Trinity wrote:I know Froggie personally, and have known her forever. We were neighbors before she moved to Utah county. She is the one that referred me to several boards for information, including this one. She also gave me a ton of books to read on Mormon history. I haven't spoken to her since November. I know that she is not currently in Utah. She is difficult to reach. I'll call her husband and try to track her down. I haven't gotten an email response from her for months so she's not spending time on the computer.
I had just started lurking on the FAIR (now MAD) board when she was banned. It had to do with an analogy she was making about questionable parts of Mormonism and how it looked and smelled like manure, but people insisted on thinking that if they continue to call it a rose it may become a rose despite the smell. Or something like that. I definitely remember the word manure because I thought it was funny she would use a farm term rather than normal profanity.
I just did a quick search for the post. The moderator removed her entire post and replaced it with this. "Vulgarity removed by mod. You are suspended. That was disgusting and unnecessary."
why me wrote: I am not in the mood for big green hugs from a poster who has no intention of actually meaning it. Her big green hugs used to piss me off because I knew that she did not mean to give a hug...it became just a 'cute' saying by a critic who had no intention of 'hugging' the faithful LDS posters at FAIR/MAD.
Now do you understand why "Regards, Pahoran" and all the "Regards" copycats irritate some people?
No, I don't. Regards can be a common expression without demonstrative understandings. But 'big green hugs' comes across as a pisser when criticizing another's faith and then give that person whose faith one is being critical of, a 'big green hug'.
Do you see my point?
You see, Why Me? It is precisely this sort of tendentious nonsense that preventss me doing a revision of your dossier. The day you wake up and smell the Milo and realize that Pahoran is arguably the nastiest jerk in all of Internet Mormonism is the day I re-write your dossier.
Regards, Mister Scratch
You see Scratch, my comments about Regards has nothing to do with Pahoran. I said that regards is a common way to close a letter. This is my point. It implies nothing, or nothing more than a 'how do you do?' type of refrain. It is not intimate.
However, big green hugs is more intimate. And after a froggie railing, it can sound a bit offensive. For after all, who hugs someone after a railing of emotional or intellectual disagreement? See my point?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gramps wrote:It's the inconsistency of the application of the "rules" that is the big problem. Now, they could write one set of rules for critics and one set for TBMs and then it would be a little clearer.
As of now, the "rules" don't mean jack squat. They are a joke (the rules, I mean).
I was just thinking about this inconsistency of rules myself this morning. It's to the point that I'm not sure what's acceptable and what isn't. Gramps, I don't know if you can read MADB but there was a thread started by Dr. Peterson regarding Mr. Scratch and someone asked if some of the cross posts pasted from RFM and the content could violate the "no cross-posting" and no "boardwars" rules. One of the long time posters insisted it did not, and so if that's the case, I really am not sure what is and isn't allowed anymore.
Personally, I'm not complaining about the threads being allowed, they are always some of the interesting ones. I also think the mods allow these types of threads to survive a little while before shutting them down because it allows their members to vent a bit. My concern is if someone else tries to get away with the same thing, they will be slapped for it.
Trinity wrote: I had just started lurking on the FAIR (now MAD) board when she was banned. It had to do with an analogy she was making about questionable parts of Mormonism and how it looked and smelled like manure, but people insisted on thinking that if they continue to call it a rose it may become a rose despite the smell. Or something like that. I definitely remember the word manure because I thought it was funny she would use a farm term rather than normal profanity.
I just did a quick search for the post. The moderator removed her entire post and replaced it with this. "Vulgarity removed by mod. You are suspended. That was disgusting and unnecessary."
And this is what I meant by showing disdain for what others hold to be sacred. By calling parts of LDS history manure she was offensive. Hence, her suspension. But it was not just for that post. She was being disrespectful in her posts. There is a way to post to LDS believers and saying what they believe to be manure is not one of them. But she was suspended and not banned...later, after being disrespectful some more, she was banned.
gramps wrote:It's the inconsistency of the application of the "rules" that is the big problem. Now, they could write one set of rules for critics and one set for TBMs and then it would be a little clearer.
As of now, the "rules" don't mean jack squat. They are a joke (the rules, I mean).
I was just thinking about this inconsistency of rules myself this morning. It's to the point that I'm not sure what's acceptable and what isn't. Gramps, I don't know if you can read MADB but there was a thread started by Dr. Peterson regarding Mr. Scratch and someone asked if some of the cross posts pasted from RFM and the content could violate the "no cross-posting" and no "boardwars" rules. One of the long time posters insisted it did not, and so if that's the case, I really am not sure what is and isn't allowed anymore.
Personally, I'm not complaining about the threads being allowed, they are always some of the interesting ones. I also think the mods allow these types of threads to survive a little while before shutting them down because it allows their members to vent a bit. My concern is if someone else tries to get away with the same thing, they will be slapped for it.
Yeah, it's the inconsistency that bugs me. I honestly have no idea why I was banned. I tried very hard to play by their rules and was as respectful as I could be. If they had said, "You did x, y, and z, and were therefore banned" I would be fine with that. But no explanation, no reason. I'm left to believe it was my participation here, as it's the only thing I have in common with the other bannees.
why me wrote:Also, for the critics, if their tone is decent and respectful, they will not be banned from MAD.
Gotta disagree with you there, buddy - you can have a decent and respectful tone and still get banned. It's a capricious world over there. And apparently an LDS point of view gets you a lot of leeway in the area of "tone."
Yes, the last group of Bannees shows that being a "respectful" critic is no guarantee you won't get banned. And I would agree that there are some LDS posters there who get away with more than would ever be tolerated if it came from a critic. However, as we've heard many times, it's their playground so it's their rules.
And that may be true. It is there playground. But all critics should know that they need to hop over some tumble weeds on that board. And yes, perhaps LDS posters get more slaps before suspension but in the end, if a poster does not heed the warnings regardless of who that poster is, they are gone to poster heaven.
why me wrote:And that may be true. It is there playground. But all critics should know that they need to hop over some tumble weeds on that board. And yes, perhaps LDS posters get more slaps before suspension but in the end, if a poster does not heed the warnings regardless of who that poster is, they are gone to poster heaven.
Hell, I didn't even get suspended. If you get no warnings, how are you supposed to heed them?
I agree with you Runtu. After I found out you'd been banned, I went back and looked at your posts. I saw nothing that I thought violated rules, I didn't see any "tone" that I could cite either. This one was a mystery--you can usually tell when someone is going to get axed. However, if the mods gave you no explanation, they did not give us any as well. Only the one comment from Orpheus(?) in the Fellowship thread that made me believe that you, Brackite, and others were culled because some LDS were feeling overwhelmed by critics. Some may have been skating on thin ice (like Bond) but some of the others, like you, may have been on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time.
Those of us who post at MADB must recognize that we post at the owners' pleasure. If the Mods value a poster, then they will give them more leeway, if not, then they are expendable.
Alter Idem wrote:I agree with you Runtu. After I found out you'd been banned, I went back and looked at your posts. I saw nothing that I thought violated rules, I didn't see any "tone" that I could cite either. This one was a mystery--you can usually tell when someone is going to get axed. However, if the mods gave you no explanation, they did not give us any as well. Only the one comment from Orpheus(?) in the Fellowship thread that made me believe that you, Brackite, and others were culled because some LDS were feeling overwhelmed by critics. Some may have been skating on thin ice (like Bond) but some of the others, like you, may have been on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time.
Those of us who post at MADB must recognize that we post at the owners' pleasure. If the Mods value a poster, then they will give them more leeway, if not, then they are expendable.
I know that, but it still bugs me. I had been there a very long time and had never been threatened with banning. I can only remember one or two warnings over 4 years. It's not like I was some drive-by bomb thrower.
Oh, well, to quote President Hinckley, "It's in the past." I'll get over it.
Alter Idem wrote:Those of us who post at MADB must recognize that we post at the owners' pleasure. If the Mods value a poster, then they will give them more leeway, if not, then they are expendable.
It behooves us all to understand that we post at the owner's pleasure here too. And all posters are valued here, not just a select few. That none of us is expendable.
And I really want to point out that this board's owner is one heckuva better at living the gospel than the supposedly Mormon owners of the MAD board, even though this board's owner isn't Mormon.