DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:08 pm**

I can't resist. Juliann's post on MAD:

We continue to see the demand that this board allow anything and everything that any random ill-behaved countermopologist has to say. In maintaining the right of people to fund and run a board of their own choosing, we are "dishonest", "intolerant", "scared", etc., etc.

1. Are these people just putting us on or do they do this to strangers in real life when they want something?

2, Why aren't they happy with their own group of like minded people where they have unlimited freedom to use any kind of language they like? I have noticed that LDS on this board do not tend to go to their boards and make demands, the vast majority just stay away from them and do not interfere with them.

3. Why do they become so livid when their own public character assault is publicly responded to here when they claim to stand for no "censorship"?

Is there any rational explanation for these expectations beyond a sense of entitlement?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25463

For those new to the internet world of LDS boards, briefly, ZLMB was created due to the LDS protest against the extreme bias of the Tanner's Lighthouse Message Board, and the undue censorship placed upon defenders of the LDS faith. ZLMB was deliberately created with an impartial moderating team (at least that was the goal) so neither side would be burdened with biased moderating.

It's one the greater ironies of internet life that eventually LDS believers, by and large, fled ZLMB for the openly biased FAIR/MAD.

So let's just change a few nouns and see if the Tanners could once have made a similar charge:

We continue to see the demand that the Tanner Lighthouse Message board allow anything and everything that any random ill-behaved LDS believer has to say. In maintaining the right of people to fund and run a board of their own choosing, we are "dishonest", "intolerant", "scared", etc., etc.

1. Are these people just putting us on or do they do this to strangers in real life when they want something?

2, Why aren't they happy with their own group of like minded people where they have unlimited freedom to use any kind of language they like? I have noticed that eVs on this board do not tend to go to their boards and make demands, the vast majority just stay away from them and do not interfere with them.

3. Why do they become so livid when their own public character assault is publicly responded to here when they claim to stand for no "censorship"?

Is there any rational explanation for these expectations beyond a sense of entitlement?

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:59 pm**

Another bit of irony, given how frequently RFM is criticized for not allowing defense of the faith:

Do you hang around and complain about how they ought to run their board? Do you demand that LDS be given the same treatment even when the board clearly states its purpose? Do you ever see anyone here continually question their right to do so even though they don't like how they are treated?

Odd. RFM clearly states its purpose which disallows defense of the faith. Yet I see apologists/believers gripe quite a bit about that, and even create sock puppets to continue trying to post.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:04 pm**

The funny thing about Juliann is that she uses gross generalizations and stereotypes about ExMos / critics and then expects people to agree with her. If you don't, or point out she is painting with too broad a brush you just get savaged by her, told to stop derailing her thread, or to simply go away.

It's the same for her "apostate psychology" she trots out every once in a while. Either you agree with her slanderous stereotype or you get a mod warning (presumably from her)

sigh.

:)

Oh, and funny parody beastie. :)

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:04 pm**

beastie wrote:Another bit of irony, given how frequently RFM is criticized for not allowing defense of the faith:

Do you hang around and complain about how they ought to run their board? Do you demand that LDS be given the same treatment even when the board clearly states its purpose? Do you ever see anyone here continually question their right to do so even though they don't like how they are treated?

Odd. RFM clearly states its purpose which disallows defense of the faith. Yet I see apologists/believers gripe quite a bit about that, and even create sock puppets to continue trying to post.

Indeed. If you want to see this in action, I highly recommend that you read "The Mopologetic Hall of Fame: Part 5," which is archived on my blog. In it, Prof. Bill Hamblin goes on a lengthy and very disturbing diatribe in which he spews forth some extremely vile and insensitive comments about Jews. (In other words, he uses anti-Semitic remarks as a convenient tool with which to bash RfM.) I highly recommend you check it out.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:06 pm**

I can't resist quoting this. It's too funny.

"This is a Mormon board and I am a Mormon, if I am angry this would be the place to come, would it not? "
Juliann Reynolds, speaking of her MAD board.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:07 pm**

The Dude wrote:I can't resist quoting this. It's too funny.

"This is a Mormon board and I am a Mormon, if I am angry this would be the place to come, would it not? "
Juliann Reynolds, speaking of her MAD board.

The anger level certainly has gone up on that thread.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:11 pm**

Runtu wrote:
The Dude wrote:I can't resist quoting this. It's too funny.

"This is a Mormon board and I am a Mormon, if I am angry this would be the place to come, would it not? "
Juliann Reynolds, speaking of her MAD board.

The anger level certainly has gone up on that thread.

The irony is that a topic about Angry ExMos feeling entitled has turned in to a platform for angry TBMs to talk about why they are entitled to be angry at ExMos. :)

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:12 pm**

chonguey wrote:The irony is that a topic about Angry ExMos feeling entitled has turned in to a platform for angry TBMs to talk about why they are entitled to be angry at ExMos. :)

Yep. That last post from selek was a gem. So much so that it's now in my signature.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 pm**

Runtu wrote:
chonguey wrote:The irony is that a topic about Angry ExMos feeling entitled has turned in to a platform for angry TBMs to talk about why they are entitled to be angry at ExMos. :)

Yep. That last post from selek was a gem. So much so that it's now in my signature.

Wow. I was responsible for two "gotcha" sigs in a single thread. I feel honored. :)

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:17 pm**

Mister Scratch wrote:Indeed. If you want to see this in action, I highly recommend that you read "The Mopologetic Hall of Fame: Part 5," which is archived on my blog. In it, Prof. Bill Hamblin goes on a lengthy and very disturbing diatribe in which he spews forth some extremely vile and insensitive comments about Jews. (In other words, he uses anti-Semitic remarks as a convenient tool with which to bash RfM.) I highly recommend you check it out.

Not exactly a fair entry Shades, he was showing how offensive he and others would find the Jewish diatribe and comparing it to others. Whether it is a fair comparison is questionable but trying to call Hamblin anti-semetic because he used it as a comparison is unfair.

DiscussMormonism.com

The Tanners had the right to run their board as they chose

The Tanners had the right to run their board as they chose