DiscussMormonism.com

Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

Yet something was very, very wrong with Z. They fled in a mass exodus.

Their explanations so far have yet to address this point.

beastie wrote:Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

Yet something was very, very wrong with Z. They fled in a mass exodus.

Their explanations so far have yet to address this point.

Oh, not to worry, beastie. I've read much of that thread and you're exactly right...they've totally evaded answering your questions.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:

beastie wrote:Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

Yet something was very, very wrong with Z. They fled in a mass exodus.

Their explanations so far have yet to address this point.

Oh, not to worry, beastie. I've read much of that thread and you're exactly right...they've totally evaded answering your questions.

Jersey Girl

And are now justifying it by saying that to answer the question would be to violate Sput's instructions in the original post (wouldn't want to do that!). Nice dodge, folks!

The thread is closed now, not surprisingly.

Vintage Juliann. She thought I was complaining about sput taking my quote over there, despite the fact that I didn't care at all that he did so, and tried to open the same conversation on his earlier thread, when he told me to quit. This is vintage Juliann because she so often completely misinterprets the posts she reads.

Another vintage Juliann - the complete refusal to answer a question, and couching her refusal in a way that insinuates she has a completely reasonable answer to the question, but just isn't going to bother due to the flaws of the other poster.

My only point was the one she consistently ignored - ZLMB was moderated without bias, did not allow foul language or temple talk. Yet this was not sufficient for LDS.

So the obvious question is why? What is different about FAIR/MAD?

As if we didn't already know......Mad became the mirror image of the Tanner's board, where opponents were "allowed" but were subject to the bias of the moderators.

beastie wrote:The thread is closed now, not surprisingly.

Vintage Juliann. She thought I was complaining about sput taking my quote over there, despite the fact that I didn't care at all that he did so, and tried to open the same conversation on his earlier thread, when he told me to quit. This is vintage Juliann because she so often completely misinterprets the posts she reads.

Another vintage Juliann - the complete refusal to answer a question, and couching her refusal in a way that insinuates she has a completely reasonable answer to the question, but just isn't going to bother due to the flaws of the other poster.

My only point was the one she consistently ignored - ZLMB was moderated without bias, did not allow foul language or temple talk. Yet this was not sufficient for LDS.

So the obvious question is why? What is different about FAIR/MAD?

As if we didn't already know......Mad became the mirror image of the Tanner's board, where opponents were "allowed" but were subject to the bias of the moderators.

Remember too that the LDS on ZLMB spent years after the UTLB MB was ended complaining how bad it was. They felt that evangelicals other than Webguy. who was the sole moderator of UTLM, owed them for this. Now they are upset when people criticize MAD for its heavy handed moderating. The old pot and the kettle thing applies again.

Remember too that the LDS on ZLMB spent years after the UTLB MB was ended complaining how bad it was. They felt that evangelicals other than Webguy. who was the sole moderator of UTLM, owed them for this. Now they are upset when people criticize MAD for its heavy handed moderating. The old pot and the kettle thing applies again.

Exactly. It's one of those delicious ironies that demonstrate fact is stranger than fiction.

I do wonder if this irony is completely lost on them. Since I have had almost no success getting a straight answer from them regarding why Z was not sufficient, I guess I will never know.

beastie wrote:Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

I think it obvious that that is not all they wanted. They also wanted a place where things LDS could be discussed in an intelligent and mutually respectful, valued, and productive way. They wanted a place where they could answer questions without having their faith, their leaders, and their fellow members uncharitably treated or drug through the mud. In short, they didn't want to be party to, or unwitting promote (through not only providing the venue, but by also acting as a springboard and soundingboard to) religious prejudice against their faith.

Whether due to moderating and/or the composition of board participants, the atmospere at ZLMB did not lend itself to those wants. Sure, there were a few participants on either side that were capable of dialoging in that desired way. But they increasingly became the exceptions rather than the rule.

Now, you have suggested that the board rules were applied equitably across the boards, and by so doing, that created a level playing field. Well, in some respects that is true.

However, the rules, themselves, and in certain ways, created an unlevel playing field particularly when applied equally across the board. For example, the Z board rules prevented participants from being personally attacked or the subject of a thread, yet the LDS belief system, and respected LDS leaders and members in general, were fair game and open to vicious as well as petty criticisms. This obviously stacked the deck against LDS participants who have reverence for those things. It would not be wholly unlike were you to participate on a discussion board about bi-polar disorder, and the board rules prohibited personal attacks, and the rules were equally applied across the board, and yet there were a large contingient of people scathingly dismissing the disorder as nonsense, and ridiculing, in general, those who not only believed in the disorder, but more particularly those who viewed themselves as suffering from the disorder. Clearly, the deck would be stacked against the believers in bi-polar disorders, and it is doubtful that they would long allow themselves to be subjected to that.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

beastie wrote:The thread is closed now, not surprisingly.

Seems they are always closing threads. Too bad they can't allow a thread to expire on its own. We need Jersey Girl to observe this and give this a differential diagnosis. Let us know what's up with MAD and whether it is treatable.

wenglund wrote:

beastie wrote:Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

I think it obvious that that is not all they wanted. They also wanted a place where things LDS could be discussed in an intelligent and mutually respectful, valued, and productive way. They wanted a place where they could answer questions without having their faith, their leaders, and their fellow members uncharitably treated or drug through the mud. In short, they didn't want to be party to, or unwitting promote (through not only providing the venue, but by also acting as a springboard and soundingboard to) religious prejudice against their faith.

This last part is where you're wrong, Wade. Your view of "having their faith, their leaders, and their fellow members uncharitably treated or drug through the mud," seems to be equivalent for "totally non-critical." For my money, the things that the hardcore TBMs on MAD do is more harmful to the Church overall. juliann, DCP, and their ilk do more to harm the Church in the long run than anything I, or Beastie, or KG could ever do.

Whether due to moderating and/or the composition of board participants, the atmospere at ZLMB did not lend itself to those wants. Sure, there were a few participants on either side that were capable of dialoging in that desired way. But they increasingly became the exceptions rather than the rule.

Yeah, sure---"dialoging" in a completely censored, limited, unFAIR way.

Now, you have suggested that the board rules were applied equitably across the boards, and by so doing, that created a level playing field. Well, in some respects that is true.

No kidding. Unfortunately, it resulted in the apologists routinely getting their butts kicked.

However, the rules, themselves, and in certain ways, created an unlevel playing field particularly when applied equally across the board. For example, the Z board rules prevented participants from being personally attacked or the subject of a thread, yet the LDS belief system, and respected LDS leaders and members in general, were fair game and open to vicious as well as petty criticisms.

Well, Wade, I think that totally squelching dissent and criticism is pretty "petty" and "vicious."

This obviously stacked the deck against LDS participants who have reverence for those things. It would not be wholly unlike were you to participate on a discussion board about bi-polar disorder, and the board rules prohibited personal attacks, and the rules were equally applied across the board, and yet there were a large contingient of people scathingly dismissing the disorder as nonsense, and ridiculing, in general, those who not only believed in the disorder, but more particularly those who viewed themselves as suffering from the disorder. Clearly, the deck would be stacked against the believers in bi-polar disorders, and it is doubtful that they would long allow themselves to be subjected to that.

I think this is a false analogy, and don't really see how it applies. What you've described sounds like a perfectly legitimate and open forum to me, which I see as good.

I hope this helps.

It doesn't. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're most welcome, my friend.

wenglund wrote:

beastie wrote:Sput started another thread based on comments made here, this time mine. It's a funny thread in that it is utterly predictable.

It's called "why are you here... critics say its' because you can't hack it anywhere else".

My simple question, yet unanswered: if all believers wanted was a fairly moderated board with no foul language or temple talk allowed, what in the world was wrong with Z?

I think it obvious that that is not all they wanted. They also wanted a place where things LDS could be discussed in an intelligent and mutually respectful, valued, and productive way. They wanted a place where they could answer questions without having their faith, their leaders, and their fellow members uncharitably treated or drug through the mud. In short, they didn't want to be party to, or unwitting promote (through not only providing the venue, but by also acting as a springboard and soundingboard to) religious prejudice against their faith.

Whether due to moderating and/or the composition of board participants, the atmospere at ZLMB did not lend itself to those wants. Sure, there were a few participants on either side that were capable of dialoging in that desired way. But they increasingly became the exceptions rather than the rule.

Now, you have suggested that the board rules were applied equitably across the boards, and by so doing, that created a level playing field. Well, in some respects that is true.

However, the rules, themselves, and in certain ways, created an unlevel playing field particularly when applied equally across the board. For example, the Z board rules prevented participants from being personally attacked or the subject of a thread, yet the LDS belief system, and respected LDS leaders and members in general, were fair game and open to vicious as well as petty criticisms. This obviously stacked the deck against LDS participants who have reverence for those things. It would not be wholly unlike were you to participate on a discussion board about bi-polar disorder, and the board rules prohibited personal attacks, and the rules were equally applied across the board, and yet there were a large contingient of people scathingly dismissing the disorder as nonsense, and ridiculing, in general, those who not only believed in the disorder, but more particularly those who viewed themselves as suffering from the disorder. Clearly, the deck would be stacked against the believers in bi-polar disorders, and it is doubtful that they would long allow themselves to be subjected to that.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I'd like you to answer this question straight up. Are you suggesting that ZLMB was not moderated without bias?

Jersey Girl