Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: Looks like more than one! All those containing wages or personal information are more than just one, right? So he’s OK with everything else McKnight has done then? I thought he said there’s not much there that he supports. Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not at all certain it will pass muster. I’m just saying I think it’s worth consideration. I’m not an attorney. Are you? I'm not. I've already stated that in my very first post on this thread. You sure seem to be defending it, and PacMan's tone, on this thread as if you think it is a genius legal move. Time will tell. 1
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Right. So you can only come with one at the moment you disapprove of. Yet you purported to not see much he has done that you do support. That leaves a wide field from which you thus far can only identify one example. Just trying to clarify the matter. No, not just one example. Thus the "s" on the word leaks ("I really disliked any of the leaks regarding what a person earned or giving personal information"). IIRC. there have been many leaks where I've disagreed with them being too invasive or too personal. There hasn't just been one. But I repeat....I have no interest in taking the time to go searching and reading.each individual leak and posting them here. I've given you several examples of ones I remember and stated how I feel about them. I think it's time you dropped this unless you want to open a new thread about specific leaks and then I'd be happy to give my opinion on whichever one you want to discuss. Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JulieM said: I imagine they’re aware and would use it if they could! Maybe they will 😊 What is your basis for imagining they’re aware? Pac-Man has already given some reasons why it might not have occurred to them. Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: No, not just one example. Thus the "s" on the word leaks ("I really disliked any of the leaks regarding what a person earned or giving personal information"). IIRC. there have been many leaks where I've disagreed with being too invasive or too personal. There hasn't just been one. But I repeat....I have no interest in taking the time to go searching and reading.individual leaks. So now you’re not even going to bother coming up with anything else. So much for there not being much McKnight has done that you support.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not. I've already stated that in my very first post on this thread. You sure seem to be defending it, and PacMan's tone, on this thread as if you think it is a genius legal move. Time will tell. Just trying to keep the playing field level in the face of naysayers shouting him down. This is a discussion board, right?
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So much for there not being much McKnight has done that you support. No, that's still true. PacMan accused me of supporting what McKnight is doing and I replied: "I actually do not support much of what McKnight has done." And that's still a true and honest statement (backed up by the examples I've given). Time to move on.... unless you want to discuss a specific leak? If so, I'd suggest starting a new thread. Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: No, that's still true. PacMan accused me of supporting what McKnight is doing and I replied: "I actually do not support much of what McKnight has done." And that's still a true and honest statement (backed up by the examples I've given). Time to move on.... But when pressed you can’t come up with anything but disclosure of salary information. And you refuse even to look up anything. If you want to move on, we’ll move on. But I can see why you’re uncomfortable with this.
JulieM Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So he’s OK with everything else McKnight has done then? No. Wow. You’re really obsessed over this. Why? There have been hundreds of leaks and he said he wasn’t supportive of most (or much). If there is one you’re thinking of, maybe just ask ALarson about it? Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM 2
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: But when pressed you can’t come up with anything but disclosure of salary information. I stated salary or those too invasive or including other personal information. That covers many leaks. Good grief. Drop it. I stand by my original statement (in response to PacMan's accusation that I support what McKnight is doing). I don't support much of what he's done (which is still as true as the first time I stated it). If you want specifics, start a new thread about different leaks. Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson 2
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you want to move on, we’ll move on. But I can see why you’re uncomfortable with this. Uncomfortable? No. I see no reason to discuss specific leaks here and have no interest in taking the time to go searching. I've given many examples of what I didn't like regarding the leaks. You're really being ridiculous here, Scott. Drop it. Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson 2
PacMan Posted June 18, 2018 Author Posted June 18, 2018 57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Although it is true that Church employees and their agents may break the law or contractual agreements by disclosing confidential information to the press, the 1st amendment on freedom of the press allows the recipient of such leaked information to use it without fear of prosecution. McKnight is not in jeopardy, and is not committing an illegal act. Professional journalists typically refuse to disclose their sources, even when found in contempt by judges. Robert, Respectfully, that's just not correct. The First Amendment has virtually no place in defense of a civil tort action as I've outlined. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 45 minutes ago, ALarson said: Uncomfortable? No. I see no reason to discuss specific leaks here and have no interest in taking the time to go searching. I've given many examples of what I didn't like regarding the leaks. You're really being ridiculous here, Scott. Drop it. You’ve given a single boilerplate example and claimed that counts for “many.” If you can’t do better than that, fine. Let’s drop it. But it falsifies your claim that there not much about McKnight’s behavior you support.
JulieM Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’ve given a single boilerplate example and claimed that counts for “many.” If you can’t do better than that, fine. Let’s drop it. But it falsifies your claim that there not much about McKnight’s behavior you support. I don’t see how this is accurate (his claim being falsified). If I’m remembering right, a lot of the leaks involved some names and personal information. I hope you don’t expect each one of these to be linked to and named? One can dislike much of what was leaked if we just include those already named or referred to as being too personal. I see this as supporting not falsifying. Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 hour ago, JulieM said: No. Wow. You’re really obsessed over this. Why? There have been hundreds of leaks and he said he wasn’t supportive of most (or much). If there is one you’re thinking of, maybe just ask ALarson about it? I asked him for two or three. He gave one. If there are “hundreds of leaks” the bulk of which he doesn’t support, he should be able with dispatch to come up with not just two or three but several examples.
Recommended Posts