Here's an odd question

[Archaea]

what compels a person to "support" somebody such as Nielsen who wouldn't support the supporter?

Supporting a family member, a loved one, a relative is sensible, IMHO. But why butt heads with any organization, if it won't get you paid, or get you laid?

Perhaps I'm a bit of a pragmatist.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Archaea

what compels a person to "support" somebody such as Nielsen who wouldn't support the supporter?

Supporting a family member, a loved one, a relative is sensible, IMHO. But why butt heads with any organization, if it won't get you paid, or get you laid?

Perhaps I'm a bit of a pragmatist.

Neilson was just a catalyst for sharing an opinion Danzig already wanted to express. IMHO. If it wasn't Neilson it would have eventually been someone or something else.

[SoCalCoug]

I'm thinking the Nielsen thing was the catalyst for some bad feelings left over from the poor treatment Danzig believes his father received from church authorities. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

And I believe that is also the reason he failed to temper his written statements.

It's a bell that can't be unrung, so I can't say I necessarily criticize him for refusing to back down once that bell was rung.

Had it been less of an emotional issue for him, perhaps he would have been less strident in his letter to the editor, and everything would have blown over.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm thinking the Nielsen thing was the catalyst for some bad feelings left over from the poor treatment Danzig believes his father received from church authorities. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

And I believe that is also the reason he failed to temper his written statements.

It's a bell that can't be unrung, so I can't say I necessarily criticize him for refusing to back down once that bell was rung.

Had it been less of an emotional issue for him, perhaps he would have been less strident in his letter to the editor, and everything would have blown over.

Another thing, what idiot gives his real name in a letter to the editor? I've written a few but have never, ever given any trail which could link me to the letter?

[SeattleUte]

Who's the idiot here. I and many like me didn't even know about the letter to the editor. It was something that certainly would have been quickly forgotten. So they kick him out of the orchestra and then constructively evict him from his religion, and the whole event matastasizes. Meanwhile, this fellow is probably having a blast; his 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Worhol used to say.

My sense is that people who are angry are not so much angry about the LDS church's support for the gay marriage amenedment, they're pissed about the fact this guy writes a letter to the editor expressing his opinion and then gets kicked out of the orchestra and finally bullied out of the church. Can't the LDS Church just have ignored the guy, left him alone? They themselves created whatever problem this is for them by taking action against this little guy.

The fundamental problem is that this "only true church" is so racked by insecurity, so lacking in the courage of its convictions and fundamental righteousness of its positions and even its reason for being it's funny. They haven't changed since they were buying fake "historical" documents discrediting Mormonism from Mark Hoffman to hide from members or destroy.

Ultimately, they're scared to death of guys like this little fellow who just wanted to play his obo in the tabernacle. If they had the courage of their convictions they would have left him alone. They're bullies; they pick on people.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Ultimately, they're scared to death of guys like this little fellow who just wanted to play his obo in the tabernacle.

Hey, I thought we established that the guy's not gay.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Who's the idiot here. I and many like me didn't even know about the letter to the editor. It was something that certainly would have been quickly forgotten. So they kick him out of the orchestra and then constructively evict him from his religion, and the whole even matastasizes. Meanwhile, this fellow is probably having a blast; his 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Worhol used to say.

My sense is that people who are angry are not so much angry about the LDS church's support for the gay marriage amenedment, they're pissed about the fact this guy writes a letter to the editor expressing his opinion and then gets kicked out of the orchestra and finally bullied out of the church. Can't the LDS Church just have ignored the guy, left him alone? They themselves created whatever problem this is for them by taking action against this little guy.

The fundamental problem is that this "only true church" is so racked by insecurity, so lacking in the courage of its convictions and fundamental righteousness of its positions and even its eason for being it's funny. They haven't changed since they were buying fake "historical" documents discrediting Mormonism from Mark Hoffman to hide from members or destroy.

Ultimately, they're scared to death of guys like this little fellow who just wanted to play his obo in the tabernacle. If they had the courage of their convictions they would have left him alone. They're bullies; they pick on people.

The church doesn't get any high marks here to be certain.

However, would you ever list your real name in any letter to the editor, unless the client paid you to do so?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The church doesn't get any high marks here to be certain.

However, would you ever list your real name in any letter to the editor, unless the client paid you to do so?

LOL. Yes. Most people here know who I am. What's the difference? The only reason I'd hesitiate is if it could cost me money. But if I felt like writing a published piece that might anger a client I'd refrain, just wouldn't do it.

There's no shame in showing the courage of your convictions, displaying a little devotion to principle.

Personally, I think the LDS Church is in the wrong here on so many levels it makes me dizzy. It's a wonderful thing to have your convictions validated.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. Yes. Most people here know who I am. What's the difference? The only reason I'd hesitiate is if it could cost me money. But if I felt like writing a published piece that might anger a client I'd refrain, just wouldn't do it.

There's no shame in showing the courage of your convictions, displaying a little devotion to principle.

Personally, I think the LDS Church is in the wrong here on so many levels it makes me dizzy. It's a wonderful thing to have your convictions validated.

Yes, but posting semi-anonymously on a message board, is quite a bit different, than leaving your name, as Joe Schmo Rich attorney.

Let me put it to you differently.

Do you want your young associate attorneys writing letters to the Seattle Tribune, opining as attorneys for Your Biggest Client, that your biggest client is dishonest, disreputable and incapable of rendering honest goods and services?