KimberlyAnn wrote: I think no matter where one posts, one needs to abide by the board rules. It is my understanding that the most recent Mormon banned from Post-Mo not only didn't abide by the rules, but PM'd the mods there and declared that he would not even read them! On that board, refusal to even read the rules, much less abide by them, is grounds for banning, as it is on most boards. However, I do think the mods of any board should apply the rules consistently and fairly with all participants, no matter who they are or what they believe.
KA
I read all of StillMo's posts and I found no reason to ban. He or she engaged the posters perhaps not always in the calmest of voice but nothing that should get the boot. The poster did challenge the postmos somewhat but...such is life. I have this feeling that at the postmorg the prime reason for banning the Mormons is to protect the postmoism of the members.
I suppose that this is not a problem except for the fact that they blame the Mormon church for doing the same thing. Hence, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
Also, there does seem to be a rule for a postmo and a different rule for the Mormon on that board.
Blixa wrote:I haven't followed postmormon.org much lately, but the only person I knew of that had been banned there was Why Me...
If I remember correctly there was at least one before me. When I posted there I had so many problems from the postmo posters that it became almost impossible to appease them. But I did try. That has been the only forum that I have experienced problems. In fact, the postmo general manager predicted that I would be banned from FAIR within a short time. He was wrong. No problem with FAIR nor MAD or anywhere else.
I do engage people in a polite way, I believe. But I also believe that my posts could not be permited since I was upsetting the apple cart.
moksha wrote:What is up with various sites exercising unrighteous dominion? Is that part of the human condition or something?
Don't know. What do you mean? I do know that a person needs to beware that he or she does not take on the characteristics from whence they complain and yet, think themselves different.
What I meant was that some sites will abuse their power to silence free speech not because it is disruptive or inappropriate, but because it strikes a chord of uneasiness with the silencer. For instance, if there is nothing wrong with the specific dialog that you initially mentioned, then the banning or silencing stems from the personal desires of the silencer. They therefore are excercising their unrighteous dominion.
You might of hit the nail on the head with this post.
KimberlyAnn wrote: By the way, Why Me, I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating - your avatar is unsettling to me. Smith was such a vile man that his picture makes me want to avoid reading your posts. I'm sure my avatar is unappealing to some people, but at least I'm not an unremitting liar like he was. Ugh.
KA
Dr.Shades imported my avatar from MAD. I use this avatar on MAD and Shades or Keene thought that I should have it here. I could never have done it myself. I know nothing about doing such things. However, I love it.
Joseph was not such a bad guy. Give him some slack.
KimberlyAnn wrote: By the way, Why Me, I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating - your avatar is unsettling to me. Smith was such a vile man that his picture makes me want to avoid reading your posts. I'm sure my avatar is unappealing to some people, but at least I'm not an unremitting liar like he was. Ugh.
KA
Dr.Shades imported my avatar from MAD. I use this avatar on MAD and Shades or Keene thought that I should have it here. I could never have done it myself. I know nothing about doing such things. However, I love it.
Joseph was not such a bad guy. Give him some slack.
Joseph Smith was a misogynistic, megalomaniacal, mythomaniac! And a charlatan of the worst kind. I cut him no slack. He doesn't deserve any.
I haven't read all the posts by StillMo, so I cannot comment on them. I do believe rules should apply evenly to all posters, but some boards have different purposes and if the posters at Post-Mo do not want to entertain contrary arguments, then so be it. As I said before, I wouldn't want to post where I wasn't welcome. StillMo could come here, if he wanted. No one would ban him.
KimberlyAnn wrote: By the way, Why Me, I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating - your avatar is unsettling to me. Smith was such a vile man that his picture makes me want to avoid reading your posts. I'm sure my avatar is unappealing to some people, but at least I'm not an unremitting liar like he was. Ugh.
KA
Dr.Shades imported my avatar from MAD. I use this avatar on MAD and Shades or Keene thought that I should have it here. I could never have done it myself. I know nothing about doing such things. However, I love it.
Joseph was not such a bad guy. Give him some slack.
I haven't read all the posts by StillMo, so I cannot comment on them. I do believe rules should apply evenly to all posters, but some boards have different purposes and if the posters at Post-Mo do not want to entertain contrary arguments, then so be it. As I said before, I wouldn't want to post where I wasn't welcome. StillMo could come here, if he wanted. No one would ban him.
KA
I suppose you are right. But anti boards are filled with such sentiment. Mormons need not apply. And yet, antis, postmos, exmos, and nevermos claim that the church brainwashes and allows no dissent. It is a contradiction, right?
Whyme, the answer is obvious. The board is not interested in debates between Mormons and exmormons. Likewise, RFM is not interested in debate between Mormon and exmormon.
Believers seem to have a lot of difficulty grasping this pretty simple concept.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Different websites have different objectives. I can entirely understand a website, Mormon or ex-mormon, that wants to restrict the kind of participation that goes on there. What's interesting, is when a website is born in conflicts arising out of the lack of of free speech and then, becomes as restrictive as the community they had been abused by.
My, that would be amusing, wouldn't it? If only we had a good example....
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I have brought up Why Me's avatar too, several times, I think it is disgusting too.
Mainly because you thought that the use of the pictures of Bednar and Tommy as avatars were sooooo disgusting.
From my point of view, I think you are being sacrilegious to someone you worship.
KA's thoughts are the same as mine, I see the avatar and I want to vomit or something. Then I combine that with your whiney the victim moniker "Why Me" and I don't look forward to reading your posts, I just know that more whiney, Polly Anna dribble is coming.
That was part of your demise at PostMormon.org too. Plus you were seen as a two-faced. You wanted to belong there but some times defended the church and sometimes didn't. You were confronted with being TBM and you denied it many times and now look at your posts............. TBM dribble.
No one likes a fence sitter, so at least you're not going back and forth like you did at PostMormon, you're now at least constant, which is 100% predictable TBM dribble.
Pokatator wrote:I have brought up Why Me's avatar too, several times, I think it is disgusting too.
Mainly because you thought that the use of the pictures of Bednar and Tommy as avatars were sooooo disgusting.
From my point of view, I think you are being sacrilegious to someone you worship.
KA's thoughts are the same as mine, I see the avatar and I want to vomit or something. Then I combine that with your whiney the victim moniker "Why Me" and I don't look forward to reading your posts, I just know that more whiney, Polly Anna dribble is coming.
Why me wrote: I like my avatar. And like I said, DR. Shades imported it from MAAD. As far as my name 'whe me' I kinda like it. It is unique and kinda original. And yet, I have not used it to whine as you so imply. Likewise on the postmorg, I did not whine. True, I defended against the gross generalizations and accusations that the postmorgs had about the church at that time and I did so because they were generalizations. But certainly I was not whining and neither do I whine here. Far from it. And so, perhaps my name means something else. I once wrote about it on MAAD.
Also, on the postmorg I was honest with my position as a fence sitter. I hid nothing and my honesty was used against me. Sorry Pokatator but I think that you are wrong. And you do something that many exmo poster do: attack the poster personally. I experienced such tactics on the postmorg quite often.
My postion is simple: Many of the exer sites seem to betray the kind of Mormon that such people may have been. Intolerant of other ideas. And they seemed not to have changed. I remember you on that forum and your current post was a typical post that I got by some of their members.... I found it hypocritical from a group that believes in dialogue and in keeping the positives that they experienced in the church.
On this board, the exers or postmos are not intolerant. And that says a lot about them. Unfortunately as someone observed, that can change if the insults come more frequently.