why me wrote:But the disrespectful posts and the somewhat bitter tone to his posts is unmistakable. And of course, I can understand him since he was an active member who became disillusioned. I have seen it happen on other sites with people in seth's shoes. But such an attitude will get someone banned eventually at MAD.
That's unfortunate, because it means MAD is going to end up driving away the Mormons who need the most help and support to stay in the community.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Why Me wrote:But I don't think that you were alone in this dual personality. I have noticed other critics take on this personae too.
I don't know that it's so much a different personality as it is a different tone of the boards. FAIR/MAD has always had a more formal feel to it. Shades' and Kevin's board have always had more of a "bull session", informal feel.
As Kevin stated once about his site, it's like the difference between attending a high-impact strategy meeting at work, and meeting later for drinks and lunch at the local sports bar. Different atmosphere, different decorum.
Shades' board is more relaxed, and I like that. It lends itself more to informal discussion. Debates still happen, and are encouraged, but the board is not limited to debate, and things are much more loosely monitored.
Sethbag wrote:There's only so much excusing of Joseph Smith's exploitation of religious authority to obtain sexual relationships with a great many women, most often behind his own wife's back, and seeing people then sing Praise to the Man who Communed With Jehova, before I begin to despair at the human condition. There's only so many times the Book of Abraham arguments can be rehashed and still see people say well, you know, maybe there's more parchment that was lost, or maybe the BoB simply serves as a mnemonic device pointing to the actual Book of Abraham, or whatever. Come on, anyone else in the entire world would see the apologetic arguments and LAUGH. They are ridiculous. But they aren't ridiculous to someone who depends on them to keep their faith "safe".
Here is where I think you and other critics (as well as apologists and me) could use a little improvement in our attitudes--for our own respective benefits. Sentiments such as this demonstrate an unhealthy measure of narrow/closed-mindedness and a rigid intollerance for differing beliefs and explanations. While some may not come to the same conclusions as apologist, the fact that they aren't prepared to condemn a revered prophet for alleged sexual exploits based on conjectures and dubious accusations, doesn't render them or their arguments as unreasonable or irrational. And, vice, versa. It just means that they reasonably see things differently. Once we all develop the capacity to respect and appreciate opinions that differ from our own, the more chances there will be for mutually valued and efficacious exchanges.
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
why me wrote:I call it hanging out too much with the wrong crowd.
Just a reminder Sethbag, the He-Man Prophet Hater's Club meets Tuesdays and Fridays at Joe's Bar and Grill. We're having elections for Hater of the Year so be sure to show up. I know it's the wrong crowd, but we got beer and darts. Much better than Bible and water in my opinion.
Why me,
Who exactly is the wrong crowd?
You are losing your objectivity.
Objectivity? At least he doesn't talk with his heartburn.
Balance is the key to life on LDS sponsored boards.
It sure is. But what LDS message board is balanced? MAD sure isn't.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
why me wrote:I noticed tone and it is the tone that matters at MAD for the most part.
Well, there it is, in black and white for all to see: it isn't the substance that matters at MAD; it's the tone. It's not what a poster says, it's the tone that counts. It's not the argument, it's the tone. It's not the sources, it's the tone. And lest anyone think it's an evenhandedly viewed tone... alas, it's only the tone for the critics. Tone is secondary to personal attacks, for the TBMs.
liz3564 wrote: FAIR/MAD has always had a more formal feel to it.
Formal or Uptight?
Shades' and Kevin's board have always had more of a "bull session", informal feel.
In other words, we don't post like we're undergoing an anal probe. :)
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Here is where I think you and other critics (as well as apologists and me) could use a little improvement in our attitudes--for our own respective benefits. Sentiments such as this demonstrate an unhealthy measure of narrow/closed-mindedness and a rigid intollerance (sic) for differing beliefs and explanations. While some may not come to the same conclusions as apologist, the fact that they aren't prepared to condemn a revered...
I was with you pretty much until right here, Wade. You are correct, LDS revere Joseph Smith and critics don't. And LDS shouldn't. And he wouldn't have wanted us to. No man who ever lived deserves reverence. And when LDS revere Joseph Smith or any of the other modern prophets, they err. It's not the critics who err in this regard, it's the LDS. And critics cannot be faulted for pointing out the error. Back to your regularly scheduled comment:
... prophet for alleged sexual exploits based on conjectures and dubious accusations, doesn't render them or their arguments as unreasonable or irrational. And, vice, versa. It just means that they reasonably see things differently. Once we all develop the capacity to respect and appreciate opinions that differ from our own, the more chances there will be for mutually valued and efficacious exchanges.
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I suggest you post that on MAD, and see how far you get.
why me wrote:I noticed tone and it is the tone that matters at MAD for the most part.
Well, there it is, in black and white for all to see: it isn't the substance that matters at MAD; it's the tone. It's not what a poster says, it's the tone that counts. It's not the argument, it's the tone. It's not the sources, it's the tone. And lest anyone think it's an evenhandedly viewed tone... alas, it's only the tone for the critics. Tone is secondary to personal attacks, for the TBMs.
Thank you, Why Me, for clearing that up.
You know exactly what I meant harmony. Tone is important. Substance less so. We are all human after all. Not all of us can write with substance on a daily basis. But we can all show respect in dialogue through tone. And this is the key. I have taught similiar understandings to my academic writing classes. Let me explain: In academic writing one must write with a formal tone using certain forms of paragraphs and strategies to convince an academic audience that your argument is justified. However, when writing to a friend, the tone can be more familiar and less formal. When writing on MAD, the tone must be respectful. Not there are exceptions to the rule and also mishaps now and then, but for a critic, respectful in tone is the key to survival. Abulafia is one example of a respectful critic on MAD. Seth unfortunately, is heading for critic heaven. And I say unfortunate because I like seth. I like his posts. I have thick skin and I want him to survive at MAD. But the choice will be his to make.
why me wrote:I call it hanging out too much with the wrong crowd.
Just a reminder Sethbag, the He-Man Prophet Hater's Club meets Tuesdays and Fridays at Joe's Bar and Grill. We're having elections for Hater of the Year so be sure to show up. I know it's the wrong crowd, but we got beer and darts. Much better than Bible and water in my opinion.
Why me,
Who exactly is the wrong crowd?
You are losing your objectivity.
Objectivity? At least he doesn't talk with his heartburn.
Balance is the key to life on LDS sponsored boards.
It sure is. But what LDS message board is balanced? MAD sure isn't.
I'm not sure defensiveness on anyone part is condusive to improving interfaith idialogue. Certainly I have not found judgementalism, denegration, and/or mockery to be effective planks for building bridges, let alone a genuine or lasting means of feeling better about oneself.
Instead, I have seen where others have been quite effective in developing good and healthy relations across the boards, by focusing less of pary and thrust, and more on healthy acceptance, respect, and reaching out and shaking of hands. I think we all would benefit from emulatating this.
why me wrote:But the disrespectful posts and the somewhat bitter tone to his posts is unmistakable. And of course, I can understand him since he was an active member who became disillusioned. I have seen it happen on other sites with people in seth's shoes. But such an attitude will get someone banned eventually at MAD.
That's unfortunate, because it means MAD is going to end up driving away the Mormons who need the most help and support to stay in the community.
Not really. We have some new LDS posters who just came to MAD. LDS posters check tone and contention. They don't mind a disagreement but tone must be adequately respectful and the contention cannot seem to be coming from satan but from human reasoning. It is really that simple. More LDS posters are signing up....and the tone has improved.