. There just isn't any possible way that such a letter will get BYU to re-think what it has done. Anybody familiar with the situation and reading the correspondence can see that this train wreck has long been a-coming.Now, as to the BYU supposed wrongs here, let me suggest that the leaking of the correspondence to Senor Scratch was done by somebody known to Hamblin and Peterson, an MI board member. I think it cowardly, to be sure. No such person should be serving on MI's board. But the leak doesn't really change BYU's decision.As to the claim that Dr. Peterson's underlings were discharged with nothing more than an email, I'm not sure we've heard from them, have we? BYU cannot possibly respond to defend itself; personnel matters are protected by privacy laws, although I have no clue as to whether Greg Smith et al. were employees. Let's hear from the discharged ones first before we burn BYU down to the ground.Time to move on with the apologetic world and support FAIR, because that is where this is going. That is were my dollars will go. Edited June 25, 2012 by Bob Crockett 2 Link to comment
Senator Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What's worse? An anonymous poster who demands church disciplinary action against Bro. Bradford, or somebody on the MI board who leaked an email to Scratch?Somehow I think that in the final equation, God will hold to account the anonymous libeler first. Time for all good members of the Church to bring that libel to an end -- that his temple recommend ought to be revoked, that he is an incompetent manager, and so forth and so on. Thank you Bob for being able to say what I attempted to say earlier and was thread banned. You've got more clout than I, so hopefully your message will stick. 1 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm small potatoes, but my personal and work email accounts are password protected.My school has strict rules about leaving the email program open and unsupervised.My techie son Principe and I have been discussing how someone couldhack into an administrator account, or even know the target emails were there.BernardMy avatar says "astronomy", which is an interest, but my vocation is computer programming. Hacking into someone's email account, or even the administration account of an email system, is not necessarily rocket science. If you know the email address, the mail client that is used, and even better, know the person, it becomes way too easy. Remember that Sara Palin's email account got hacked by some more-or-less random guy back in the day? All he needed was her email address and knowledge of some publicly available personal information. Besides this, people can pick really stupid passwords. I believe that one of the most popular passwords in use in the world today is "password". People also write their passwords down on yellow stickies and post them in obvious locations. Or even obscure, but still publicly accessible places. Some systems virtually enforce this kind of thing. I remember that at one time the LDS catalog system would issue complex random passwords for units to use to order church materials, passwords like "abX98m&3GgP1q", and then would not let you change them to something vaguely memorable. This forced you to write them down and leave them somewhere, possibly where others could find them. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What my hero Dr. Peterson has done by savaging the gates of the temple on his way out has done a terrible injustice to his own personal reputation. That is not the way to graciously leave one's assignment at a university, or employment for that matter. I suppose it is done and people do it, but you young apologists don't ever do that to your employer. There just isn't any possible way that such a letter will get BYU to re-think what it has done. Anybody familiar with the situation and reading the correspondence can see that this train wreck has long been a-coming.What exactly has Dr. Peterson done to "savag[e] the gates of the temple on his way out"? All I have seen (at least here) is a post by him saying not much of anything that could be interpreted as criticism of BYU or any other church institution. Link to comment
TAO Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 To be quite honest, I thought his letter was fine. A bit intense, yes, but not really very condescending, just frank.In any case, I'm not quite sure Dan considers it an issue of employment, and moreof something he does because he wants to. But you'd have to ask him to be for sure. 2 Link to comment
why me Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What's worse? An anonymous poster who demands church disciplinary action against Bro. Bradford, or somebody on the MI board who leaked an email to Scratch?I think that it is obvious: somebody who leaked the information. However you did get it wrong. Bradford needs to explain his behavior to whomever oversees MI. The firing should have never been done by email while the poor soul was out of the country. I just don't understand why you cannot see that. It must be the lawyer in you. No empathy whatever for Dan and his email firing. The poor guy was giving lectures and tours abroad when he got the message. Talk about a mood changer. Someone giving lectures does not need this headache and the underhanded way it was done. Link to comment
ERayR Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What's your point here? Do you think the Church has disarmed and/or silenced defenders who were defending it? In what way? Why would the church do that?Pahoran can answer for himself but no I do not think the Church has disarmed or silenced anybody. This was done within the Maxwell Institute. Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I think that it is obvious: somebody who leaked the information. However you did get it wrong. Bradford needs to explain his behavior to whomever oversees MI.The BYU response that Stack quotes indicates that BYU supports what has been done, so that's that.The firing should have never been done by email while the poor soul was out of the country. Was it a "firing?" I would suspect that Bradford was driven to it after the several-hour meeting with Dan, as Dan recounts, shortly before Dan's departure. I would not be sending emails like that, myself, unless I needed to paper the record. I strongly suspect the email was vetted by BYU admins before it was sent.I just don't understand why you cannot see that. It must be the lawyer in you. I think my posts stand for themselves and the fact that I am a lawyer should have nothing to do with my opinions. The rank and vile apostates on that other board routinely stretch me on the rack for being a lawyer, so why not here, too?No empathy whatever for Dan and his email firing. Untrue. Dr. Peterson has been somebody I've admired and read for years. But he is much bigger than all of this, I suspect. Edited June 25, 2012 by Bob Crockett Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The BYU response that Stack quotes indicates that BYU supports what has been done, so that's that.Including the shoddy way the dismissal was carried out and the leaks to hostile individuals on the Internet? A one sentence response from a PR person essentially confirming what was already posted on the MI website does not amount to unqualified support for all of that. I think you're reading too much into it. 2 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Including the shoddy way the dismissal was carried out and the leaks to hostile individuals on the Internet? A one sentence response from a PR person essentially confirming what was already posted on the MI website does not amount to unqualified support for all of that. I think you're reading too much into it.No I'm not. Again, for the fifth time, I do not defend the leaks. I only defend BYU and its Board of Trustees here on this board. The "shoddy way the dismissal was carried out" ignores the fact that there was no "dismissal." Prof. Peterson has his job. Further, BYU cannot publish to the world its personnel issues; it cannot. There is not going to be an explanation forthcoming unless it is given to Prof. Peterson in writing and he, himself, publishes it. The one-sentence BYU statement to Stack speaks volumes, indeed. That is the most it could say, but it was enough to signal the fact that it stood behind Dr. Bradford. Dr. Bradford's actions were BYU's, and the Board of Trustees'. It is highly unlikely that this was not vetted with the Board before the deed was done. Ever since Wilkenson's administration, BYU's public decisions have been very deliberative. Edited June 25, 2012 by Bob Crockett 1 Link to comment
happy Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 As a small time observer and excessive worrier, I wonder the LDS Church is on its way to mainstreaming similar to the Community of Christ, ejecting its unique doctrine and becoming increasingly Protestant. If that is the case, what will the church do with all those temples? Link to comment
cinepro Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 As a small time observer and excessive worrier, I wonder the LDS Church is on its way to mainstreaming similar to the Community of Christ, ejecting its unique doctrine and becoming increasingly Protestant. If that is the case, what will the church do with all those temples?If it's possible to use the word "excessive" as an understatement, I think you just did. Link to comment
happy Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 If it's possible to use the word "excessive" as an understatement, I think you just did.Do you think the Church plans to leave the entire apologetics movement to groups like FAIR? Link to comment
Pahoran Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 No I'm not. Again, for the fifth time, I do not defend the leaks. I only defend BYU and its Board of Trustees here on this board. The "shoddy way the dismissal was carried out" ignores the fact that there was no "dismissal." Prof. Peterson has his job.Bob,Your love of euphemisms is not binding upon us. Yes, Dan still has one of his BYU positions, but he was certainly dismissed from his role as editor-in-chief of the (currently suspended) Mormon Studies Review. To deny that fact is to deny reality.Further, BYU cannot publish to the world its personnel issues; it cannot. There is not going to be an explanation forthcoming unless it is given to Prof. Peterson in writing and he, himself, publishes it.Or until the leaker leaks it, whichever comes first.The one-sentence BYU statement to Stack speaks volumes, indeed. That is the most it could say, but it was enough to signal the fact that it stood behind Dr. Bradford. Dr. Bradford's actions were BYU's, and the Board of Trustees'. It is highly unlikely that this was not vetted with the Board before the deed was done. Ever since Wilkenson's administration, BYU's public decisions have been very deliberative.Yes, they seem to be circling the wagons, as institutions do when the heat is on.Regards,Pahoran 2 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Yes, they seem to be circling the wagons, as institutions do when the heat is on.Well, it is my beloved alma mater for which I owe my job and profession so I hope you don't begrudge my defense of it. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The rank and vile apostates on that other board.... Great one! Link to comment
Recommended Posts