Elder Cook Decries "Flaming" And Hiding Behind A Mask

[Gohan]

You must be a D.i.c.k.e.n.s or something like that.

Close, kinda sorta. It's something like that.

[cinepro]

It's not the best, but the photo doesn't particularly bother me. And scanning through the article (I didn't take time to read it thoroughly) I really don't see an intent here to put him in a bad light.

From the article:

He would often disarm interrogators with peppery humor, once welcoming a reporter for The New Yorker magazine to his office with the greeting, “All writers should be put in a box and thrown in the sea.”

Not speaking as a Prophet!

[Scott Lloyd]

From the article:

Not speaking as a Prophet!

Sounds like vintage Gordon Hinckley. How I miss him.

One of my favorite President Hinckley incidents I was a personal witness to. It was a news conference in front of the new Nauvoo Temple on the occasion of the temple dedication.

After taking several questions, President Hinckley got around to Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune and asked, "Peggy, what's bothering you this morning?"

[Avatar4321]

Im not announcing my name to the world. But at the same time, I am not going to hide my behavior in a mask either.

I am who I am whether i share my name or not. These are the positions I actually hold. I am going to treat people like I would treat them in person which is with kindness and charity to the best of my ability.

[MorningStar]

Sounds like vintage Gordon Hinckley. How I miss him.

One of my favorite President Hinckley incidents I was a personal witness to. It was a news conference in front of the new Nauvoo Temple on the occasion of the temple dedication.

After taking several questions, President Hinckley got around to Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune and asked, "Peggy, what's bothering you this morning?"

That's awesome.

[kolipoki09]

In the spirit of openness I just asked the admins to change my name to reflect my real name. I did not feel safe however adding my full last name. There are some out there that will intentionally do harm and I don't want to be a victim of them. So DaddyG is now KevinG - which to my Boy Scouts won't seem strange because they already shorten my unpronounceable last name to "G" as in Brother G.

After a few months off the board, I didn't know what happened to you, but I recognized your avatar and now I can put two and two together.

While many here post respectfully in the spirit of anonymity, it's also easy for people to hide behind a mask and have no real accountability. I won't ask the moderators to change my username, but it isn't too hard for anyone to figure out who I am. After four years of consistent online involvement, I hope I've learned a thing or two about online etiquette.

[kolipoki09]

Meh, I'll just stick with Gohan. I think I've posted the link to my Facebook on here before so anyone that wants to know who I am can probably dig that old post up.

Besides, the board software automatically censors part of my last name.

I think there are some Chronicles about it somewhere.

[Gohan]

While many here post respectfully in the spirit of anonymity, it's also easy for people to hide behind a mask and have no real accountability. I won't ask the moderators to change my username, but it isn't too hard for anyone to figure out who I am. After four years of consistent online involvement, I hope I've learned a thing or two about online etiquette.

Haha, pretty easy with your name in your signature and all.

I think there are some Chronicles about it somewhere.

Indeed! That was actually one of my nicknames on the mission.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Gohan

[Bob Crockett]

Dan Peterson and Bob Crockett played a part in outing a young man's online activities to his father. It's a well known story. And well documented on the affectionately named "trailerpark".

H.

That is totally untrue. No such thing happened, I did not discuss it with his father, who is one of clients. Why would it matter, since the fellow posts with his own name, links to his blog and hold press conferences?

But wait, you are are anonymous. Easy to take a personal swipe at me.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

That is totally untrue. No such thing happened, I did not discuss it with his father, who is one of clients. Why would it matter, since the fellow posts with his own name, links to his blog and hold press conferences?

But wait, you are are anonymous. Easy to take a personal swipe at me.

And to post fraudulent names on a Mormon genealogical website, then boast about it online.

[Tepui]

While many here post respectfully in the spirit of anonymity, it's also easy for people to hide behind a mask and have no real accountability. I won't ask the moderators to change my username, but it isn't too hard for anyone to figure out who I am. After four years of consistent online involvement, I hope I've learned a thing or two about online etiquette.

I thought people posted here in the spirit of anonymity because their real name got banned:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/members/

[volgadon]

This is my real name and picture. I choose to hide behind a mask, especially in official documents, so I can secretly flame away.

[3DOP]

Since 2004 when I came over from ZLMB, I remain as concerned as ever to preserve the reputation and integrity of 3DOP as I was when I posted under my real name over there. Haven't we all developed "personas" over the years? When here, I AM 3DOP. I care about how 3DOP is perceived. If I recall correctly, I did not see the need to take the slight chance that some Catholic friend might see my name and be upset or scandalized at views that I might make that could be perceived as prejudicial to the Catholic faith. I doubt it was necessary, but I never imagined that pseudonyms were thought of as something bad. At this time I have different reasons for a preference for anonymity. It's difficult to explain. I tried to explain it in the last thread started by RCrockett. I don't think any of those who want me to use my name understood what I was saying though, because here they are again repeating that there is only one bad motive for anonymity. Clearly, it was thought an inadequate reason. Anyway, if it is true that there is a significant number of individuals who think the only reason to be anonymous is so that one can be nasty, I'll change back. Can I keep my same "account"? I like that it reveals I have been here for a long time. I'm not a "charter member" but pretty close. I don't want to be new.

I also don't even understand what "identity thieves" can do with knowing my name here as against 3DOP. That was never a factor nor is it now. Please don't explain it. I really don't care about that. My opinion is that character is going to be discovered whatever an individual should call oneself.

So really...If a poll reveals that more than 20% of you find my pseudonym a discredit to me, it might be unfortunately necessary to change. On the other hand, Nemesis, one of our long time administrators (whose name I assume is not that), has reasons for wishing we would retain our pseudonyms. So should we take a poll, or should we follow the preference of our admins? Either way, somebody isn't going to like it.

3DOP

PS: As long as we are griping about members...how about finding some way of opting out of seeing some of these cruddy "avatars" as they are called? Some are simply repulsive. A few seem licentious.

[frankenstein]

The case of William schyver is a good lesson on using real name and being charitable in online discussions.

[3DOP]

The case of William schyver is a good lesson on using real name and being charitable in online discussions.

I am familiar with the name, unfamiliar with the case. Please explain as best you can without harming anyone's reputation. Does it argue as to the prudence or imprudence of using your real name?

[kolipoki09]

I am familiar with the name, unfamiliar with the case. Please explain as best you can without harming anyone's reputation. Does it argue as to the prudence or imprudence of using your real name?

I'll do my best.

If you're using your real name, be charitable in your comments. Avoid ostracizing others who disagree with you, especially those who are well-connected in the LDS academic community.

If you're not using your real name, there is still no real reason why you shouldn't be charitable, respectful, and open-minded.

As a side note, I think Will Schryver should continue to work toward publishing his research and I wish him well in that endeavor. In my opinion, the more people we have publishing on these topics, the better.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am familiar with the name, unfamiliar with the case. Please explain as best you can without harming anyone's reputation.

With the acrimony some feel against Will, I doubt that's possible. And it is likely to violate board rules. As thread originator, I say it's best not to go there.

[mfbukowski]

I am familiar with the name, unfamiliar with the case. Please explain as best you can without harming anyone's reputation. Does it argue as to the prudence or imprudence of using your real name?

The story is long and convoluted, and much of it appears on threads that have appeared on this very forum over a period of several years.

It would probably be impossible to summarize. The short story as I understand it is that Will commented here heavily under his own name for years primarily on the Book of Abraham. This subject probably doesn't interest you much so you have not noticed the great volume of threads on which Will contributed.

He was banned several months ago, and I hesitate to say exactly why because I personally am not sure about the details and do not want to misrepresent them- but he was and is (I hope) a faithful LDS apologist.

But the bottom line is that if you really want to know the whole sordid story I would suggest you look up his content and perhaps you will be able to piece together the whole lengthy tale.

[mfbukowski]

With the acrimony some feel against Will, I doubt that's possible. And it is likely to violate board rules. As thread originator, I say it's best not to go there.

Agreed- I think I was writing my post while you were posting yours.

[frankenstein]

3Dop,. Kolipoki surmised it very well. Be charitable, don't use vulgarity, be respectful. As there are people on both sides of every debate who do not forget and will haunt you with your own words.

[3DOP]

With the acrimony some feel against Will, I doubt that's possible. And it is likely to violate board rules. As thread originator, I say it's best not to go there.

Fair enough...I am not asking for details, I am asking if frankenstein's comment argues for using or not using one's real name. I have already submitted that I have a preference, although slight, for anonymity. In which way are we saying the "Will Schryver case" tips the scales? Does it argue for pseudonyms or real names?

[Calm]

Since 2004 when I came over from ZLMB, I remain as concerned as ever to preserve the reputation and integrity of 3DOP as I was when I posted under my real name over there. Haven't we all developed "personas" over the years? When here, I AM 3DOP. I care about how 3DOP is perceived. If I recall correctly, I did not see the need to take the slight chance that some Catholic friend might see my name and be upset or scandalized at views that I might make that could be perceived as prejudicial to the Catholic faith. I doubt it was necessary, but I never imagined that pseudonyms were thought of as something bad. At this time I have different reasons for a preference for anonymity. It's difficult to explain. I tried to explain it in the last thread started by RCrockett. I don't think any of those who want me to use my name understood what I was saying though, because here they are again repeating that there is only one bad motive for anonymity. Clearly, it was thought an inadequate reason. Anyway, if it is true that there is a significant number of individuals who think the only reason to be anonymous is so that one can be nasty, I'll change back. Can I keep my same "account"? I like that it reveals I have been here for a long time. I'm not a "charter member" but pretty close. I don't want to be new.

I also don't even understand what "identity thieves" can do with knowing my name here as against 3DOP. That was never a factor nor is it now. Please don't explain it. I really don't care about that. My opinion is that character is going to be discovered whatever an individual should call oneself.

So really...If a poll reveals that more than 20% of you find my pseudonym a discredit to me, it might be unfortunately necessary to change. On the other hand, Nemesis, one of our long time administrators (whose name I assume is not that), has reasons for wishing we would retain our pseudonyms. So should we take a poll, or should we follow the preference of our admins? Either way, somebody isn't going to like it.

3DOP

PS: As long as we are griping about members...how about finding some way of opting out of seeing some of these cruddy "avatars" as they are called? Some are simply repulsive. A few seem licentious.

You can certainly report any avatars you find inappropriate to the mods. You can also opt out of seeing any avatars if you want. Your profile setting has that option.

You can also keep your same account if you decide to change, just ask the mods and they will change your name like they did for DaddyG/KevinG.

I'm with you though. I am Cal online, that is as much me now as the me that is irl by another name. People online would know less about the person posting, not more, if what they saw was my name I use offline. And those who know me by both names aren't confused by it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough...I am not asking for details, I am asking if frankenstein's comment argues for using or not using one's real name. I have already submitted that I have a preference, although slight, for anonymity. In which way are we saying the "Will Schryver case" tips the scales? Does it argue for pseudonyms or real names?

I think what frankenstein is saying is that Will behaved badly even though he was using his real name. Frankenstein is thus giving anecdotal evidence.

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough...I am not asking for details, I am asking if frankenstein's comment argues for using or not using one's real name. I have already submitted that I have a preference, although slight, for anonymity. In which way are we saying the "Will Schryver case" tips the scales? Does it argue for pseudonyms or real names?

I think the implication is that because he allegedly "acted badly" using his own name, he will have trouble publishing in the future. At least that is my understanding of what is being said.

I rather liked Will actually though I disagreed with much of what he said

[frankenstein]

I am saying that not using vulgar, degrading language, is probably a good thing to do since their are people on both sides who will use your conduct against you.