Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

"All"???  Now that's hilarious.

And, we do all love you Duncan!!  (I think....  )

It's just a very strange, weird, different manner that is coming from you on this thread.

This.  It's like someone else hijacked the guy's keyboard.  I don't recall ever seeing this kind of aggression or defiance coming from said poster before this.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

This.  It's like someone else hijacked the guy's keyboard.  I don't recall ever seeing this kind of aggression or defiance coming from said poster before this.

Maybe his account was hacked? 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"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. 

I love you too and ALL of you!!!! as in the other posters as well, I don't hold grudges and forget things easy💋

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I love you too and ALL of you!!!! as in the other posters as well, I don't hold grudges and forget things easy💋

I don’t hold grudges. I’m just not understanding why you won’t back up your pretty serious accusations. 

[Ryan Dahle]

I don't fully agree with Duncan's interpretation of the rules of the board, and I suspect that he could provide more information about his claims without violating the cross-posting prohibition. However, I think that there is obviously some moral ambiguity and tension at play, and he needs to be given some slack. I suspect that, if he felt free to do so, he would say exactly what he thinks Bill was being dishonest about. I also think that most of us presume Duncan  has specific things in mind to back up his accusation. So we should probably take him at his word that his primary reason for not sharing them is his interpretation of the board rules. Whether we agree with his interpretation or not, we can't step into his mind and prove that he has ulterior motives for not sharing. So he deserves some slack. 

On the other hand, it is understandable that people get upset when one board member hints that another has been dishonest, especially when the individual making the assertion seems to understand, in the first place, that any claims of dishonesty couldn't be substantiated because of cross-posting prohibitions. 

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

Bill, do you have any regrets about your tone, attitude, or anything else in your treatment of Elder Holland and other things? Perfect, and wouldn't change a thing?

Do you think any of your behavior with your podcasts and public commentary could be taken to be "low," and "sad to see" as well?

Would you do anything differently? 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't fully agree with Duncan's interpretation of the rules of the board, and I suspect that he could provide more information about his claims without violating the cross-posting prohibition. However, I think that there is obviously some moral ambiguity and tension at play, and he needs to be given some slack. I suspect that, if he felt free to do so, he would say exactly what he thinks Bill was being dishonest about. I also think that most of us presume Duncan  has specific things in mind to back up his accusation. So we should probably take him at his word that his primary reason for not sharing them is his interpretation of the board rules. Whether we agree with his interpretation or not, we can't step into his mind and prove that he has ulterior motives for not sharing. So he deserves some slack. 

On the other hand, it is understandable that people get upset when one board member hints that another has been dishonest, especially when the individual making the assertion seems to understand, in the first place, that any claims of dishonesty couldn't be substantiated because of cross-posting prohibitions. 

No one is saying he has ulterior motives, at least I’m not. It just seems odd that he won’t provide specifics. 

[Ryan Dahle]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

No one is saying he has ulterior motives, at least I’m not. It just seems odd that he won’t provide specifics. 

Well, I meant in the sense that we might assume he doesn't have anything at all to back up his claim and is knowingly making baseless accusations, or that maybe he is just being spiteful because he doesn't like Bill's position. I wasn't talking about you, specifically, but everyone seems to be generally questioning his motives for not supplying the CFR.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No one is saying he has ulterior motives, at least I’m not. It just seems odd that he won’t provide specifics. 

Sometimes, people can know they've read or seen things, but also know they won't be able to meet the increasingly impossible standard of the developing "CFR bludgeoning." As in: spend the time to painstakingly go back and build up a dossier to post. 

I hate it when CFRs are used as a stick to beat someone with, and it happens here. When that happens, I think, "Enough already, you've made your point, let it go now." 

The knives were out for Duncan here. It had that feeling. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't fully agree with Duncan's interpretation of the rules of the board, and I suspect that he could provide more information about his claims without violating the cross-posting prohibition. However, I think that there is obviously some moral ambiguity and tension at play, and he needs to be given some slack. I suspect that, if he felt free to do so, he would say exactly what he thinks Bill was being dishonest about. I also think that most of us presume Duncan  has specific things in mind to back up his accusation. So we should probably take him at his word that his primary reason for not sharing them is his interpretation of the board rules. Whether we agree with his interpretation or not, we can't step into his mind and prove that he has ulterior motives for not sharing. So he deserves some slack. 

On the other hand, it is understandable that people get upset when one board member hints that another has been dishonest, especially when the individual making the assertion seems to understand, in the first place, that any claims of dishonesty couldn't be substantiated because of cross-posting prohibitions. 

I like Duncan and I suspect most people on this board do because he's always proven himself to be a thoughtful, considerate, respectful poster. Because of that he's been given considerable slack. But that has worn thin with his repeated refusal on this thread to respond to a very basic request to back up his accusation. That's how this board works. If everyone was able to make any accusation they wanted and then simply refuse to back up their assertion, it would be total chaos (more so than it already is  )

I've actually seen this tendency play out more and more often on this board when people expect that their word should cover any CFR. It's frustrating for all involved. One should know before they post that they may have to back up their assertions. If they know they can't back it up, they shouldn't post. It's pretty simple. I'm hoping a mod can put this to rest and make a statement about what it means to answer a CFR so that situations like this aren't repeated so often.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, I meant in the sense that we might assume he doesn't have anything at all to back up his claim and is knowingly making baseless accusations, or that maybe he is just being spiteful because he doesn't like Bill's position. I wasn't talking about you, specifically, but everyone seems to be generally questioning his motives for not supplying the CFR.

The rules are clear about responding to a CFR. I like Duncan a lot and don’t assume any spite or anything. I’m just quite puzzled as to his reasons for not providing specifics. 

[DBMormon]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

Bill, do you have any regrets about your tone, attitude, or anything else in your treatment of Elder Holland and other things? Perfect, and wouldn't change a thing?

Do you think any of your behavior with your podcasts and public commentary could be taken to be "low," and "sad to see" as well?

Would you do anything differently? 

This machine hurts people deeply and tells people it is something that is demonstrably not true.  Those two points which I hold deeply as demonstrable and true and also important to me.  My tone has increased as I have recognized that ignorance is becoming less and less of an excuse and the dishonesty and trauma are increasing in our tribe.  My tone and the raised voice of all people pointing to the unhealthiness is the only legitimate outlet they have given to have issues heard.

For example I asked questions on my facebook post.  My stake president is not well read and admittedly has zero answers for them.  The Church on the other hand could address them.  They could speak to them directly.  But doing so unravels everything and hence they go silent or in deceptive ways dismiss them and deflect from them.

Not sure how one approaches concerns softly and thinks such is actually working.  When I look at any healthy change the Church has made in the last 10 years, most of them have come due to loud critical thought.

Edited to add:  By the way I would welcome being soft.  But that would require them telling me a valid way of hearing serious concerns and actually addressing them.  The internet is here.  Their narrative is falling apart and is demonstrably not what they told us.  It is time to be forthright and vulnerable and end mechanisms that unrighteously cause trauma to others, especially the children.

Edited August 1, 2018 by DBMormon

[Calm]

56 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.

Maybe someone should ask a mod for clarification rather than telling Duncan it is okay.

I get why Duncan is interpreting it that way, assuming I understand his point,  I wouldn't go so far as his interpretation, but I think it is admirable he wants to abide by the board rules and .I hope a mod will be able to clarify it.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, I meant in the sense that we might assume he doesn't have anything at all to back up his claim and is knowingly making baseless accusations, or that maybe he is just being spiteful because he doesn't like Bill's position. I wasn't talking about you, specifically, but everyone seems to be generally questioning his motives for not supplying the CFR.

Bottom line is that he is refusing to give references to support his accusations.  

Probably in the future, it would be wise to refrain from accusing someone of being dishonest if your only proof of this is something you then turn around and claim you can't post.  It's not fair to accuse someone of something as serious as dishonesty, then say you have evidence of it, but refuse to supply the evidence and say things like...just go find it yourself or that it's in a general post on Facebook (who not all can even read and even if they can, they'd have to search or try to figure out what is being referred to).

At this point, I guess we will just leave it to the mods to sort out.  They are fair in these matters (from my observations). 

Or Duncan can just apologize for what he's accused Bill of doing.

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sometimes, people can know they've read or seen things, but also know they won't be able to meet the increasingly impossible standard of the developing "CFR bludgeoning." As in: spend the time to painstakingly go back and build up a dossier to post. 

I hate it when CFRs are used as a stick to beat someone with, and it happens here. When that happens, I think, "Enough already, you've made your point, let it go now." 

The knives were out for Duncan here. It had that feeling. 

I didn’t read it that way. I remember a poster being banned for saying someone had made up something, so I don’t take an accusation of dishonesty lightly. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’ve never listened to Bill’s podcast, so it doesn’t help me to tell me I have to listen to an episode and guess what’s been omitted. 

[Calm]

54 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.

 

He has given links and it has been quoted by Tacenda iirc.  He believes he shouldn't give specific quotes and his analysis, if I understand him.

I say be patient and drop this until a mod shows up or explain.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe someone should ask a mod for clarification rather than telling Duncan it is okay.

I get why Duncan is interpreting it that way, assuming I understand his point,  I wouldn't go so far as his interpretation, but I think it is admirable he wants to abide by the board rules and .I hope a mod will be able to clarify it.

He shouldn't post accusations if he's going to have to break board rules to back them up.  That's a no brainer really, IMO.

And he seems fine breaking the board rule of not supplying references when CFRs are issued.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t read it that way. I remember a poster being banned for saying someone had made up something, so I don’t take an accusation of dishonesty lightly. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’ve never listened to Bill’s podcast, so it doesn’t help me to tell me I have to listen to an episode and guess what’s been omitted. 

Well, it *really* doesn't help me, either. I hate podcasts, and never listen to them.  

I did listen to one one time at HappyJack's request. Gina Colvin from New Zealand. I want that hour of my life back . . . 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sometimes, people can know they've read or seen things, but also know they won't be able to meet the increasingly impossible standard of the developing "CFR bludgeoning." As in: spend the time to painstakingly go back and build up a dossier to post. 

I hate it when CFRs are used as a stick to beat someone with, and it happens here. When that happens, I think, "Enough already, you've made your point, let it go now." 

The knives were out for Duncan here. It had that feeling. 

The knives were not out for Duncan. I think he was given significant latitude because he is well-liked. But one cannot expect to post accusations and then refuse to answer CFR's to back up their claim.

If someone were to accuse Happyjackwagon, or Rongo, of being a homophobe, sexist bigot, I think we both would want to see evidence of that behavior or we would want the accuser to withdraw the claim. It seems just as reasonable that if someone said that HJW and Rongo regularly deceive and distort, then that should be backed up as well.

CFR's are occasionally used as a stick to silence people. Usually it's an intentional device to derail an argument. I've seen it, but this is not one of those instances. The only reason so many people are chiming in on this is because of Duncan's absolute refusal to honor a very reasonable CFR. No one's asking him to create a dossier of lies Bill has told. Just share a couple of examples. When he won't do that I can only assume he can't do it. Innocent until proven guilty kind of thing. Honestly, the blatant refusal to honor a reasonable CFR disrespectful to everyone on the board. The times I have been most frustrated on this board are times like this when someone just seems to thumb their nose at the board community. It's senseless. So the CFR isn't a stick, it's a rope. Duncan's been given plenty of slack with that rope. Hopefully he does the right thing.

I'm out.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t read it that way. I remember a poster being banned for saying someone had made up something, so I don’t take an accusation of dishonesty lightly. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’ve never listened to Bill’s podcast, so it doesn’t help me to tell me I have to listen to an episode and guess what’s been omitted. 

It is one of the reasons I so dislike podcasts...how can you tell there has been an omission (intentional or not) unless you listen to the whole thing and even then you may have missed something.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

He has given links and it has been quoted by Tacenda iirc.  He believes he shouldn't give specific quotes and his analysis, if I understand him.

I say be patient and drop this until a mod shows up or explain.

The link he gave has nothing dishonest in it, from what I can tell. If Duncan is interpreting something as dishonesty, he has not specified where it is in that link.

He won't be specific enough to even say what he's referring to and yet his accusations are very clear and specific.  He's not given references to back up what he's claiming.  A general post on Facebook doesn't meet the standards of answering a CFR, (with no quotes and not even stating the area where to look in the link for supporting information).

He has every right to think what he does or come to his own opinions or conclusions.....but not to outright call someone dishonest and then not back that up, IMO.

And he has not responded or answered DB's CFR.  Where has he done that?  

(I'm off of here for the day.  I've said my piece and will leave it to the mods who I feel are fair.)

Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He shouldn't post accusations if he's going to have to break board rules to back them up.  That's a no brainer really, IMO.

And he seems fine breaking the board rule of not supplying references when CFRs are issued.

He doesn't believe he is breaking the rules though, but keeping them.  I don't think it is a nobrainer since the rules are in conflict in his interpretation, so he fulfilled the CFR to the limit he felt comfortable with.

Duncan believes he is following the rules and more people who aren't mods telling him he is wrong is useless imo.

Why not just wait and see what the mods say instead of pushing Duncan to respond now?

Edited August 1, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe someone should ask a mod for clarification rather than telling Duncan it is okay.

I get why Duncan is interpreting it that way, assuming I understand his point,  I wouldn't go so far as his interpretation, but I think it is admirable he wants to abide by the board rules and .I hope a mod will be able to clarify it.

I agree with you and hope the mods chime in. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The link he gave has nothing dishonest in it, from what I can tell. If Duncan interpreting something as dishonesty, he has specified where that is in that link.

He won't be specific enough to even say what he's referring to and yet his accusations are very clear and specific.  He's not given references to back up what he's claiming.  A general post on Facebook doesn't meet the standards of answering a CFR, (with no quotes and not even stating the area to look in the link for supporting information).

He has every right to think what he does or come to his own opinions or conclusions.....but not to outright call someone dishonest and then not back that up, IMO.

Not only does he not say where the dishonesty can be found, he won't even tell us what it was about beyond a very vague "Isaiah and the Book of Mormon". I don't even know what he's talking about as those are two extremely broad topics. He literally won't even give a summary of what the position was.

Whoops, I forgot. I'm out  

 

[SouthernMo]

@Duncan you seem to perhaps be in a quagmire between a couple of forum guidelines.

Would you be willing to respond in greater detail to the CFR if a moderator allows you a temporary reprieve and gives you all the latitude you need to make your case/point more convincingly?