08-18-2008, 05:35 AM
|
#144
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 73
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.
The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.
It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.
Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.
It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.
Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?
|
Thanks for your viewpoint. I would not say it is a blur, but this is a minor detail. I cannot name every person nor the exact number in that room, but believe me some parts of it and the faces there are as vivid as if it happened yesterday. I make a choice not to go there so generally to just say it is hazy makes it easier. Do I make myself more clear?
|
|
|