Can Political Statements Disqualify for Callings?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Hey, you're the one typing in all caps 

You have been quoted the section from your source (and Calm has told you it's not there).  You even admitted there was nothing about the emigrants stealing hoarse in the original version of the book. It's now been revised (the copy you've ordered) and even more accusations have been removed.

So, bad form on your part regarding fulfilling the CFR or withdrawing your statement and this also goes against the board guidelines.   That sums it up.

 

"Hey, you're the one typing in all caps."

 

Complete accident, I assure you. It's not like I was trying to get your attention on a certain matter or anything like that.

 

"You even admitted there was nothing about the emigrants stealing hoarse in the original version of the book."

No, I have not. I have said that I cannot find the pages w=they should be on but I've been quite clear that I know it's there.

That is correct, and if you reread what we dialogued you'll find that I am all for placing more emphasis on the updated edition of Alexander's book. When I asked you what Alexanders book said about stealing horses that he did say something, you replied, "Not in that book.  He says he did revise the book (I think this is the 3rd edition).  Maybe he learned some facts and removed some accusations?  I don't know... ". To that I answred, "Perhaps. I read it in the 90s. But, the revision may be a better, more accurate source so perhaps that was a prevailing thought but n longer is based on new evidence. Also, I may be conflating stealing horses from the book's account with something Professor Alexander said in class and/or with the rumor that the party poisoned a well." I further let it be known that I have not been able to read the updated sources myself, once I do I'll be glad update my opinion.

"So, bad form on your part regarding fulfilling the CFR or withdrawing your statement and this also goes against the board guidelines.   That sums it up."

Really Julie, if a board administrator calls me out on this I'll conform, it's their forum after all, not mine. But, I'll just stretch and yawn here until they do, it won't happen. But, as seen here, I could be wrong.

Luv ya' Julie.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've noticed that defending one's honor in CFR challenges becomes a hill that most people are willing to die on. It's really interesting. 

Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive. 

I don't like it when CFRs are wielded as a bludgeon, or are issued for personal views or for reporting something that was said to somebody. Not saying this is the case in this instance. I don't like it when CFRs are "weaponized." 

"Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive."

Thank you. I appreciate the luv, sir. It's good to be publicly appreciated... at least once in a while.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've noticed that defending one's honor in CFR challenges becomes a hill that most people are willing to die on. It's really interesting. 

Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive. 

I don't like it when CFRs are wielded as a bludgeon, or are issued for personal views or for reporting something that was said to somebody. Not saying this is the case in this instance. I don't like it when CFRs are "weaponized." 

I agree with you. But in this case Darren is acting as a poor actor in this discussion. This is the kind of situation when a CFR needs to be answered. He stated a fact and couldn't back it up. He was provided alternative sources and quotes showing how he is likely wrong, yet he refuses to answer the CFR, claiming he may do that in the future if he realizes he's wrong.

A better plan would be to retract a statement that cannot be backed up. If he finds his evidence later, he can repost.

The CFR policy seems to be one that promotes responsibility for the claims we make. If it feels like Darren has been bludgeoned with the CFR it's only because he has repeatedly refused to answer it. That is a sign of a poor communication partner.

[Darren10]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with you. But in this case Darren is acting as a poor actor in this discussion. This is the kind of situation when a CFR needs to be answered. He stated a fact and couldn't back it up. He was provided alternative sources and quotes showing how he is likely wrong, yet he refuses to answer the CFR, claiming he may do that in the future if he realizes he's wrong.

A better plan would be to retract a statement that cannot be backed up. If he finds his evidence later, he can repost.

The CFR policy seems to be one that promotes responsibility for the claims we make. If it feels like Darren has been bludgeoned with the CFR it's only because he has repeatedly refused to answer it. That is a sign of a poor communication partner.

"But in this case Darren is acting as a poor actor in this discussion. This is the kind of situation when a CFR needs to be answered. He stated a fact and couldn't back it up. He was provided alternative sources and quotes showing how he is likely wrong, yet he refuses to answer the CFR, claiming he may do that in the future if he realizes he's wrong. "

Don't forget the fact that I'm staking my ground because I am very certain what I cited is there. I'm stubborn like that.

We'll talk about "a better plan' in due time.  

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've noticed that defending one's honor in CFR challenges becomes a hill that most people are willing to die on. It's really interesting. 

Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive. 

Yes, I agree.. Most of us have errored regarding remembering something we read a long time ago.  

You just own up to it and admit you were mistaken (I know I've had to do this too).. Shouldn't be a big deal.

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I agree.. Most of us have errored regarding remembering something we read a long time ago.  

You just own up to it and admit you were mistaken (I know I've had to do this too).. Shouldn't be a big deal.

THEN DON'T MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!!! (Oops, caps on again). Also, I did not err in what I read a long time ago. In fact I cited direct evidence that I got it right.

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive."

Thank you. I appreciate the luv, sir. It's good to be publicly appreciated... at least once in a while.

You get that Rongo wasn't referring to you here (since you haven't done what he described)?

Rongo can speak for himself but I haven't seen where you've "admitted you overreached or over represented ".  You've continuously done just the opposite.

You've provided nothing to back up your claim that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians.  It's not in the book you claim it's in either (Calm owns it, took time to read those sections, and posted that it's not there)

But I'm done here.

Edited February 15, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

HappyJack;

 

Also, isn't it a bit ironic that you call for CFR to foster integrity and yet when I cannot actually read something that was cited I don't change my position until I can actually read it?

Also, you wrote dismissively of me yet despite my not altering until I can read a CFR myself, I fully plan to change because I trust those who have provided citations n their defense. If possible could you render at least a little of that trust to me? I promise to better sustain your church callings if you do.

Just things to think about.

 

Luv ya' Brothah.

[Darren10]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You get that Rongo wasn't referring to you here (since you haven't done what he described)?

Rongo can speak for himself but I haven't seen where you've "admitted you overreached or over represented ".  You've continuously done just the opposite.

You've provided nothing to back up your claim that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians.  It's not in the book you claim it's in either (Calm owns it be posted that it's not there)

But I'm done here.

"You get that Rongo wasn't referring to you here (since you haven't done what he described)?" - He wasn't? I didn't?

"Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive." - Well, I thought that's what I was doing. But, I'm probably wrong again.

"But I'm done here." - PHEW!!!

Edited to add: "(Calm owns it be posted that it's not there)" - I thought she said she owns the Revised Edition. Shall we CFR it?

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

HappyJack;

 

Also, isn't it a bit ironic that you call for CFR to foster integrity and yet when I cannot actually read something that was cited I don't change my position until I can actually read it?

Also, you wrote dismissively of me yet despite my not altering until I can read a CFR myself, I fully plan to change because I trust those who have provided citations n their defense. If possible could you render at least a little of that trust to me? I promise to better sustain your church callings if you do.

Just things to think about.

 

Luv ya' Brothah.

Look, this is getting ridiculous.

What is the purpose of a CFR? It is a call for reference so that the person making an assertion backs it up with a reference. It keeps us all honest and provides an opportunity to correct erroneous information, like you presented.

If the person doesn't have a source, they can retract the statement. No big deal. I've done it. I've been wrong about something I thought I remembered and I've retracted. That is a responsible way to handle this. But digging in your heals because you really think you are right, as if that makes a difference. You said, "Don't forget the fact that I'm staking my ground because I am very certain what I cited is there. I'm stubborn like that." Provide a reference or retract. It wouldn't be a big deal at all if you retracted and I can't understand why you refuse to do so when you admit that you don't currently have a reference to provide.

Trust you? What for? A CFR provides evidence and doesn't require me to just "trust" you. No. I don't think so. You've done nothing to earn it. Think about what you're asking. By your logic I could make any claim about Joseph Smith I wanted citing a source like Rough Stone Rolling. A CFR would likely be issued. Would it be acceptable for me to say, "Trust me bro, I'm certain I'm right." OR "I REFUSE TO RETRACT MY STATEMENT OR PROVIDE A SOURCE until I have time to reread RSR."

You're being absurd and I stand by my previous statement that you are acting as a poor communication partner. I hope that can change, especially on an issue like this. It's not a hill to die on so I'm not sure why you are being so obstinate and disrespectful to the process.

Edited February 15, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Hestia]

Darren10, if a CFR is issued you must be able to answer it when it is issued, not 'at some future date'.  Either answer the CFR today, withdraw your statement until you can verify it later, or........  

(You don't want "or".)

~Mods

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

"Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive."

Thank you. I appreciate the luv, sir. It's good to be publicly appreciated... at least once in a while.

Actually, Darren, I was speaking about CFR culture here in general. I think, in this case, that you should have acknowledged that you overstepped. It appears that Alexander even modulated his tone and conclusions in updated editions, from what has been posted here. 

It happens. I've overstepped, too, and it can be hard to "lose face" publicly about it. But, it's best to be gracious about it and move on.

I can't see that any further findings on your part under "the jury is still out" on this narrow question will be anything more than hearsay reports from Mormons, or historian opinion and commentary. In other words, nothing that concretely and definitively supports refusing to fulfill the terms of the CFR. 

But, at any rate, I think you've made your point and JulieM has made hers, and the chips can fall where they may --- with both of you okay with what observers think of it.

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Actually, Darren, I was speaking about CFR culture here in general. I think, in this case, that you should have acknowledged that you overstepped. It appears that Alexander even modulated his tone and conclusions in updated editions, from what has been posted here. 

It happens. I've overstepped, too, and it can be hard to "lose face" publicly about it. But, it's best to be gracious about it and move on.

I can't see that any further findings on your part under "the jury is still out" on this narrow question will be anything more than hearsay reports from Mormons, or historian opinion and commentary. In other words, nothing that concretely and definitively supports refusing to fulfill the terms of the CFR. 

But, at any rate, I think you've made your point and JulieM has made hers, and the chips can fall where they may --- with both of you okay with what observers think of it.

That plus Hestia has spoken.

 

[Darren10]

Quote

Darren10, if a CFR is issued you must be able to answer it when it is issued, not 'at some future date'.  Either answer the CFR today, withdraw your statement until you can verify it later, or........  

Quote

Really Julie, if a board administrator calls me out on this I'll conform, it's their forum after all, not mine. But, I'll just stretch and yawn here until they do, it won't happen. But, as seen here, I could be wrong.

I was wrong, soooo...

As per Hestia's post, I withdraw my position that Thomas Alexander once wrote that the Fancher Party once stole horses from the Paiutes. I do so because I cannot find my 1996 edition of his book to document that that's what he said.

 

[Darren10]

HappyJack;

Quote

Trust you? What for? A CFR provides evidence and doesn't require me to just "trust" you. No. I don't think so. You've done nothing to earn it. Think about what you're asking. By your logic I could make any claim about Joseph Smith I wanted citing a source like Rough Stone Rolling. A CFR would likely be issued. Would it be acceptable for me to say, "Trust me bro, I'm certain I'm right." OR "I REFUSE TO RETRACT MY STATEMENT OR PROVIDE A SOURCE until I have time to reread RSR."

I'd be perfectly fine with that. I'd simply apply the fact that you cannot verify your claim until you find your source. To me that really is not big deal. Despite your not being able to verify your claim I would *absolutely* trust you on what you are saying. In fact I'd probably thank you for your insight and await your verification of your claim. Trust does not mean I agree, nor does it diminish the integrity of a dialogue, it merely expresses confidence in you in that are being forthright and honest; not necessarily absolutely correct, but honest in what you say. Whatever trust you place in me is up to you but trusting others can and does go a long ways.

Why you do not think the same way is beyond me. In fact, I find this standard full of integrity and compatibility. It's obvious that this is not how this forum roles and so be it. For those who want to participate here, they may under this forum's standards. Agreeable or not, it is what it is.

Just my take.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

You get that Rongo wasn't referring to you here (since you haven't done what he described)?

Rongo can speak for himself but I haven't seen where you've "admitted you overreached or over represented ".  You've continuously done just the opposite.

You've provided nothing to back up your claim that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians.  It's not in the book you claim it's in either (Calm owns it, took time to read those sections, and posted that it's not there)

But I'm done here.

I do not own the edition he believes it is in.

My reading---Darren can correct me if I am wrong---is that he understands and accepts that Alexander's views on reports of the emigrants' behaviour have changed with better documentation and he is only claiming the likelihood that the original or 1996 edition of the Alexander book has the report of horse stealing, not that it happened as reported.  My posts do not in any way demonstrate what was in the 1995 or 1996 edition, so have no impact on his claim (if I have interpreted it correctly).  My posts only show a more recent attitude of Alexander.

While I don't have a problem with Darren not changing his claim until the book gets here, given the possibility there might be misunderstanding that one supports the report of settler behaviour as the best evidence of what happened (contrary to current scholarship), I would probably remove it if I was in his situation (I say probably because we can never tell until we are in a situation what we would do and I haven't been in a similar one even; I am also obsessed with accuracy in telling what happened in cases where accuracy is appealed to, even if accuracy is only needed for another reason, so it is possible I might not want to change it if I strongly believed as he does the 96 book says it...but I suspect if pressured to do so, I would as I tend to be very accommodating, not always a good thing).

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Calm;

 

WTL most definitely put a different perspective on the massacre than did Alexander. Good stuff.

I see this post as demonstrating Darren is not insisting that what he believes Alexander first wrote in his 95/96 edition is an accurate portrayal of events.  He is accepting of current scholarship changing the "perspective".

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Huh, that's very interesting. 

This also appears to me a recognition that Alexander got things wrong (he is responding to my post on one thing Alexander was definitely proved wrong on concluding, who was present at the massacre from the Paiutes), which means Darren is accepting the horse report is not accurate...but that doesn't mean it is not in the book.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

From your first link:

And where does it say that they were shot because they were black?

How many resisted when approached by and officer?

Larry Elder, more than anyone else I personally follow in the media, frequently lays out the statistical case of how deceptive it is to say that blacks are disproportionally shot by cops than are other races. Elder cites crime statistics to do so.

http://www.larryelder.com/column/hillary-lies-cops-die/

Wouldn't you say that the single largest portion of violent crimes are committed by young black males?

 

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

BlueDreams;

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-reps-make-hands-up-dont-shoot-protest-gesture-on-house-floor/

When members of the US House of Representatives make this gesture on the house floor to express solidarity for Fergusson protestors, this is a national issue, not some off shoot, loosely affiliated, individual connected to Black Lives matter. It is based on an outright lie and it gets cops killed. It is very serious and should be routinely denounced by all, even Black Lives Matter and all affiliated with it. Where's the denouncement of this as a lie? It's great that I hear a call to "end violence" but it seems after they denounce violence they perpetuate the very thing fomenting the violence they call for to end.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a national issue. I said it was decentralized in power structures. There's not one leader moving it forward and one group organizer doesn't necessarily represent another. 

But in all of this, including your questions, I would really suggest reading into this more. It's fairly obvious to me that the knowledge you have about this is a) one-sided and b) minimal. To understand the reasons for what they're doing, it's important to look at the other side as well as basic stats. I've done that before....including with certain extreme positions. Hearing "reports" (often closer in this case to hearsay and anecdotal evidence) from people who are extremely biased towards them doesn't help.

 

 With luv,

BD

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I see this post as demonstrating Darren is not insisting that what he believes Alexander first wrote in his 95/96 edition is an accurate portrayal of events.  He is accepting of current scholarship changing the "perspective".

Thanks Calm. I do have a friend here afterall.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This also appears to me a recognition that Alexander got things wrong (he is responding to my post on one thing Alexander was definitely proved wrong on concluding, who was present at the massacre from the Paiutes), which means Darren is accepting the horse report is not accurate...but that doesn't mean it is not in the book.

BINGO!!!!

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

BINGO!!!!

Seriously?  You knew your original statement wasn't "accurate"?

Sheesh...why didn't you retract it 3 pages ago then? 

(The CFR wasn't asking you to prove your inaccurate statement had been erroneously published years ago.)

Edited February 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I didn't say it wasn't a national issue. I said it was decentralized in power structures. There's not one leader moving it forward and one group organizer doesn't necessarily represent another. 

But in all of this, including your questions, I would really suggest reading into this more. It's fairly obvious to me that the knowledge you have about this is a) one-sided and b) minimal. To understand the reasons for what they're doing, it's important to look at the other side as well as basic stats. I've done that before....including with certain extreme positions. Hearing "reports" (often closer in this case to hearsay and anecdotal evidence) from people who are extremely biased towards them doesn't help.

 

 With luv,

BD

That's perfectly fair to say.

Now, for my defense, I am perhaps much closely connected to the black community than many would suppose. I have been n inner city schools for over 15 years and the current one is clearly, though not necessarily "by far", a majority of black students. I love them through and through. On a related note, just today, a certain student who annoys me to no end unexpectedly stood up in my defense when another student cracked off "what do you have against black students". The annoying student immediately stood up and shouted (unfortunately he does this a lot every time he is in my classroom for many reasons) at that student, looking right at him and pointing directly to me, "oh, no, this man is NOT a racist". I expressed my appreciation for him but that he needed to calm down and pay attention to the instruction ahead. He expressed this, I assume, because I work directly with students and their parents. I express a lot of empathy towards whatever situation the are in and do what I can for the success of their students. I pretty much grasp what to say, when, and how to say it. I'm not perfect but generally-speaking this is a fair portrayal of my character.

On another occasion, I picked up a middle aged black man for Uber to take him to his job. It was one of the day's longer rides (about 17 minutes if I remember correctly) and it was right after one of the shootings of an unarmed black man which sparked national protest by Black Lives Matter. He brought the issue up in the car with me and told me he meant no disrespect followed up by how blacks are treated very unfairly by cops under a white system. As a rule of thumb, I do not argue politics while working in either of my jobs. so I listened intently and empathized whenever the opportunity came. He was obviously irate but not arguing with him calmed things down. He then talked about himself. He mentioned that he was a single father and BAM! I had my conversational piece. I told him how greatly important fathers are in the home and that I think the single most important significant factor hurting the black community is the lack of fathers in the home. Oh boy did he smile and lighten up in a manner saying, "he understand me!". We finished the conversation on a very good note agreeing that mothers are of course important and naturally better than men at certain aspects of child raising. But men too are important and have their own unique aptitude to provide for a family.

Here's my contention for Black Lives Matter: they do absolutely nothing but stir hate, resentment, victimhood, and foremost, invent what's wrong in society and completely ignore what truly needs to be done. When was the last BLM protest march against fathers leaving their families? Fatherless homes are rampant in the black community. All the stats I have gathered and heard of regarding crime is that the single largest culprit of violent crimes are young black men. I've no doubt that there's a connection between that and there being fatherless homes. A single black mother of one of my students thanked me for being a man and setting boundaries for her son in class. He's a good kid but definitely needs boundaries set for him. Instead of focusing on fatherless homes, instead of protesting all the black on black crime (the primary culprit in Chicago's huge spike in homicides) they blame police for shooting blacks. Always the "unarmed black" suspect. The suspect running away. The black suspect reaching into their pockets instead of keeping them where an officer can see them. (No weapons in the hands mean an officer will not get assaulted by them). There is no Black Lives matter protest against blacks not complying with officers. Instead they seem to regularly portray incidents of blacks getting shot by cops because they are black. If this were the early 19th century or even as recently as the 1960s they'd probably have a legitimate grievance. But today cops do NOT shoot blacks because they are blacks. Yes, I think cops suspect blacks more because they are black and I do think that should improve and I do think a look into the proportion of crimes committed by blacks despite their minority status is warranted to see, at least mildly, what cops have to deal with when they're on the streets.

Black Lives Matter was formed after the shooting of an unarmed black teen named Trayvon Martin. While I agree that a self proclaimed neighborhood watch man named George Zimmerman should have followed Martin in a neighborhood Zimmerman did not recognize him as belonging to, Trayvon should NOT have retaliated by telling Zimmerman if "[he] had a problem...you do now" and then punching Zimmerman down. This was followed by Trayvon continually attacking Zimmerman in a "ground and pound" style. This type of fighting, especially over concrete, can easily kill a person. Zimmerman got his gun and shot Trayvon. I do not recall anytime BLM, nor Trayvon's parent's condemned Trayvon for assaulting Zimmerman. instead they purported, and continue to purport how an 'unarmed black teen" was shot. While factually correct, Trayvon was black, a teen, and unarmed, that's hardly a justifiable portrayal of the situation. Black Lives Matter was founded on a lie. A lie perpetuated by the news media (I'm glad the reporter was fired but the news media is hardly held accountable for its depiction of the trayvon martin case) and perpetuated by BLM itself. And BLM continues to perpetuate lies. (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0).

As a result, police have been prosecuted and I've no doubt has given cause to an increase number of threats and ambushes against the police. (Certain Black Lives Matter leaders support cop killings. )

True that Black Lives Matter has no centralized person of power and authority. In that sense they are much like the TEA parties which popped up in recent years in the country. But TEA part leaders  would readily condemn anything unworthy of their cause. If anyone said anything racist under the TEA Party name, authentic TEA party leaders hastily condemned it and distanced their organizations from the offense. Could you point to me the Black Lives Matter groups who condemn cop killings, condemn the lies that say cops shoot unarmed blacks leaving the impression that they did so because those people were black?  Which Black Lives Matter groups actively engages blacks on how to properly interact with the police when pulled over or stopped for questioning? While there is no one specific BLM group, joining them is supporting their cause which is focused on police shooting blacks. That's absurd! The KKK also has lots of groups and while some are more significant than others, why is it bad to join them and not Black Lives Matter? They were both founded on lies and hate aganst one's fellow man.

So that's my dollar's worth (that's 5 times greater than a mere 2 cents worth :) ) for now.

 

Sincerely;

 

Darren

 

Edited to add: Also what I think is a result of Black Lives matter - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-police-say-officer-didnt-shoot-during-beating-fearing-scrutiny/ 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Seriously?  You knew your original statement wasn't "accurate"?

Sheesh...why didn't you retract it 3 pages ago then? 

(The CFR wasn't asking you to prove your inaccurate statement had been erroneously published years ago.)

CFR please.

Also, CFR regarding your "being done" please.

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This also appears to me a recognition that Alexander got things wrong (he is responding to my post on one thing Alexander was definitely proved wrong on concluding, who was present at the massacre from the Paiutes), which means Darren is accepting the horse report is not accurate...but that doesn't mean it is not in the book.

Wow, you got all of that from just:

"Huh, that's very interesting"?