Should we shut down FAIR/MADD?

[_wenglund]

I'm glad FAIR/MAD exists. It's hard to have a one-sided dialogue. I would rather have the apologists improving their arguments in response to our criticisms than ignoring us altogether like they used to. I would suggest that we critics created the need for apologists to improve their game. It gives us legitimacy and an indirect voice to those listening to the apologists. It lets them know there are two sides to the issues and that there are real problems to work on. Shutting MAD down or not participating only diminishes your opportunity to voice your opinion to those who need to hear it--and I don't mean the apologists. When you debate with the apologists, it's not them you have to convince--it's the disinterested or questioning lurkers. The apologists' goals are to create reasons to keep members from leaving the church, but our goal should be to keep people from joining and validate those who want to leave anyway. So, when you think the apologists' always have convenient excuses to get out of problems, don't struggle too hard to win the debate. Part of what you do is to highlight the weaknesses and let the readers decide. If some decide the apologists are convincing, that's OK with me. Personally, I don't care how many Mormons are in the world. The most I can hope for is to help people make up their own minds by giving them a choice. A side benefit might be that scholarly and apologetic discussions continue to change the church in a positive direction.

I agree with your point about how criticism may strengthen apologetics and improve the Church and its members--that is, as long as the criticism is high-grade. And, I think everyone benefits when all sides are reasonably and competently presented.

But, what caught my eye in your statement above is the phrase I have bolded. I have always figured you had something of an agenda, though I don't ever recall you vocalizing it until now. Perhaps you have explicitly stated it in some of your writings, but I haven't seen it. Is this a first?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Sput,

Since you're reading here, I thought I would save us some time beating around the bush and address you directly. In one of your posts you claim that this board consists of persons who were banned from MAD. That is not entirely so. Most of the posters on this board, including myself, began participating on this board long before we were banned from FAIR/MAD. I was banned from FAIR (not MAD) a month after I voluntarily stopped posting there. Interesting, no?

Before you post comments about this board again, perhaps you'd like to view the memberlist and take note of the many MAD posters who are registered here because while you're goal is to slam this board, you're also slamming them.

Might you consider growing a spine and posting here where people can respond directly to your claims? Or is it easier for you to produce a monologue of unsupported assertions?

Jersey Girl

[_Dan Vogel]

I'm glad FAIR/MAD exists. It's hard to have a one-sided dialogue. I would rather have the apologists improving their arguments in response to our criticisms than ignoring us altogether like they used to. I would suggest that we critics created the need for apologists to improve their game. It gives us legitimacy and an indirect voice to those listening to the apologists. It lets them know there are two sides to the issues and that there are real problems to work on. Shutting MAD down or not participating only diminishes your opportunity to voice your opinion to those who need to hear it--and I don't mean the apologists. When you debate with the apologists, it's not them you have to convince--it's the disinterested or questioning lurkers. The apologists' goals are to create reasons to keep members from leaving the church, but our goal should be to keep people from joining and validate those who want to leave anyway. So, when you think the apologists' always have convenient excuses to get out of problems, don't struggle too hard to win the debate. Part of what you do is to highlight the weaknesses and let the readers decide. If some decide the apologists are convincing, that's OK with me. Personally, I don't care how many Mormons are in the world. The most I can hope for is to help people make up their own minds by giving them a choice. A side benefit might be that scholarly and apologetic discussions continue to change the church in a positive direction.

I agree with your point about how criticism may strengthen apologetics and improve the Church and its members--that is, as long as the criticism is high-grade. And, I think everyone benefits when all sides are reasonably and competently presented.

But, what caught my eye in your statement above is the phrase I have bolded. I have always figured you had something of an agenda, though I don't ever recall you vocalizing it until now. Perhaps you have explicitly stated it in some of your writings, but I haven't seen it. Is this a first?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm all about freedom of choice. I'm not opposed to people joining the church as long as they are informed about that decision. I'm also aware that some members are unhappy with Mormonism but need help making a decision. Now, I don't see myself on some kind of mission to save people from Mormonism, but I hope my writings help people in the decision-making process, which ever way they decide.

[_Who Knows]

Hi Sput. You posted a quote of mine, and then said this:

Why would the admins want to deal with this constant ridicule?

I do not constantly ridicule the MAD admins. I only ridicule Dan_G, and only seldomly. I stand by my opinion that Dan_G is an a-hole. He brought it on himself.

They all think they weren't banned for any reason.

Untrue. If you read what I posted earlier, I said some bannings were justified, some were unjustified.

However the mods here will never talk about exact reasons(which in a way I find kinda classy)

Well, think again. Dan_G started a thread to say why Liz3564 was banned, and publicly told lies about me. When I publicly confronted him about it and called him on his bullsh!t that he was spewing, he suddenly wanted to 'take it private', and basically told me through PMs to stop questioning him or I'd be banned. Shortly thereafter, he banned me.

from just observing they all like to pretend they are innocent. Kinda like in Shawshank Redemption, everyone was innocent, their lawyer screwed them.

You're wrong again. No one's pretending they were 'innocent'. I, and others who were banned, were critics of the church. We said things they didn't like. Of course we're not innocent. A lot of the TBM's there aren't innocent either. But I do know of a number of posters who were suddenly banned all at once (do a search here for november 5 purge) without any reason at all - without even being informed of what board rules were broken.

by the way who is this Dan_G also known as Damn_G (on MDB) is he a mod? His account is shutdown or at least in the banned group. If you do a search for his posts they stop in December when the site changed over. I've seen some pretty funny theories on MDB but it seems that Juliann and Dan_G are every mod on this board. Can two people really be doing it all the moding?

Dan_G is the guy in charge of running your board. He's also known as Orpheus. Although he may use different monikers. Just look for mod posts with incoherent sentences, combined with horrible grammar (the reason I believe he's a 16 year old punk).

Anyways, why don't you ask him? Post it on your thread you started there.

[_fubecabr]

I'm glad FAIR/MAD exists. It's hard to have a one-sided dialogue. I would rather have the apologists improving their arguments in response to our criticisms than ignoring us altogether like they used to. I would suggest that we critics created the need for apologists to improve their game. It gives us legitimacy and an indirect voice to those listening to the apologists. It lets them know there are two sides to the issues and that there are real problems to work on. Shutting MAD down or not participating only diminishes your opportunity to voice your opinion to those who need to hear it--and I don't mean the apologists. When you debate with the apologists, it's not them you have to convince--it's the disinterested or questioning lurkers. The apologists' goals are to create reasons to keep members from leaving the church, but our goal should be to keep people from joining and validate those who want to leave anyway. So, when you think the apologists' always have convenient excuses to get out of problems, don't struggle too hard to win the debate. Part of what you do is to highlight the weaknesses and let the readers decide. If some decide the apologists are convincing, that's OK with me. Personally, I don't care how many Mormons are in the world. The most I can hope for is to help people make up their own minds by giving them a choice. A side benefit might be that scholarly and apologetic discussions continue to change the church in a positive direction.

The problem that people have with MADD is that it is not a open and honest place to debate. People really don't like the handicapping that goes on there. If you say something they don't like and that they don't have an answer for, they ban you. In most sites the only things that will get you banned are spam, porn, racism, sexism, copyright infringement, and personal attacks.

I have to disagree with you that the apologists win debates. They may think they do since their ace in the hole is to bear their testimony which they think can win any argument.

[_Sam Harris]

Should we shut it down? Well we could. How? By boycotting it.

The mods and MADD royalty-juliass, DCP, charity, sethbag, and selek clearly don't want us there. Frank, open, honest, and respectful discussion is what makes any board vibrant. It's clearly being moderated into oblivion. I know of no site on the net that is more heavily moderated.

By participating, we are giving credence to their claim that they are a open and fair forum for discussion of issues relating to Mormonism.

If we all leave, then these blowhards will only have themselves to discuss things with. It'll wither on the vine.

FAIR/MADD exists to help questioning members stay in the church. But if a doubting member comes to the board looking for help, they will be viscously attacked and are labeled a troll and a sock puppet and will get banned. Great, they're helping to drive people out of the church. Someone asks a legitimate question and gets hammered.

But then again, it seems that we might want to keep the status quo. Who knows, maybe the owners of MADD are really exmos trying to drive people out of the church? Maybe juliass, DCP, charity, sethbag, and selek are the tools of an exmo?

I love the fact that my nickname for Juliann has found a following, albeit small. It fits her, doesn't it?

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Juliass is fitting and funny GIMR....

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello All,

I'd like to know if official Board War has been declared and on the primarily LDS boards, what are the rules of engagement for Board Wars? How will I know when an authentic Board War has ensued?

Jersey Girl

[_Bond...James Bond]

Hello All,

I'd like to know if official Board War has been declared and on the primarily LDS boards, what are the rules of engagement for Board Wars?

Jersey Girl

There's a 8 page companion thread on MAD that's still going on I think. The Mods okayed it at least.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello All,

I'd like to know if official Board War has been declared and on the primarily LDS boards, what are the rules of engagement for Board Wars?

Jersey Girl

There's a 8 page companion thread on MAD that's still going on I think. The Mods okayed it at least.

I read some of that, James. I'd like to know what is accepted practice for Board Wars on these boards. Is this an undeclared war in progress? Are there specific no-no's or might I employ a little East Coast attitude for engagement?

Jersey Girl