C
CannonCougar85Westidaho you have been...

http://blogofowned.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/owned9wz.jpg " alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
by bplewe · 8/20/2010
gmj81 wrote:
If anyone is dishonest here westidahocougar, it's you, not BYU. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.
westidahocougar wrote:If anyone is dishonest here westidahocougar, it's you, not BYU. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.
I know, I made this whole situation up! Ha Ha, good one.
You all have given great examples, good points. My real question from the beginning has been about BYU's honesty.
If we have been totally honest in this entire situation, than I would like to see how and where and what we have done that has been so honest IN THIS SITUATION THAT WE ARE NOW IN. Many of the situations you have described are entirely different business scenarios, whether private business or the church, etc. Good examples, but they dont fully equate to this situation.
My feeling is and will remain, if we have to ask ourselves if we are being dishonest, than we probably are. I didnt start this thread, just interjected because of my concern over the image of the church in all of this.
ABYUFAN wrote:Rather than personally attack me, making fun, poking at my business knowledge, using justifications, etc., etc., why dont you all counter my arguments of dishonesty with arguments to how BYU has been forthright and honest in all these dealings?
What you call "personally attacking you", others would call "questioning your unsubstantiated definition of honesty". If you get to define "dishonesty" any old way you choose, then you'll be able to call anyone you want dishonest. If you are forced to use an objective standard of honesty, then you'll not be able to do so. However, when being forced to use an objective standard for defining honesty (or, "dishonesty") you call it a personal attack. Simply put, you don't want an answer to your question, what you want is acquiescence.