Pahoran Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Hey let's remember we are not here to directly accuse anyone of anything- all I want to do is look at the evidence.And we certainly do not want to accuse fellow posters of saying things they did not say- as you have done hereEvidence is one thing and the explanation of the evidence is totally different- so please everyone hedge your language accordingly. Just the facts as you can show them PLEASEIF it is true that Scratch knew before the email was sent to DCP, (THAT IS AN "IF") can anyone think of an explanation which takes Bradford off the hook?We already have one- his computer was hacked.Bill Hamblin has already said he knows who the mole is, and it isn't Bradford.It seems reasonable to me that Bradford would make at least some effort to ensure all his ducks were in a row before moving against Dan. Even if he didn't show people the actual email, he would certainly have discussed the matter with those he thought he could count on. That at least one of those people could be counted on to be both hostile to Dan and utterly untrustworthy appears not to have occurred to him.Regards,Pahoran
CV75 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Bill Hamblin has already said he knows who the mole is, and it isn't Bradford.Maybe smeone allowed themselves to be hacked.
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Hey let's remember we are not here to directly accuse anyone of anything- all I want to do is look at the evidence.And we certainly do not want to accuse fellow posters of saying things they did not say- as you have done hereUm, whom did I accuse of saying what? <head cocked> 1
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) This was the best I could do with out using a smiley with drug refrences. NemesisThat did not occur to me. Thanks! Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah
Hayds Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) When Craig Jessop was dismissed as director of the MoTabs after President Hinckley died (they let him resign, but made it clear his authority was being so curtailed that continuing was unthinkable), there was no mention of any cause or reason.He shortly thereafter gets a plum job at USU, heading up the music and theater departments.The money was probably a bit better, though the continued notariety suffered a bit.All in all, not a bad deal.It may be that our favorite Professor Doktor is now facing a similar uptick in his life.I certainly hope this turns out to be the case.And shame on those miserable bureaucrats at yBu, living fairly high on the backs of the Phillipina widows whose mites fund their salaries. A pox on all their houses!It is doubtful in this case. Its true Jessop seemed to be "taken care of" after being wrongfully targeted and fired. The difference is Jessop probably didn't descend on his managers with a seething email telling the MoTab they would utterly fail without him at the helm and promise to not support the organization and divulge the "truth" while allowing his friends to mount a very public internet campaign to besmirch his formers bosses and the organization. I could be wrong, but this probably destroyed those chances of him being "hooked up" by taking one for the team.I think the way the MI handled Peterson's termination was totally unprofessional. DCP had every right to be angry and even furious, but he should have waited until he was back in the states to confront the issue instead of sending that email. Cooler heads always prevail. Edited June 26, 2012 by Hayds 2
Matthew J. Tandy Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I think a hack is highly unlikely. That ventures deep into the highly illegal territory. And if there was an actual hack, the "reports from the mole would be much more detailed, regular, and interesting.
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 it is possible that one or more computers there have been compromised and that someone has been monitoring communications for quite some time.Because there is nothing more titillating than the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute. Really you guys? It's like a Glenn Beck brain-fry going on.
CV75 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I think a hack is highly unlikely. That ventures deep into the highly illegal territory. And if there was an actual hack, the "reports from the mole would be much more detailed, regular, and interesting.What better way to cover up a hacking than to corrupt the information just a little bit?
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Gee Cal you sure get instant results around here Gee, I wonder why that is? I should know better....I blame it on lack of sleep....except I did have a good "night" today. Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 Bill Hamblin has already said he knows who the mole is, and it isn't Bradford.I totally missed that.Where did he say that?
CV75 Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Because there is nothing more titillating than the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute. Really you guys? It's like a Glenn Beck brain-fry going on. No, no... just a little mischief by those who are so titilated
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 Because there is nothing more titillating than the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute. Really you guys? It's like a Glenn Beck brain-fry going on. As far as I know, no one is requiring that you post here.Why don't you work on the thread about whether or not fetuses can feel the spirit? That one seems to be infinitely more interesting.
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I don't view as a "casualty" a brief mention of a person of interest . . .And now he's a person of interest . . . this just keeps getting better. Why is he a person of interest?Just because KG has dropped his name?Has this person of interest done anything to interest you?Yeah, I think bringing up someone's name like this in this kind of an environment is irresponsible.
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 It does raise the question as to where Kevin may have gotten his intel.I am interested as anyone I suspect on who it was, but I don't think we should be putting up any names even in the vaguest connection with this controversy who haven't already put up their own names. 3
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I am interested as anyone I suspect on who it was, but I don't think we should be putting up any names even in the vaguest connection with this controversy who haven't already put up their own names.I agree competely.
Hayds Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Maybe it wasn't a leak but a hack.This is possible. I know I am armchair quarterbacking here, but if the MI is leaking like a sieve as DCP explains in his email, why on earth did he send the email to as many people as he did?
Pahoran Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Because there is nothing more titillating than the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute. Really you guys? It's like a Glenn Beck brain-fry going on. Well Mark, here's the thing. The fact is that some person or persons has in fact shown an interest, bordering on obsession, with "the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute." Assertions about what is going on there, some accurate enough to show some kind of inside source, and some completely off-the-wall, have been appearing with monotonous regularity, and attracting considerable comment, over at the Sty. So if you wish so ostentatiously to parade your superiority by mocking someone, how about you mock those who are actually showing that kind of interest?Regards,Pahoran
Somebodyz Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) I totally missed that.Where did he say that?Still looking for his quote...in the mean time.http://www.mormondia...te/page__st__80"* I have some specific reasons to believe that those to whom I copied my response to Jerry Bradford were not the source of the leak.""* Nobody at the Institute has been disciplined in any way for the leak." Edited June 26, 2012 by Somebodyz
wenglund Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 And now he's a person of interest . . . this just keeps getting better. Why is he a person of interest?Just because KG has dropped his name?Has this person of interest done anything to interest you?Yeah, I think bringing up someone's name like this in this kind of an environment is irresponsible.I wasn't aware that the simplest comment from me could animate you so. But, evidently, since it is of such paramount importance to you, then once you have followed my earlier suggestions (in response to your previous questions), then get back with me and I will try and answer your follow-up questions.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Well Mark, here's the thing. The fact is that some person or persons has in fact shown an interest, bordering on obsession, with "the internal workings of the Maxwell Institute." Assertions about what is going on there, some accurate enough to show some kind of inside source, and some completely off-the-wall, have been appearing with monotonous regularity, and attracting considerable comment, over at the Sty. So if you wish so ostentatiously to parade your superiority by mocking someone, how about you mock those who are actually showing that kind of interest?Regards,PahoranThank you.
wenglund Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I am interested as anyone I suspect on who it was, but I don't think we should be putting up any names even in the vaguest connection with this controversy who haven't already put up their own names.I have disclosed nothing that Kevin and Haglid, themselves, have already disclosed here and elsewhere. So, I really don't see the problem.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mfbukowski Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 Um, whom did I accuse of saying what? <head cocked>Wade...and is he your first casualty?
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I wasn't aware that the simplest comment from me could animate you so. But, evidently, since it is of such paramount importance to you, then once you have followed my earlier suggestions (in response to your previous questions), then get back with me and I will try and answer your follow-up questions.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Sorry, I don't pal around with apostates.
Mark Beesley Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 WadeSince when does a question become an accusation?
Calm Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 This is possible. I know I am armchair quarterbacking here, but if the MI is leaking like a sieve as DCP explains in his email, why on earth did he send the email to as many people as he did?Probably so he could be sure that those people he wanted to know his side of the story would know rather than just assuming they would pick it up somehow.
Recommended Posts