DiscussMormonism.com

Moniker wrote:Oop, just saw how he ended it.

Here's my last post in relation to science exploring spiritual experiences: Spiritual experiences are SEEN in brain scans and they are measured and seen by scientists. There is plenty of research into this. I have no idea why JAK is arguing that science does not delve into this and quibbling over this.

Why I won't continue with JAK:

Moniker:
I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

JAK response:
Yes, you need “a lot of repetitions.”

JAK -- There's an inner bitchy teen in me that recoils from those that act as condescending authority figures. You make that inner authority issued teen come out in me. I can't reply to you any longer or I'm going to get hot. So, I'm bowing out.

I will reply to your statements on indoctrination if they don't make condescending swipes towards me. If I find more condescension in your other posts to me I won't be replying to them either.

Hi Moniker,

I can understand why you would not want to read the entirety of my post to you. Nor would you wish to review each easy-access weblink in the following:

In a previous thread in which you introduced a tangent on Shintoism as a religion without doctrine, I responded to you with information never contested on Shintoism. I just posted the information which was generally from my own Library edition of World Book Encyclopedia 1985. It paralleled what you found on the Internet. So, you implied I used what you found. You didn’t ask: Where did you get your information? I didn’t state it initially regarding it as general information. And I was being “succinct” in avoiding more words than seemed required for discussion on a bb.

You found a website which I had not seen and posted “JAK – tsk! tsk!”. In that post you said “Cite your sources:” and, by implication, charged plagiarism.

Then, in five separate posts, I advised you and all readers where I found that information. It was in harmony with your on-line source. Otherwise, you would have attempted to refute the information I posted not paralleled to imply plagiarism.

You and Dart continued to attack, not the information but me for not citing sources. Too succinct.

As a result of scurrilous, defamatory, vituperative, and repeated ad hominem by Dart, an entire thread was created[b] for persistent attacks titled: [b]“Discussion about JAK’s methods.”

Immediately following your “JAK – tsk! tsk!” I posted:
THE FIRST RESPONSE identifying my source: The World Book Encyclopedia

I posted it again HERE the source of my information Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:13 pm.

World Book Encyclopedia 1985 Library Edition

I AGAIN POSTED the source of my information. 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:27 pm The title: “Sources & Credibility.”

And there, I recognized that two different sources said essentially the same thing.

Two times in this post above, I identified where I obtained information.

After repeated attacks, again in still another post on “Sources & Credibility” I stated:

“You wanted to leap to a conclusion for personal attack rather than address the substance of the information which likely appears in virtually all encyclopedias of academic substance.”

Rather than address the issues, Dart joined in with ad hominem.

And here FOR A FIFTH TIME in a post titled “False Charge” I stated:

“But for the record, once again, my source for information on Shintoism came from a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia which is in my home.

Not once, not one time did you or Dart acknowledge a five times posted source of information. I invited you and Dart to look up the source. I could hardly send you my encyclopedia book. And we do have a library at home.

So the answer to your question above is NO. When I was succinct, I was charged with plagiarism. Even after providing all the statements regarding my source, only continued charges were made.

I provided a large multiplicity of websites which were not addressed nor recognized on the topic “Dangers of Religion.” NONE were addressed.

On Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:04 pm, you post the following:

Restating your “JAK – tsk! tsk! So days after you had multiple posts from me, you continued to repost your original implication that I had plagiarized your Internet source.

Moniker states:
I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

JAK:
Five times I tell you my source, and you never acknowledge it.

My source was The World Book Encyclopedia Library Edition 1985. THE SIXTH TIME.

Did you ever say to Dart in effect: JAK said he found information on Shintoism from the World Book Encyclopedia Library Edition 1985?? You did not.

Did either of you ever recognize the two sources said essentially the same thing? Otherwise, there would have been no charge of plagiarism. There would have been a controversy regarding source reliability if they had contradicted. You admitted they said the same thing or you would not have charged plagiarism.

So NO, I’ll not be succinct. We see what happened when I was.

And you, Moniker, (at this typing) are still disregarding, my statement HERE.
Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:12 am

So you need a lot of repetition. Even then, you do not, and I think clearly intend not, to understand.

JAK

Moniker wrote:Oop, just saw how he ended it.

Here's my last post in relation to science exploring spiritual experiences: Spiritual experiences are SEEN in brain scans and they are measured and seen by scientists. There is plenty of research into this. I have no idea why JAK is arguing that science does not delve into this and quibbling over this.

Why I won't continue with JAK:

Moniker:
I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

JAK response:
Yes, you need “a lot of repetitions.”

JAK -- There's an inner bitchy teen in me that recoils from those that act as condescending authority figures. You make that inner authority issued teen come out in me. I can't reply to you any longer or I'm going to get hot. So, I'm bowing out.

I will reply to your statements on indoctrination if they don't make condescending swipes towards me. If I find more condescension in your other posts to me I won't be replying to them either.

Moniker,

The topic was and remains "The Dangers of Religion."

The real reason you wish to discontinue discussion is because you pursued a tangent, turned it into a charge of plagiarism against JAK, and refused to read the multiple posts with links (documentation) regarding “Dangers of Religion.”

You refuted none of those links nor did you even attempt to make the case that the historical references were inaccurate. They were accurate.

No. Instead, you charged plagiarism, and along with Dart evaded the issue in the topic which I had started and which Dart rephrased into a personal attack on the trivial.

Early on, Moniker, I said: “Just go on your merry way.” I said that because you demonstrated no willingness to discuss issues in topics with intellectual integrity. My review of the five times I told you my source of information on Shintoism were never recognized nor acknowledged by you.

And so, we can end where we began.

You should be self-congratulatory as you succeeded in getting an entire thread dedicated to an attack of JAK.

JAK

Hmmm. Might be worth bringing up the bottom line of the OP at this point:

"Note: This is a new topic thread, not an invitation to resurrect previous exchanges on threads that came before it."

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:Hmmm. Might be worth bringing up the bottom line of the OP at this point:

"Note: This is a new topic thread, not an invitation to resurrect previous exchanges on threads that came before it."

Ren,

I appreciate your perspective. Since I have found a few post to be changed and placed on this BB as my own falsely, and since I have found posts moved or altered in other ways when I see them a day later, I posted my review and links directly under Moniker’s response in which she states: “Why I won't continue with JAK:”

It seemed the correct place to post it as it refers directly to her posts, to “Dangers of Religion” which was my original post, and to my immediate and previous discussion with Moniker.

I understand that it may be deleted or relocated where it may not be seen by those with whom it is directly involved and for those who might have an interest.

It’s also my observation that “moderation” is sporadic and lose. That an entire thread with topic title: “Discussion about JAK’s methods” was created and posted in “The Terrestrial Forum” and then, after numerous comments which were often, though not always, personal attacks, the thread was moved to “The Off-Topic Forum” raises a different question of ethics.

The fact that posts can be edited by others, signatures can be altered by others (mine as case in point) raises further questions certainly about some who post on this bb.

This is no resurrection. It addresses an issue immediately below the post to which it makes direct reference.

If you’re a moderator, I can ask you why a thread was originally placed on “The Terrestrial Forum”? It was so phrased as to invite ad hominem expressed there by some. Then, it was then moved to “The Off-Topic Forum.” Why was that done?

If your not a moderator, I do not intend to make you uncomfortable or place you on the spot by asking.

Again, in the event that we don’t offer further rejoinders with one another, I have appreciated some of your posts and thought them to be insightful.

JAK

I'm not a mod, so I don't know how many of your questions are directly relevant to me.
I can only say - in my opinion of course - that at least two of the three above posts are clearly mainly about going over previous exchanges in past threads, and therefore are not following the instruction Jersey Girl left in the OP.

*shrug* But what do I know. Not my call in the end...

JAK wrote:

If you’re a moderator, I can ask you why a thread was originally placed on “The Terrestrial Forum”? It was so phrased as to invite ad hominem expressed there by some. Then, it was then moved to “The Off-Topic Forum.” Why was that done?

I believe I can address some of what happened. In this thread which J.G started and in which she discussed changes in her ways of thinking from earlier pre internet days, in which she attributed partially or wholly to discussions with you, I wrote a post which addressed thinking, as well I included comments regarding your intent and focus in many of your posts. I think then some people used that as an opportunity to attack you and Shades elected to take my post and the following attack off-tangent posts out of this thread to be used to start a new thread and he attached his own subject heading to it. I thought it essentially served to draw attention that here was a thread which could be used to attack you, since Kevin had indicated in a post to me that was his intent.

Anyhow the other night it came to me, that I had read a thread started by Kevin back in January in which I searched a phrase and it came back as a quote from the Pope essentially same words. I decided to check out more phrases in that thread and appreciated that Kevin had plagiarized, words, ideas, research from a book by Robert Spencer called Religions of Peace, so I started a thread to address that. Kevint denied and didn't acknowledge what he'd done was plagiarism as he said the information he wrote was taken from notes he'd made of books he'd read. As soon as I presented evidence of the plagiarism and it seemed to me within minutes ( I might be wrong), Scottie a moderator said he might move it to off topic. My reply to him was that the thread involving you was also off topic yet it had been on the board a while and therefore that would indicate double standard. Scottie moved both.

marg wrote:

JAK wrote:

If you’re a moderator, I can ask you why a thread was originally placed on “The Terrestrial Forum”? It was so phrased as to invite ad hominem expressed there by some. Then, it was then moved to “The Off-Topic Forum.” Why was that done?

I believe I can address some of what happened. In this thread which J.G started and in which she discussed changes in her ways of thinking from earlier pre internet days, in which she attributed partially or wholly to discussions with you, I wrote a post which addressed thinking, as well I included comments regarding your intent and focus in many of your posts. I think then some people used that as an opportunity to attack you and Shades elected to take my post and the following attack off-tangent posts out of this thread to be used to start a new thread and he attached his own subject heading to it. I thought it essentially served to draw attention that here was a thread which could be used to attack you, since Kevin had indicated in a post to me that was his intent.

Anyhow the other night it came to me, that I had read a thread started by Kevin back in January in which I searched a phrase and it came back as a quote from the Pope essentially same words. I decided to check out more phrases in that thread and appreciated that Kevin had plagiarized, words, ideas, research from a book by Robert Spencer called Religions of Peace, so I started a thread to address that. Kevint denied and didn't acknowledge what he'd done was plagiarism as he said the information he wrote was taken from notes he'd made of books he'd read. As soon as I presented evidence of the plagiarism and it seemed to me within minutes ( I might be wrong), Scottie a moderator said he might move it to off topic. My reply to him was that the thread involving you was also off topic yet it had been on the board a while and therefore that would indicate double standard. Scottie moved both.

Thank you for the insight. I hope you will be able to pursue the points raised in your second paragraph.

If I understand you correctly, pulling posts out of a thread selectively, removing them entirely, or placing them in another category all together makes it understandable that when one returns sometime later (several days later), one may no longer see not only his/her own posts but not see the posts which were a response to one’s own posts. Posts simply disappear from where they were.

The “double standard” which you identify is not ameliorated by whimsical timing.

Originally, “Discussion about JAK’s methods” was not placed there by you, marg. Yet on “The Off-Topic Forum” where it now stands, it appears as if you originated the thread. You did not. But that’s the appearance.

However, the title “Discussion about Kevin’s methods re Plagiarism” was started by you.

Thus, when someone moves a post or a series of posts or starts a new subject re-titling it in a way which was never titled by one who made the first appearing post, there is confusion.

JAK

Bond...James Bond wrote:Mod note: Split by Bond

You need to move over my last response on the thread. It is a response to the JAK post above.

Jersey Girl wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:Mod note: Split by Bond

You need to move over my last response on the thread. It is a response to the JAK post above.

crap...sorry bout that.