Of course, you would side even with a gay rights activist if he was opposing Mormons. "I have personal experience with the way mormons run things. Frankly, I would side with anyone who stands up to the dictatorial, tyrannical corporation and its minions." 71 posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:09:49 PM by greyfoxx39 (buckle in for 4 more years of detached, grandstanding flourish left untethered by an incurious media)
For example post 68 where delacoert also takes the gay activist version of events Comparing and contrasting the Church lawyers version of events as a tall tale with Hardy's version as "pretty convincing".
>>>"Pretty tall tale. I have heard tell that Smithian's have a fine tradition of tale telling. I notice that Mr. Hardy's lawyers are quite willing and able to construct a time-line, provide background documentation, and explain their client's side of the story in a pretty convincing manner. Maybe your tale will help clarify things. 68 posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:58:21 PM by delacoert
Many of the other posts are not as blatant or more "subtle" in carrying the water for gay activist Chad Hardy here on FR but a basic reading of the posts makes it abundantly clear.
For example, Post 17 correctly points out Hardy's anti-Prop 8 agenda with his own quotes. Post 41 Elsie seeks to downplay and minimize Hardy's involvedment with the gay community. Post 62 greyfoxx shows Hardy's version of events (which is fine in an informational/debate discussion format.) but then goes as in post 71 to advocate for Hardy. The poster ejonsie goes on to try to play defense for Hardy's position as well in post 65,66,67. A basic rreading of the thread shows some posters have crossed the line from open debate on Hardy's case into carrying water for his agenda. Not all are as blatant as post 71 where the poster openly admits they will side with the gay activists but many are doing so on this thread.
And so it goes for 300+ posts. I know you have better things to do than to respond to me. But at some point one has to ask the question why is a gay activists version of events and posters who make arguments for him allowed to stand on FR?
I'm sure you haven't time to go through 300 posts, but if you do, you will find that:
No. 1 There is no evidence shown that Hardy is gay.
No. 2 The calendar showed men bare to the waist.
No. 3 The facts surrounding the withholding of Hardy's diploma after he was allowed to walk at graduation, and had not been a student at BYU for 6+ years except through online courses smack of retaliation.
The LDS church wasn't satisfied to just excommunicate him, but IMO chose to extract vengeance as a means to deliver a message to others who might be tempted to flout the school, and by extension the LDS church.
Last but not least, most of us have moved on to other matters. There are several other mormon threads ongoing.
Bravo...
Are you referring to lady lawyer when you say "Church lawyers [sic] version"?
Do you really know if lady lawyer is retained as a legal council for LDS and/or BYU in a matter regarding Chad Ryan?
Are you saying that you know that lady lawyer is a member of bar?
Are you saying that lady lawyer has offered legal opinions on this or any other case?
I do not see any gay activism.
Post 71 is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" post.
You might remember in the run-up to the General Election, Larry Sinclair's claims concerning Obama were given serious consideration here even though the posters themselves would never approve of the behavior he claimed.
That I believe is the extent of it in this case as well.
Why has a peepstone fraudulent adulterer allowed to warp the minds of millions of people?
It's a FREE country!
Frankly, I would side with anyone who stands up to the dictatorial, tyrannical corporation and its minions."
The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
1010rd
Is that anything like the way the LDS Organization® clings to any piece of jetsam that floats by to try to support IT'S claims?
Not ME???
Quit with the Messenger killing and state the RULES that CH broke.