A MA&D Poster Links to this Board

[_dartagnan]

Which, incidentally, I'm not aware of having happened. What has happened is that people have been banned and the reasons haven't been announced. That doesn't mean there was no reason for it.

In my case I was banned for doing something I never did. They declared a reason but that reason didn’t add up with what was actually stated. Then there was the fifth of November purge that wiped out quite a few posters in one swipe. No reasons were given for some of them.

What also happens is that people misrepresent the reasons for their banning.

I didn’t misrepresent the reasons for my banning. I was banned because the mods have no sense of FAIR play, and they were too stupid to realize fabricate doesn’t mean “liar liar” (these are their words) - and if there is any sense of doubt or ambiguity about what was meant, then it is up to the spokesperson to declare what definition he intended to convey. But perhaps most importantly - as Hyrum Page elucidates perfectly - as an active Mormon they don’t know how to deal with me so they follow the usual tribal mentality of “if you don’t understand it, get rid of it.”

I am beginning to see that they have a hard time dealing with arguments from non-theists too. Just look at how DCP responded on a Tal Bachman-related thread tonight. It was ridiculous. He goes after the one Evangelical who spoke up instead of the guy who started the thread. Why? Because just about all they know over there is the faithful, “say the Bible is not proven and accuse them of hypocrisy” bit. That doesn’t work with non-evangelicals; sometimes I wonder if FAIR would even exist if it were not for Evangelicals.

Just so you know, he was banned for misrepresenting himself on FAIR, posting insulting trash talk about FAIR posters elsewhere, denying that it was really him, and boasting about his perfidy

I don’t know anything about this, but I do know the mods operate using a double-standard. People get away with stuff when they toe the party line. When they don’t, they are beaten to death with all kinds of rhetoric which forbids a response. The mods will also lie at the drop of a hat.

“Dan’s” claim that PMs were viewed only in the case of poster complaints was a lie invented for damage control purposes. Also, they lied when they said I posted as other names I never heard of before, and said I signed up “the next day” using other names. These are lies for the sole purpose of trying to discredit me and anyone they ban without a good reason. On the one hand they say they cannot stop me from posting and on the other they say they can identify me whenever I sign up. Expectedly, the mods are not that bright.


If they cannot produce a good reason, there is always the ad hominem that seems to work quite well over there.

[_Jersey Girl]

Pahoran: You disappoint me, Shades, when you repeat the lie that people have been banned for disagreeing with anyone or "making prized apologists look bad." That's what happens on Concerned Christians, Inc. but it never happened on the FAIRboards, with which your maniacal obsession continues, and it has not happened on MA&D.

Jersey Girl: What about banning posters without cause? Did that ever happen on FAIR?

Probably not. "Banning without cause" is a bit like the concept of a "motiveless crime." Every action is caused by something, even if it's something trivial; as in (in this case) just that the mod's don't like you.

Which, incidentally, I'm not aware of having happened. What has happened is that people have been banned and the reasons haven't been announced. That doesn't mean there was no reason for it.

What also happens is that people misrepresent the reasons for their banning. I'm not able to chase every rabbit down every hole, but I have investigated one such case, namely that of Mister Scratch. I showed the reasons for his banning here in this forum; he was so enraged at having been thus exposed that he started a relentless hate campaign that continued for weeks.

Just so you know, he was banned for misrepresenting himself on FAIR, posting insulting trash talk about FAIR posters elsewhere, denying that it was really him, and boasting about his perfidy.

I've just seen your follow-up question, while previewing this post.

At the outside chance you show up again, I'd like to rephrase my question, since you seem to be "in the know". Specifically, why was Lady Sundancer banned from FAIR?

I really don't know. I can ask around if you like.

Regards,
Pahoran

You don't have to ask around, Pahoran. Use the search feature, search on Lady Sundancer, note the date of the last post I made then try to imagine why I was banned from FAIR on November 5th, a month after I stopped posting there.

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

You disappoint me, Shades, when you repeat the lie that people have been banned for disagreeing with anyone or "making prized apologists look bad."

Then why were those people banned (myself included), especially since they/we didn't break any rules?

Funny you should mention your blog. It is your blog--which is the where all the most permanent stuff goes, and over which the most heavy-handed editorial control is exercised--that causes me to challenge your "free speech" propaganda.

What, are you implying that people shouldn't have editorial control over the things they themselves write?

(That, and the fact that you have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to censor the rest of the Internet.)

Huh? How/when/where?

You see Shades, it is fairly safe for vicious haters to engage in uncensored debate when all of their opponents have far more scruples than they. It is as if a street gang were to set up a series of fights against boxers trained in the Marquess of Queensberry rules. It isn't fear of your magnificent debate skills that keeps LDS posters away from this sty, it's disgust at the kind of swill we have to wade in when we come here.

Then stay out of the Telestial Forum. How hard can it be?

So you have the "no-holds-barred" section, in which LDS posters are free to operate at the great disadvantage of being the only civilised participants, . . .

Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to participate in the Telestial Forum.

. . . and you have the controlled section in which, AFAICT, editorial power can only be gained by comprehensively failing a lie detector test.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean.

So you go right on persisting in the wonderful lie that this place fosters a more open exchange of ideas than MA&D does.

But please know that I see through it.

Then perhaps you can enlighten me. You're probably the only person who DISagrees that MormonDiscussions fosters a more open exchange of ideas than MA&D. Heck, I'm sure 99% of the people at MA&D--moderators included--know that MormonDiscussions is much freer.

For example, you have repeatedly called this place a "sty"--even right here AT this place--but have Keene or I ever punished you for it?

Try calling MA&D a "sty" on MA&D and see how long they let you stay.

[_moksha]

Hi Pahoran, good to see you back.

On another thread, Wade suggested asking you what you meant by your usage of 'freedom of speech'? So what did you mean by it?

[_Brackite]

I didn’t misrepresent the reasons for my banning. I was banned because the mods have no sense of FAIR play, and they were too stupid to realize fabricate doesn’t mean “liar liar” (these are their words) - and if there is any sense of doubt or ambiguity about what was meant, then it is up to the spokesperson to declare what definition he intended to convey. But perhaps most importantly - as Hyrum Page elucidates perfectly - as an active Mormon they don’t know how to deal with me so they follow the usual tribal mentality of “if you don’t understand it, get rid of it.”

And here is that Message, Posted by Dunamis, the former Moderator there:

Dunamis, Aug 20 2006, 09:05 PM:

QUOTE (Kevin Graham @ Aug 20 2006, 08:23 PM)
It seems like Brian is trying to fabricate a reason to abandon the debate he realizes he is losing.

This is appalling. When you have to resort to "liar liar" there is little that you have to offer that this board needs. I am sure the other mod missed it because we are all in agreement that we have had enough of this from you. You have lost your account here.

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 7196&st=20 )

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Someone should ask Pahoran how many posters on FAIR/MAD have been banned from this bb (I would ask, but I'm banned from even viewing FAIR/MAD), and then compare that figure (which I'm sure is ZERO) to the number of posters here who have been banned from FAIR/MAD (which is SEVERAL). That should answer quite easily which forum is "less open" than the other.

Indeed. I have an entire weblog devoted to that very subject.

(by the way, you're right. We've banned a grand total of 0 people so far. Unless you count spam-bots, of course, but no actual humans have been banned.)

Funny you should mention your blog. It is your blog--which is the where all the most permanent stuff goes, and over which the most heavy-handed editorial control is exercised--that causes me to challenge your "free speech" propaganda. (That, and the fact that you have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to censor the rest of the Internet.)

Nice dodge on addressing why so many have been banned at FAIR/MAD, but NONE have been banned here. The 'openess' score is pretty lopsided in favor of MD. Step up to bat, Pah.

You see Shades, it is fairly safe for vicious haters to engage in uncensored debate when all of their opponents have far more scruples than they. It is as if a street gang were to set up a series of fights against boxers trained in the Marquess of Queensberry rules. It isn't fear of your magnificent debate skills that keeps LDS posters away from this sty, it's disgust at the kind of swill we have to wade in when we come here.

You are a sanctimonious windbag. There is no better example than you of one who 'wallows in the sty' when it comes to treating those with whom you disagree.

[_Runtu]

I'm puzzled, Pahoran. First you say there's some kind of heavyhanded censorship over here, and then you complain that there's too much latitude, allowing for all the swill from us scumbags. I am honestly trying to understand your position.

Is this board heavyhanded in its control over its members, or is it not doing enough to censor those who spew filth, or is it somehow both?

[_wenglund]

Hi Pahoran, good to see you back.

On another thread, Wade suggested asking you what you meant by your usage of 'freedom of speech'? So what did you mean by it?

He hinted at it earlier in the thread, though he may have done so in a way I am not sure many here will understand.

However, perhaps I can be of some help. In truth, censorship and bannings may be enforced through aversive and repelling actions as well as through deletion and denial of access. In other words, people can be driven from a board, or kept from participating on a board, by the aversive and repelling atmosphere of a board, just as they may be driven and kept from participating on a board by administrative action.

There is a reason that the folks at FAIR/MAD continue to post there instead of here, even given the disparity in the level of administrative interventions, and even given the different forum options available here.

And, there is a reason that some here are angered that they can't post there, but have been left to posting here; whereas, some participating at FAIR/MAD don't feel the same in return. To some degree, those here want to post there, but can't; while those there can post here, but don't want to. The end result, though, is essentially the same.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

And, there is a reason that some here are angered that they can't post there, but have been left to posting here; whereas, some participating at FAIR/MAD don't feel the same in return. To some degree, those here want to post there, but can't; while those there can post here, but don't want to. The end result, though, is essentially the same.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So we only want what we can't have and we don't want what we can have, eh? I like your symmetry. Still, it seems one is open and the other is not.

In truth, censorship and bannings may be enforced through aversive and repelling actions as well as through deletion and denial of access. In other words, people can be driven from a board, or kept from participating on a board, by the aversive and repelling atmosphere of a board, just as they may be driven and kept from participating on a board by administrative action.

I know. There was many times I felt slighted over there and had to grit my teeth. I know you have faced that both places. I suppose we just must grit our teeth and go on with what we are doing. Those who show such discourtesy are undoubtedly working on some bad karma.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In truth, censorship and bannings may be enforced through aversive and repelling actions as well as through deletion and denial of access. In other words, people can be driven from a board, or kept from participating on a board, by the aversive and repelling atmosphere of a board, just as they may be driven and kept from participating on a board by administrative action.

Sorry, but this is a cop-out. One's inability to post because he/she is either (i) banned by the bb admin., or (ii) just can't hack it due to 'thin skin,' just ain't the same thing, in my opinion.