Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

did I say lies? no and why three? and why did you put a question mark after "spread"?  are you asking yourself a question? Making junk up and asking others to honour is dumb

I believe the accusation was dishonesty, but you haven't shown any evidence of that. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHA allright..................what has Bill distorted? listen to his podcasts, read his comments and come back  with a straight face and say he has a grasp of the history of the church, because he doesn't

burden is on the person making a claim

CFR for examples of my dishonesty?

Posted
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe the accusation was dishonesty, but you haven't shown any evidence of that. 

Correct.  None so far at least.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

nope, I gave my position, I generalized what he does and if you don't like it then move on with life

That is not how board rules work.  If you make a demonstrable claim but don't back it up when a CFR is issued you have broken board rules.  Especially since personal attacks are another board rule.

Edited by DBMormon
Posted
1 hour ago, Joe said:

Bill, quit distorting church history! That's the job of CES. 

amen

Posted
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe the accusation was dishonesty, but you haven't shown any evidence of that. 

dishonesty by distortion by omission and I provided where I thought that came from and if people don't want to check it out then move on with your life as I have said again and again

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

did I say lies? 

Can you be dishonest without telling lies or lying (by omission or commission)?  I've got to think on that, but I doubt it as there is some type of deceit involved in dishonest behavior.  

You have claimed Bill is dishonest and that he takes credit for other people's writings.  So far, you have provided nothing to back that up and have refused to respond CFR(s) issued.  (The Facebook link you provided did not answer the CFR).

I'd stick up for anyone being accused of dishonesty here and would want to see proof or evidence.  Your refusal to do so, is very odd.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

That is not how board rules work.  If you make a demonstrable claim but don't back it up when a CFR is issued you have broken board rules.  Especially since personal attacks are another board rule.

personal attacks? I think you need to get over yourself, for serious

Posted
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

dishonesty by distortion by omission and I provided where I thought that came from and if people don't want to check it out then move on with your life as I have said again and again

No, you haven't provided much of anything. I don't believe it's against board rules to quote someone in order to respond to a CFR, but a vague "listen to his podcast about gold plates" is not acceptable. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

did I say lies? no and why three? and why did you put a question mark after "spread"?  are you asking yourself a question? Making junk up and asking others to honour is dumb

because you have said I have done so repeatedly.  Three will suffice to prove your point.  I welcome even one thing I have said with intentional dishonesty.

Posted

I genuinely think that people's online comments from other places is off limits and if others are going to bully me into it, I don't think it's right. I base my perception on what people say on what they say and I said where, against my beliefs, of where I got it from. If that is "ugly" then, it is what it is. Bill said "lies" I never said that, why does he think I said that? is he making it up?  I was talking about "distortion by omission" it's bad, and I don't think it represents good history.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

because you have said I have done so repeatedly.  Three will suffice to prove your point.  I welcome even one thing I have said with intentional dishonesty.

that's not correct and if you can read and understand my posts I never said "lie" and when did I say anything about intent? 

Edited by Duncan
Posted
Just now, Duncan said:

I genuinely think that people's online comments from other places is off limits and if others are going to bully me into it, I don't think it's right. I base my perception on what people say on what they say and I said where, against my beliefs, of where I got it from. If that is "ugly" then, it is what it is. Bill said "lies" I never said that, why does he think I said that? is he making it up?  I was talking about "distortion by omission" it's bad, and I don't think it represents good history.

I don't believe that's the case. You already have Bill's permission in this thread to quote him where he's being dishonest. It's more off limits to accuse someone of dishonesty and refuse to back it up with actual evidence. You've been on this board a long time, and I would have expected you'd understand this.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

dishonesty by distortion by omission and I provided where I thought that came from and if people don't want to check it out then move on with your life as I have said again and again

You know, you don't have to quote directly to explain what was omitted and how it was dishonest. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, you haven't provided much of anything. I don't believe it's against board rules to quote someone in order to respond to a CFR, but a vague "listen to his podcast about gold plates" is not acceptable. 

You earlier said, "I believe the accusation was dishonesty, but you haven't shown any evidence of that. " but now you're saying "much of anything" so, which is it? any or much? 

Posted
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't believe that's the case. You already have Bill's permission in this thread to quote him where he's being dishonest. It's more off limits to accuse someone of dishonesty and refuse to back it up with actual evidence. You've been on this board a long time, and I would have expected you'd understand this.

I won't until a moderator says so and hopefully says something about badgering as well, I want a judge to straighten me out on if we are in the wrong

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

personal attacks? I think you need to get over yourself, for serious

Duncan, really?  Calling someone "dishonest" is very personal.  

Just apologize and state you only have your impression or opinion, but have got nothing to prove any dishonesty has taken place.  Then let's move on.

You obviously have nothing to post or you would have already.

Edited by ALarson
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I won't until a moderator says so and hopefully says something about badgering as well, I want a judge to straighten me out on if we are in the wrong

It only states not to badger AFTER someone has already given references and answers.  You've refused to supply references or honor the CFRs.

Quote

 Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given.

 

Edited by ALarson
Posted
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It only states not to badger AFTER someone has already given references and answers.  You've refused to supply references or honor the CFRs.

 

Maybe everyone just needs to report Duncan's post so a mod can take notice and direct him to answer the CFR. It's unfortunate it has to come to this, especially from Duncan.

Posted
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe everyone just needs to report Duncan's post so a mod can take notice and direct him to answer the CFR. It's unfortunate it has to come to this, especially from Duncan.

I have.  It was low behavior.  and sad to see.  

Posted
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe everyone just needs to report Duncan's post so a mod can take notice and direct him to answer the CFR. It's unfortunate it has to come to this, especially from Duncan.

I hope they can straighten us all out!

Posted
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Duncan, really?  Calling someone "dishonest" is very personal.  

Just apologize and state you only have your impression or opinion, but have got nothing to prove any dishonesty has taken place.  Then let's move on.

You obviously have nothing to post or you would have already.

This gobsmacking. For the 300th time I have told people where I think it's dishonest, are my posts being written in white ink or something?

Posted
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It only states not to badger AFTER someone has already given references and answers.  You've refused to supply references or honor the CFRs.

 

and given, which I did

Posted
17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You earlier said, "I believe the accusation was dishonesty, but you haven't shown any evidence of that. " but now you're saying "much of anything" so, which is it? any or much? 

How about a whole lot of nothing? 

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I hope they can straighten us all out!

"All"???  Now that's hilarious.

And, we do all love you Duncan!!  (I think....but that's just an opinion of mine :) )

It's just a very strange, weird, different manner coming from you on this thread and it seems out of character for you. 

Edited by ALarson
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...