A MA&D Poster Links to this Board

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What was really going on was that your arguments were defeated, your "facts and citations" were shown to be misused or bogus, and then you went right on repeating your discredited arguments as though they had never been addressed.

You're becoming delusional, Pah. Probably from the repeated pummeling you've received from me and others over the years.

If anything "drove people nuts" it was the blatant dishonesty of your monologue posing as dialogue, and the fact that the rules prevented us from calling you on your utterly shameless lying.

Nothing prevented you from throwing personal insults my way, since you did it on nearly a daily basis (the same rules that applied to me did not apply to you and your ilk, as you well know).

[_Yoda]

I travel a lot for business purposes. Last night, I was online in my hotel room, checking email and such, and realized that my access to MAD was an open door. I could have registered a fake name, with a made up for the occasion email address, and posted. However, I didn't. I did, however, check the threads and found them almost entirely boring, checked the posts of the posters I recognized and found them almost entirely lame. The place lacked variety and seemed almost eerily homogenous. Was it always that way, or is this the result of the purges of those with diverse thoughts?

From my recent reading of several threads at MAD, I noticed not a few people with "differing thoughts" (proportionally more so than what I have observed here).

This causes me to wonder: "If there was a so-called 'purge' of people with 'differing thoughts', why is it that only some were purged?

Is it possible that the so-called purge may have been for reasons other than "differing thoughts"?

Could it have been, instead, about "differing behaviors"--i.e. poor people skills?

If so, it seems reasonable to expect that the level of discourse would be elevated and become more civil and mature, and in that limited sense I suppose the remaining participants may be considered more "homogenetic".

And, to those who prefer a more hostile atmosphere, I can see how the possible increase in civility and maturity may be thought "boring" and "lame".

Finally, given that there are boards with differing atmospheres (hostile or civil), and they would thus tend to draw those who prefer a given atmosphere, and therefore the respective boards may, in that limited sense, also be considered more "homogenetic" (drawing people together who prefer one kind of atmosphere over another).

Could this be a more viable explanation for certain perceptions like those expressed by "harmony"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmm....let's see if I can answer a few of your questions, Wade. ;)

From my recent reading of several threads at MAD, I noticed not a few people with "differing thoughts" (proportionally more so than what I have observed here).

That might be true....but Dr. Shades doesn't make a point of excluding anyone from this board. And, one of the reasons he decided on categorizing topics into different tiers, "Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial" was to help posters who were offended by off language feel more comfortable without invoking massive censorship. Actually, Shades encourages faith-promoting posters. He even puts up with your nonesense. The man definitely has more patience than Kevin and I had. LOL

This causes me to wonder: "If there was a so-called 'purge' of people with 'differing thoughts', why is it that only some were purged?

No one has ever claimed that differing thoughts was the only reason for purging, but it is a factor. Dan G, Jullian, and other moderators have admitted publicly that LDS members who are faith promoting are given preferential treatment. Juliann has stated several times that this was the primary reason for FAIR being created in the first place.

Is it possible that the so-called purge may have been for reasons other than "differing thoughts"?

Could it have been, instead, about "differing behaviors"--i.e. poor people skills?

You are certainly one to talk about poor people skills. You consistently insult others here, feigning that you are "attempting to help" them. If you have read any of the information by posters here, you know that the main beef those of us who have been banned from MAD/FAIR have, is that we were not given any type of opportunity to be heard, or set the record straight. We were unceremoniously dismissed from the board, and then, adding insult to injury, our IP addresses were banned so that we were unable to even read threads of interest.

The remainder of your post is simply an innane attempt to patronize Harmony, and make yourself look like some authority on psychological behaviors. Ironically, Harmony actually HAS a Psychology background, so I'm sure she'll be able to set you straight.

[_wenglund]

Hmm....let's see if I can answer a few of your questions, Wade. ;)

From my recent reading of several threads at MAD, I noticed not a few people with "differing thoughts" (proportionally more so than what I have observed here).

That might be true....but Dr. Shades doesn't make a point of excluding anyone from this board. And, one of the reasons he decided on categorizing topics into different tiers, "Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial" was to help posters who were offended by off language feel more comfortable without invoking massive censorship. Actually, Shades encourages faith-promoting posters. He even puts up with your nonesense. The man definitely has more patience than Kevin and I had. LOL

Even so, there is still the seeming disparity between the proportion of people with differing thoughts there than there are here, though perhaps less of a disparity between here and your's and Kevin's board (I don't know for certain since I am not free to view your board even were I interested--which I really am not). And, people of differing thoughts don't seem to be anxious to abandon the MAD board for this one (and perhaps even less so for your's and Kevin's board), even given the supposed freedoms. In fact, and ironically, those with the freedoms that this board supposedly avails, seem to resent and obsess about not being able to post at MAD (as though they would prefer far more to be there than here, and are only here because they don't have a choice--I may be the rare exception since my reasons for being here are quite different from why others may post here rather than there.)

Do you suppose this all may be because MAD has elements of attraction that perhaps this board does not--elements that may be a function of less freedom?

Do you suppose this all may be because this board may contain elements of aversion and repulsion (beyond bad language) that may discourage a mass migration here--elements that may be a function of the supposed freedom here?

The remainder of your post is simply an innane attempt to patronize Harmony, and make yourself look like some authority on psychological behaviors. Ironically, Harmony actually HAS a Psychology background, so I'm sure she'll be able to set you straight.

If I somehow need to be straightened out for having simply expressed a differing perspective, then I would be pleased to hear it from "harmony" or anyone else who thinks themselves an authority of whatever sort. Unlike some, I am open-minded to differing perspectives, even in cases of those who champion the cause of free speech with their open mouths, while ironically undermining the cause of free speech with dismissive and closed minds and ears--present company not excluded. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmm....let's see if I can answer a few of your questions, Wade. ;)

From my recent reading of several threads at MAD, I noticed not a few people with "differing thoughts" (proportionally more so than what I have observed here).

That might be true....but Dr. Shades doesn't make a point of excluding anyone from this board. And, one of the reasons he decided on categorizing topics into different tiers, "Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial" was to help posters who were offended by off language feel more comfortable without invoking massive censorship. Actually, Shades encourages faith-promoting posters. He even puts up with your nonesense. The man definitely has more patience than Kevin and I had. LOL

Even so, there is still the seeming disparity between the proportion of people with differing thoughts there than there are here, though perhaps less of a disparity between here and your's and Kevin's board (I don't know for certain since I am not free to view your board even were I interested--which I really am not). And, people of differing thoughts don't seem to be anxious to abandon the MAD board for this one (and perhaps even less so for your's and Kevin's board), even given the supposed freedoms. In fact, and ironically, those with the freedoms that this board supposedly avails, seem to resent and obsess about not being able to post at MAD (as though they would prefer far more to be there than here, and are only here because they don't have a choice--I may be the rare exception since my reasons for being here are quite different from why others may post here rather than there.)

Do you suppose this all may be because MAD has elements of attraction that perhaps this board does not--elements that may be a function of less freedom?

Do you suppose this all may be because this board may contain elements of aversion and repulsion (beyond bad language) that may discourage a mass migration here--elements that may be a function of the supposed freedom here?

A classic Wade post! Man, you were doing so well, too. Yes: I think you are exactly right that the folks on MAD are "repulsed" by the freedom here. LOL!

The remainder of your post is simply an innane attempt to patronize Harmony, and make yourself look like some authority on psychological behaviors. Ironically, Harmony actually HAS a Psychology background, so I'm sure she'll be able to set you straight.

If I somehow need to be straightened out for having simply expressed a differing perspective, then I would be pleased to hear it from "harmony" or anyone else who thinks themselves an authority of whatever sort. Unlike some, I am open-minded to differing perspectives, even in cases of those who champion the cause of free speech with their open mouths, while ironically undermining the cause of free speech with dismissive and closed minds and ears--present company not excluded. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just because one favors free speech doesn't mean that one necessarily favors stupidity, or crappy arguments, Wade. Free speech means that, in all likelihood, in your case, that your lame arguments will get completely and utterly trounced. As has happened repeatedly. So, carry on, my friend!

[_wenglund]

Just because one favors free speech doesn't mean that one necessarily favors stupidity, or crappy arguments, Wade. Free speech means that, in all likelihood, in your case, that your lame arguments will get completely and utterly trounced. As has happened repeatedly. So, carry on, my friend!

There are some forms of bravado the extent to which, while intended to self-protectively project a formidable image (not unlike in the case of a puffer fish), may paradoxically tend to expose, aggitate, and perhaps even weaken one's vulnerabilities, psychological wounds, insecurities, and low sense-of-self.

Or, while the bravado may be intended to "cut the other party down to size" so as to create a more level playing field, may inadvertantly and paradoxically tend to diminish the braggert in the eyes of others (except with those whom may be like-minded), and thus widen the disparity on the playing field--sometimes to the point that the referees are moved out of compassion and the good of all parties concerned, to remove certain players from certain fields.

Such forms and extents of bravado are classic dysfunction--essentially producing the very result that one is attempting to avoid.

I can't be certain, nor do I wish to suggest that such is the case here with Mr. Scratch. I am just posing it as something to consider.

Anyway, if one has personal vulnerabilities, insecurities, and low self-esteem that they wish to healthily strengthen; and if one has mental/emotional wounds that they wish to properly heal; a functional approach may be to do things that are inherently valued by oneself and others, and to do things that are loving to self and others, and which may encourage the same in others. Rather than dysfunctionally puffing oneself up or tearing others down, actually build others up, and in the process build oneself up as well; and extend love to others and thus increase one's chances of receiving love in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Just because one favors free speech doesn't mean that one necessarily favors stupidity, or crappy arguments, Wade. Free speech means that, in all likelihood, in your case, that your lame arguments will get completely and utterly trounced. As has happened repeatedly. So, carry on, my friend!

There are some forms of bravado the extent to which, while intended to self-protectively project a formidable image (not unlike in the case of a puffer fish), may paradoxically tend to expose, aggitate, and perhaps even weaken one's vulnerabilities, psychological wounds, insecurities, and low sense-of-self.

Or, while the bravado may be intended to "cut the other party down to size" so as to create a more level playing field, may inadvertantly and paradoxically tend to diminish the braggert in the eyes of others (except with those whom may be like-minded), and thus widen the disparity on the playing field--sometimes to the point that the referees are moved out of compassion and the good of all parties concerned, to remove certain players from certain fields.

Such forms and extents of bravado are classic dysfunction--essentially producing the very result that one is attempting to avoid.

I can't be certain, nor do I wish to suggest that such is the case here with Mr. Scratch. I am just posing it as something to consider.

Anyway, if one has personal vulnerabilities, insecurities, and low self-esteem that they wish to healthily strengthen; and if one has mental/emotional wounds that they wish to properly heal; a functional approach may be to do things that are inherently valued by oneself and others, and to do things that are loving to self and others, and which may encourage the same in others. Rather than dysfunctionally puffing oneself up or tearing others down, actually build others up, and in the process build oneself up as well; and extend love to others and thus increase one's chances of receiving love in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciate your insight here, Wade. Lemme offer up another possibility, though. Might it be possible that one would have to "tear down" something in order to truly build it back up? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to build your house on a rotting foundation. Better to completely bulldoze the foundation and start from scratch, don'tcha think? (And yes---pun totally intended.)

[_Pahoran]

What was really going on was that your arguments were defeated, your "facts and citations" were shown to be misused or bogus, and then you went right on repeating your discredited arguments as though they had never been addressed.

You're becoming delusional, Pah. Probably from the repeated pummeling you've received from me and others over the years.

If you genuinely believe you've ever given me a "pummeling," then it's you who is "delusional."

If anything "drove people nuts" it was the blatant dishonesty of your monologue posing as dialogue, and the fact that the rules prevented us from calling you on your utterly shameless lying.

Nothing prevented you from throwing personal insults my way, since you did it on nearly a daily basis (the same rules that applied to me did not apply to you and your ilk, as you well know).

I know no such thing.

But I'm sure you enjoy getting a little (actually a lot) of your own back. All that pent-up resentment you managed to accumulate while you were trying to maintain your cover story as such a very good Mormon with just one or two--or ten or twenty--or 57,869--little concerns are now coming out, aren't they?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You're becoming delusional, Pah. Probably from the repeated pummeling you've received from me and others over the years.

If you genuinely believe you've ever given me a "pummeling," then it's you who is "delusional."

Wow. Nice comeback.

All that pent-up resentment you managed to accumulate while you were trying to maintain your cover story as such a very good Mormon with just one or two--or ten or twenty--or 57,869--little concerns are now coming out, aren't they?

The only thing I'm "pent up" about is truth. That you have such disdain for truth exposes you for what you really are.

[_Yoda]

Anyway, if one has personal vulnerabilities, insecurities, and low self-esteem that they wish to healthily strengthen; and if one has mental/emotional wounds that they wish to properly heal; a functional approach may be to do things that are inherently valued by oneself and others, and to do things that are loving to self and others, and which may encourage the same in others. Rather than dysfunctionally puffing oneself up or tearing others down, actually build others up, and in the process build oneself up as well; and extend love to others and thus increase one's chances of receiving love in return.

Wade---I'm curious. Is that honestly what you think you do here?

Are you really blind to the fact that you consistently attempt to pat people on the head metaphorically and patronize them?

Wade...you are the king of "dysfunctionally puffing oneself up". You attempt this at every turn!

It's impossible to carry on a congenial conversation with you because you never let your guard down. You always have to couch your argument as being "above it all", and, particularly being "above" any other person you're talking with. When have you attempted to build someone up on this board?

If that's really your "mission" in being here, then I suggest you seriously reevaluate your approach because you are failing miserably.

[_wenglund]

I appreciate your insight here, Wade. Lemme offer up another possibility, though. Might it be possible that one would have to "tear down" something in order to truly build it back up? I mean, it doesn't make much sense to build your house on a rotting foundation. Better to completely bulldoze the foundation and start from scratch, don'tcha think? (And yes---pun totally intended.)

I like that analogy and the principle it conveys. But, I am not sure how well applies to your obsessively tearing down here the moderators and certain prominent participants at the MAD board.

Granted, you may think that "house" has a rotten foundation and perhaps needs to be bulldozed before rebuilding. But the house is not yours, nor do you dwell there (in fact you are prevented from dwelling there), nor is your perceptions about the house valued in the least or deemed at all credible (particularly in light of your own house being viewed by them as in need of major renovation), and thus your attempts at "tearing down" has done nothing to change their house in ways you believe may be better. Yet, you continue obsessively attempting to tear down their house.

There is a reason why you have continued to do this, which isn't adequately explained by your analogy. Rather, you have hinted at it in everything you right about them, and even explicitly mentioned it in this forum: you feel wronged and hurt, not only because you were evicted from their house, but because you were then, and have since been, viewed with little regard by many of the residents there. So, out of self-protection and self-promotiopn, you are here attempting to avenge your wrong. Your wrapping your behavior here in somewhat constructive terms (i.e. as simply tearing out the supposed rotten foundation in order to rebuild in a way you may prefer) is but a pretense. Your primary motive is, and has been, revenge. You have been obsessively tearing them down so as to supposedly wound and hurt them like they supposedly wounded and hurt you, and your braggadocia has been intended to render as little regard towards them as they have had for you.

Sadly, you are not alone. Kevin and Liz's board was, for a brief season, a haven for licking wounds and slinging vengeful arrows at MAD/FAIR. Now this board and ZLMB seems to have taken its place (and that perhaps because the few there who were in a position to hear the plaintiff cries and be the reachable target for the vengeful arrows, were ironically disregarded and evicted).

Unfortunately, though, vengence is too often dysfunctional--particularly the kind of revenge you and others here have chosen. By virtue of your obsession you have inadvertantly endowed their house (FAIR/MAD) with profound importance. So, rather than you diminishing the regard you and others have for them, you have unwittingly elevated that regard. And, rather than reasonably demonstrating that their foundation is rotten and in need of rebuilding, you have unwitten demonstrated that it is not (it doesn't make sense for you and others to complain about not being let into a house you believe has a rotten foundation. Were that true you would be thankful for having been evicted and have no desire to return, and have little to say about it), and have even perhaps exposed your own perceived rotten foundations (see my comments about aversion and repulsion).

Now, if you continue to try to find ways to positiviely spin your behavior here towards FAIR/MAD, then you will merely end up immersing yourself deeper in the morass of your dysfunction. The only way you will make a positive change is to cease self-justifying, acknowledge and take ownership of your dysfunction, and work towards finding functional ways to heal and improve your intra-personal and inter-personal relationships (see my suggestions above).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-