You could see this coming from about a mile off

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Folks in the Creek got a lot of play in that article.

That's because most of the writers and editors for that paper are from the Creek area and so they do what they can to make it easy.


This paper actually has pretty extensive coverage of LDS issues due, I have always assumed, to the relative large number of LDS members in its subscription area.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That's because most of the writers and editors for that paper are from the Creek area and so they do what they can to make it easy.


This paper actually has pretty extensive coverage of LDS issues due, I have always assumed, to the relative large number of LDS members in its subscription area.

Why was the articled deleted? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. (Why has no one here asked such an obvious question?) The LDS got to them. No coersion here, is there, Levin.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why was the articled deleted? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. (Why has no one here asked such an obvious question?) The LDS got to them. No coersion here, is there, Levin.

You must be joking.

I have no idea why iot was deleted, but I assure you it was not becaseu the LDS got to tehm.

Wait, you are joking. I get it.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why was the articled deleted? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. (Why has no one here asked such an obvious question?) The LDS got to them. No coersion here, is there, Levin.

I hear we destroyed the press. LDS gotta do what LDS gotta do.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

You must be joking.

I have no idea why iot was deleted, but I assure you it was not becaseu the LDS got to tehm.

Wait, you are joking. I get it.

You don't think someone's bishop or stake president got to a quoted person and made them contact the paper and say they were misquoted and threaten a defamation suit? Were born yesterday? "The article needs to be edited" is code for just that. Obviously someone quoted complained.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't think someone's bishop or stake president got to a quoted person and made them contact the paper and say they were misquoted and threaten a defamation suit? Were born yesterday? "The article needs to be edited" is code for just that. Obviously someone quoted complained.

I think it's very plausible that someone said they were misquoted, or that they had agreed to be an anonymous source, not a named source.

I don't think we will see a new version of the article.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't think someone's bishop or stake president got to a quoted person and made them contact the paper and say they were misquoted and threaten a defamation suit? Were born yesterday? "The article needs to be edited" is code for just that. Obviously someone quoted complained.

Sure, that's possible, but that doesn't mean it is a result of some far-reaching LDS conspiracy that controls the media.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Sure, that's possible, but that doesn't mean it is a result of some far-reaching LDS conspiracy that controls the media.

Why would they care, other than coercion?

[MikeWaters]

Here's the article that quotes Matt Thurston:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/06/30/6

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why would they care, other than coercion?

What sort of coercion are you talking about? From the pulpit? Who knows why they would care.