Sput's new MAD thread

[_wenglund]

Unfortunately, it resulted in the apologists routinely getting their butts kicked.

Well, Wade, I think that totally squelching dissent and criticism is pretty "petty" and "vicious."

I understand the rationalization of some that the reason LDS apologists left ZLMB in droves and why the have allegedly been banning people from FAIR, is because they can't handle dissent and criticism at all ("totally"), and they "routinely get there butts kicked", and have thus sequestered themselves in the more highly protective environs of MADD.

I wonder how those (such as Scratch and LG) who use this rationalization, somehow explain to their own minds the presence at MADD of such renown and accomplished critics as Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, or somewhat less renown critics like Tarski, Sethbag and Californiakid, etc.?

Aren't those who have been banned, and who rationalize things as stated, implying that Vogel and company are not dissenting and criticizing?

Aren't they implying that they (Scratch et. al.) are better at "kicking butt" than Vogel and company?

There is a reason that Vogel and company are welcomed, respected, valued, and even desired company to LDS apologists, whereas folks like Scratch and KG are deemed by some to be repelling, lacking credibility, and the kind folks that some can't wait to get away from. There is a reason that Vogel and company can engage LDS apologists on their own turf, and others are relegated to cat-calling the object of their affection and obsession from afar.

Is it (i.e. the banning of critics at FAIR/MADD and the exodus from ZLMB) really a matter of over-powering strength of argumentation on the part of the banned and alientated? Or, could it really have something more to do with repelling, anti-social, prejudiced, and closed-minded attitudes and behaviors?

I have my suspicions, but I am curious to learn what others may thinks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

Actually, Wade...The reason that Scratch was banned was because someone who claimed to be Scratch rudely insulted DCP on RfM, and DCP posted the insult on FAIR for all to see.

To this day, Scratch denies making the comment on RfM, and I believe him. I think that someone who didn't like him posted as him on that website, hoping that it would catch up with him.

Basically, when this remark came through, Nomos came to the conclusion that the previous assumptions about Scratch being a sock puppet for Rollo must have been true (although there was no basis for this either) and he was banned.

I was disappointed when Scratch was banned from FAIR. He and I has sparred politely on a couple of different issues, and had had some pleasant debates. I honestly don't recall Scratch ever flaming/personally attacking anyone on the FAIR board, including DCP. Disagreeing with people and attacking are two separate issues.

Now, since that time, I have seen Scratch go after people on this board if they personally attack him, or someone he cares about.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I'd like you to answer this question straight up. Are you suggesting that ZLMB was not moderated without bias?

Jersey Girl

I am suggesting that I had no qualms with the moderating at ZLMB. I think it was administered as fairly and equitably as the diverse folks involved knew how.

I even understood and accepted the rules as reasonable and rational--though I disagree with the prohibition against personal criticism of ZLMB participants.

I believe that prohibition, even when equitably administered, inadvertantly fostered an environment that was not conducive to mutually respectful, valued, and productive dialogue on matters LDS.

Besides, the nature of the discussion and the composition of participants, not to mention the heat to light and sound to noise ratios (as Brent Metcalfe is fond of pointing out), became increasingly unacceptible, to the point that many LDS apologist and even some LDS critics abandoned the sinking ZLMB ship for the firm and more amenable shore of FAIR.

Granted, the same prohibition has been implemented at FAIR/MADD, but they have done a better job than Z of increasing the light to heat and sound to noise ratio, and weeding out those with poor social skills and those simply looking to whine, complain, gripe, and ridicule.

I happen to prefer this board to MAD because it offers me the chance to be personally critical of the critics--since that is where I think the real problems lay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Actually, Wade...The reason that Scratch was banned was because someone who claimed to be Scratch rudely insulted DCP on RfM, and DCP posted the insult on FAIR for all to see.

To this day, Scratch denies making the comment on RfM, and I believe him. I think that someone who didn't like him posted as him on that website, hoping that it would catch up with him.

Basically, when this remark came through, Nomos came to the conclusion that the previous assumptions about Scratch being a sock puppet for Rollo must have been true (although there was no basis for this either) and he was banned.

I was disappointed when Scratch was banned from FAIR. He and I has sparred politely on a couple of different issues, and had had some pleasant debates. I honestly don't recall Scratch ever flaming/personally attacking anyone on the FAIR board, including DCP. Disagreeing with people and attacking are two separate issues.

Now, since that time, I have seen Scratch go after people on this board if they personally attack him, or someone he cares about.

Hi Liz,

I respect your perception--though I have my doubts about Scratch not participating at RFM.

However, I think the issue with Scratch extends further back in FAIR history (and perhaps even at ZLMB), when he was posting under a different screen name.

I also think the palpable repulsion has more to do with his pettiness, persistent negativity, closed-mindedness, projective and arrogant approach, than it does with him flamming.

And, his persistent behavior here and at KG's old board have, I believe, confirmed in not a few people's mind the long-held impressions him, if not having removed whatever doubt.

There is a reason he was banned, and continues to be banned, and why LDS apologist (for the most part) have little or no inclination to engage him in dialogue or pay him much mind, and quite the opposite is true of Vogel and company.

I, for one, care very much about Scratch, and I would dearly love to see things change for the better. I think he has much good and insight to offer in the interest of all concerned. But, that will never be realized if he continues as is.

I know whereof I speak since I have had to learn the same challenging lesson myself over the years. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Unfortunately, it resulted in the apologists routinely getting their butts kicked.

Well, Wade, I think that totally squelching dissent and criticism is pretty "petty" and "vicious."

I understand the rationalization of some that the reason LDS apologists left ZLMB in droves and why the have allegedly been banning people from FAIR, is because they can't handle dissent and criticism at all ("totally"), and they "routinely get there butts kicked", and have thus sequestered themselves in the more highly protective environs of MADD.

That is exactly what happened, my friend. juliann herself has admitted that "it was open season on LDS."

I wonder how those (such as Scratch and LG) who use this rationalization, somehow explain to their own minds the presence at MADD of such renown and accomplished critics as Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, or somewhat less renown critics like Tarski, Sethbag and Californiakid, etc.?

When was the last time any of these critics publicly embarrassed and/or beat up on DCP? As for the more renown critics such as Metcalfe and Vogel---first, when was the last time Metcalfe posted anything? As I recall, he put up a couple of things but his last main contribution was his utter trouncing of Brian Hauglid in the Book of Abraham thread---a thread that was swiftly whisked away to the even cozier confines of the Pundits Forum. As for Vogel, he tends to be very nice and easy-going, and to stick very closely to the conventions of academic interaction. Both Vogel and Metcalfe are fairly well-known scholars within the world of LDS scholarship, and if MAD were to boot them off the board, it would reflect horribly on MAD, and make it seem even more acutely that the MADites cannot handle criticism.

As for The Dude, Tarski, CK, etc., they all either have Ph.Ds, or else powerful senses of humor which have endeared them to certain MADites.

Aren't those who have been banned, and who rationalize things as stated, implying that Vogel and company are not dissenting and criticizing?

No, I'm afraid not.

Aren't they implying that they (Scratch et. al.) are better at "kicking butt" than Vogel and company?

Again, no.

There is a reason that Vogel and company are welcomed, respected, valued, and even desired company to LDS apologists, whereas folks like Scratch and KG are deemed by some to be repelling, lacking credibility, and the kind folks that some can't wait to get away from. There is a reason that Vogel and company can engage LDS apologists on their own turf, and others are relegated to cat-calling the object of their affection and obsession from afar.

Yes, and the reason is that juliann and the rest of the MADmoderating team have banned some of us.

Is it (i.e. the banning of critics at FAIR/MADD and the exodus from ZLMB) really a matter of over-powering strength of argumentation on the part of the banned and alientated? Or, could it really have something more to do with repelling, anti-social, prejudiced, and closed-minded attitudes and behaviors?

It cannot be the latter, since this sort of behavior is routinely tolerated from posters such as Pahoran, Hammer, DCP, and juliann.

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, Wade...The reason that Scratch was banned was because someone who claimed to be Scratch rudely insulted DCP on RfM, and DCP posted the insult on FAIR for all to see.

To this day, Scratch denies making the comment on RfM, and I believe him. I think that someone who didn't like him posted as him on that website, hoping that it would catch up with him.

For the record, I am not sure that this is what have happened, although initially that's what I assumed. It could have been (God forbid!) a case of DCP making stuff up. Or he could have made a mistake when he was transcribing posts. He apparently maintains a kind of "RfM Archive." In any case, I am not guilty of what he accused me of. I *have* called him names before, such as "donut boy," and even "a-hole," but I was not guilty of the thing that got me banned.

Basically, when this remark came through, Nomos came to the conclusion that the previous assumptions about Scratch being a sock puppet for Rollo must have been true (although there was no basis for this either) and he was banned.

I was disappointed when Scratch was banned from FAIR. He and I has sparred politely on a couple of different issues, and had had some pleasant debates. I honestly don't recall Scratch ever flaming/personally attacking anyone on the FAIR board, including DCP. Disagreeing with people and attacking are two separate issues.

Now, since that time, I have seen Scratch go after people on this board if they personally attack him, or someone he cares about.

Pahoran is really the only one I can recall ever really going after.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade,

I'd like you to answer this question straight up. Are you suggesting that ZLMB was not moderated without bias?

Jersey Girl

I am suggesting that I had no qualms with the moderating at ZLMB. I think it was administered as fairly and equitably as the diverse folks involved knew how.

I even understood and accepted the rules as reasonable and rational--though I disagree with the prohibition against personal criticism of ZLMB participants.

Ah, I see. So you're a-okay with "personal criticism" of "participants," but you cannot tolerate criticism of your "most precious and dear" Church? Yup, that sounds real FAIR to me! ; )

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, Wade...The reason that Scratch was banned was because someone who claimed to be Scratch rudely insulted DCP on RfM, and DCP posted the insult on FAIR for all to see.

To this day, Scratch denies making the comment on RfM, and I believe him. I think that someone who didn't like him posted as him on that website, hoping that it would catch up with him.

Basically, when this remark came through, Nomos came to the conclusion that the previous assumptions about Scratch being a sock puppet for Rollo must have been true (although there was no basis for this either) and he was banned.

I was disappointed when Scratch was banned from FAIR. He and I has sparred politely on a couple of different issues, and had had some pleasant debates. I honestly don't recall Scratch ever flaming/personally attacking anyone on the FAIR board, including DCP. Disagreeing with people and attacking are two separate issues.

Now, since that time, I have seen Scratch go after people on this board if they personally attack him, or someone he cares about.

Hi Liz,

I respect your perception--though I have my doubts about Scratch not participating at RFM.

I have posted at RfM before. I'm just not guilty of what DCP accused me of.

However, I think the issue with Scratch extends further back in FAIR history (and perhaps even at ZLMB), when he was posting under a different screen name.

What name was that, Wade?

I also think the palpable repulsion has more to do with his pettiness, persistent negativity, closed-mindedness, projective and arrogant approach, than it does with him flamming.

Lol!!! Can you give me any specific examples of this behavior, Wade, so that I can work on correcting it?

And, his persistent behavior here and at KG's old board have, I believe, confirmed in not a few people's mind the long-held impressions him, if not having removed whatever doubt.

There is a reason he was banned, and continues to be banned, and why LDS apologist (for the most part) have little or no inclination to engage him in dialogue or pay him much mind, and quite the opposite is true of Vogel and company.

Yes, it is because they know they will be completely and utterly trounced, just as you have, my dear Wade! In all seriousness, though, you're wrong about your claim that the apologists "pay [me] no mind." I know for a fact that they are addicted to my blog, and what's more, DCP has both cited my posts, and used them in his sig. lines. I can assure you that he is very interested in what I have to say. So there goes yet another one of your vacuous claims right out the window.

[_Gazelam]

I wonder how many of those who complain about "open season" on LDS have ever actually placed themselves in a situation in real life where their beliefs are challenged? I can't tell oyu how many times I have been told I am going to hell for my beliefs, and not on a message board.

A place like this is far more realistic to me in discussing the church than a place where a conversation is edited and controled in a heavy handed manner.

[_Jersey Girl]

I wonder how many of those who complain about "open season" on LDS have ever actually placed themselves in a situation in real life where their beliefs are challenged? I can't tell oyu how many times I have been told I am going to hell for my beliefs, and not on a message board.

A place like this is far more realistic to me in discussing the church than a place where a conversation is edited and controled in a heavy handed manner.

Exactly. EXACTLY!!!! I owe it to a group of particularly challenging skeptics for helping me to see the difference between spouting dogma and giving a rational ( we hope) explanation for what I believe and why. So many debates and discussions. So many topics were hashed through. One should never be afraid of challenge! Being challenged by others does not need to make one feel on the defensive. People from diverse backgrounds/religious affiliations can actually grow and learn together on boards like these. I consider my strongest adversaries as friends and partners in thought, exchange of ideas, my critics and people who genuinely wish me well in life. I think I had a rare opportunity (in terms of boards like this) to cut my teeth (if you will) with some of the best and challenging heads I've ever come across.

When I read some of these boards (especially FAIR/MAD) I wonder if people really know (or care) what they look like to an outsider and what they do or do not do for the reputation of their church in the way that they represent their beliefs and how they respond to critics and investigators?

It looks to me as if some of the apologists (not all) wish to simply produce their home brewed ideas without challenge. Maybe they like the affirmation they receive from others of their own faith however, back slapping without challenge does not make your ideas correct or even have merit. Silencing your critics and being unwilling to engage makes it look like a person isn't confident of what they believe or what they've prepared to defend or explain it. All too often, the opportunity to be an authentic witness is lost on the very people who think they are apologists for the church, some of which reduce their representation to manipulation and deceptive games.

Shame on them.

Jersey Girl