DiscussMormonism.com

Would one of you or all please explain by indicating posts, words said, by whom, ..some actual evidence..so that I (and others) can understand the reason there was a problem with the thread "evidence for Jesus".

And by the way if anyone else wants to chime in why they found a problem with the thread because apparently Shades had complaints from people..I'd be interested to hear what those complaints are.

Why don't you just let it drop? It's way beyond redundant now....

The overall forum rules are that in Celestial, warnings will be given when the discussion takes a tone that could "take it to a lower level". Those warnings were given. Jersey Girl, Shades, et all would be really gracious to cater to Her Grace, but I personally would not. The thread was moved back at the request of the originator, it should end there.

The moderators discuss amongst themselves where a thread should go, if the tone takes a somewhat darker feel. I refuse to believe that the querant (you) were using the utmost gentility at all times. All parties were warned...twice.

From what I can see, here was warning number one:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 315#135315

No, of course you personally were not implicated, but that does not mean that you were not involved.

I think a very good point was made on what an ad hominem attack IS NOT in this post:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 425#136425

Here is Jersey Girl's attempt to actually bring the thread back on topic past the "you're inane because you don't see things from my point-of-view comments coming from all three sides in this conflict (yourself, Dart, and Jak).

Here is her attempt to once again bring the thread back to a Celestial feel without pulling a FAIR/MAD move. Which it seems you would approve of, Marg...given the fact that you are now suggesting that people be banned from the Celestial forum, based on how they interact with you.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 662#136662

This is proof that, unlike your assertions that Jersey Girl tried to manipulate that thread to serve herself, she did not act at all as moderator on that thread. She made a call for "peace", but she never used her moderating powers at all in this discussion. You should stop insinuating that she did.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 678#136678

Here is the second warning, and this wasn't given until after much discussion amongst the mods...and I'm sorry Marg, but until you become a Mod, you aren't in on those discussions, nor do the mods have to explain every single detail right down to the point of font we typed our explanations in to you.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 727#136727

This was YOUR ad hominem attack against a mod for not doing what you wanted. Again, who started this forum?

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 774#136774

Here is Shade's intervention...I can't believe that you aren't seeing any of this...

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 814#136814

Like he said, arguments can be fallacious and be Celestial at the same time. The threesome invloved in the thread's move were all party to the feel of the thread going downhill. All of you.

Now, if you would like to continue to re-visit your comments along with others on why the thread was moved, you can start on page nine.

This isn't about how much research you had to do. No one told you to take an internet discussion with life or death seriousness. Other people were able to come on that thread, give their thoughts, take leave, come back, give more thoughts, and not get as upset as you did. Perhaps some of us come on here and do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone. But that's the gift of security with regards to your own knowledge. There are professors on here who do not see the need to UTTERLY TRUMPET to everyone that they have all these credentials, and that they did all this research to contribute to a thread (goodness!), and now they're upset because it got moved a block away from where it originated.

You'd think you were writing for a theology journal, the way you have carried on these past few days.

Notice my words are not in red. I'm not writing as a mod, though I do have the POV of one and access to discussions you do not. I do not think that it is fair that at your request because of who you think you are and all of the (no doubt) marvelous things you have managed to achieve with your mind, that the Celestial Forum should be turned into a country club.

This forum was created so that people could come here and speak freely. It is filled with people who were once patrons of FAIR, who at one time or another, if they were LDS and doubting the church, had to deal with those feelings. They were never able to freely discuss their issues, concerns, findings there. I was one. As a former Black LDS, I was not able to give a true description on a very important topic for the church...because of individuals who took a tone similar to the one that we've had to deal with these past few days. Someone didn't like the way something was being discussed, or even if it was being discussed at all, so heads had to roll and people had to be put in their place. So much for rationale and freedom of thought, it is amazing how hypocritical it is, that those who think they're the most rational and free-thinking want to limit the expression of others!!

The rules are (and I'm sorry) the opposite of FAIR here. We don't punish people for being who they are, no one is going to get punished for disagreeing with you. I'm sorry Marg, but there are regular people here. Sure, many of them have a lot going for themselves, but they probably take themselves a lot less seriously on this forum than you do.

Shades told you to roll with the punches, and said that all of your research may not have been in vain. You never know who is reading and learning from all that you just feel you have to teach. But to tell us what to do with this forum based on the initiative you set for yourself when you initially engaged in that discussion is wrong.

Now I know that I'm not good enough for you to respond to, because I don't demand endless explanations for the redundant and rediculous. Not to mention, I feel that some things are just not worth getting worked up over anymore in my personal circumstances and condition. But I have a bit more time on my hands right now than the people you are demanding explain things to you. Hopefully I have, in my low state, given you something to think about. But if not, my most sincere and humble apologies.

marg wrote:Would one of you or all please explain by indicating posts, words said, by whom, ..some actual evidence..so that I (and others) can understand the reason there was a problem with the thread "evidence for Jesus".

And by the way if anyone else wants to chime in why they found a problem with the thread because apparently Shades had complaints from people..I'd be interested to hear what those complaints are.

No, I won't and let me tell you why. I spent days engaging you on just this topic in another thread with dart, JAK and your name on it created by me in this forum. Instead of responding to the issues I raised or points that I made, you ignored those in favor of personal insults in the form of character attack against me. In one post you called me "manipulating and conniving", in another post you asked me to jog your memory when you yourself have the ability to read the thread in question and in yet another you claimed that what I had written was shifting focus on to myself and there was nothing addressing moderation in my post when the truth is that there was and you chose to mischaracterize it.

And here you have created another thread in order to engage myself, Shades and Liz in more of the same. I will not repost the thread for you here.

You wrongly accused me of going behind the scenes and being "manipulating and conniving".

You wrongly accused me of claiming that the actions of the three of you were "preventing" me from posting when infact, I stated clearly in the OP here in the Off Topic forum that the actions in question were "interrupting" my participation and why.

You wrongly accused me of shifting focus on to myself here when I infact was responding to a series of exchanges that you initiated by your slanderous remarks as noted above.

You wrongly accused me of writing a post where 'all I wanted to talk about was me' and that in that post I failed to address moderation when infact, the entire post was about moderation excepting the final portion where I addressed your false accusations leveled at me.

To date, you have not seen fit to admit your error or apologize for your false statements and I won't spend time further entertaining the requests of someone who conducts themselves disingenuously with regards to me, who takes a position of objection and in the next breath asks me to jog their memory and set myself up for more of the same (running in circles, going nowhere and bringing you back on point) especially considering the fact that I took no moderator action in the thread to begin with outside of asking Shades to review the thread and do as he saw fit.

Liz, who moved the thread, gave her reasons.
Shades has commented.
Inspite of your nasty comments to me, I have commented.

The thread has been moved back to the Celestial so whatever error in judgement you feel was made by a moderator has now been corrected. It is wide open for your pariticipation and that of others.

End to it.

And a p.s....if you don't want a thread to shift focus on to the person, try keeping the ad homs to yourself and address the issues that are being presented to you.

I asked a simple question J.G. and if you don't know or don't want to say what problems you found with the thread, I'm talking specifics here and why you agreed with it being moved, then that's fine, don't say. I did ask you in dart-marg-Jak thread specifically because I want clarity on this. Even if you think you addressed it in that thread, it's lost in there with all the other tangents. http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=137277&highlight=#137277


Supposedly there were complaints to Shades, he even said maybe it should have been moved to the Terrestial, Liz had problems with tone /feeling which is so vague I have no idea what she means.

One would think that if all you guys were honest you'd want clarity for all, to be upfront and open abut this.
How are JAK , Kevin or I going to appreciate what has been violated so that it isn't repeated?

So if you have nothing to offer as evidence for what the problems were and why the thread should have been moved, then that speaks volumes to me in and of itself.

If you were honest and upfront you'd have no problems answering my question in the OP insted of going off on your tirades.

Added note: for the record I still think you are manipulative and conniving. It was your post in this forum which was an attack on the credibility of JAK myself and Kevin. You made it sound like we weren't serious participants on that thread and you were. This after the lengthy posts to you JAK had made and barely a response from you. I too replied to you and barely a response from you. So if anyone wasn't adding much to the thread it was you. And I note since, JAK stopped and I, you've written nothing. I believe you've given the impression to others, Sam Harris is one person that somehow all of us, JAK, kevin and I were responsible for being problematic in that thread. So that in my opinion is extremely manipulative.

Hi S.H.

It seems you went through a great deal of time and effort in your post. That was good of you.

However I don't see where you answered the question I asked in the OP, so I have some questions.

I also get the impression you think I, perhaps JAK and Kevin were all at fault for something. Where did you get this impression from? Jersey Girl's post in the dart-marg-kevin thread she started in this off-topic forum? Or somewhere else?

I know you linked to a mod post by Shades to Kevin for an ad hom. And I believe (I'm not 100% certain) later you linked to a post from Kevin writing a post disagreeing with that.

So are you saying then that it appears to be Kevin's ad homs which is the reason the entire thread got moved or even should have been moved? Or do you think the ad homs came from me, or from JAK as well? Do you think there were other reasons besides ad homs for why the thread was moved?

You mention something about everyone getting 2 warnings and to be frank I don't know what warnings you are talking about and to whom. The only one that I'm aware of is Dr. shade's to Kevin. What other warnings are you thinking of or saw?

If you agree that the tone or feel was a problem can you give an example or a few from the thread to illustrate that for me.

thanks

Marg-

Since I moved the thread, I will address this. I thought I had explained myself before. I will explain my reasonings again here. Accept it, or don't. I am at the beach with limited Wi Fi access, so I'm not going to be able to engage in a huge back and forth with you on this.

First of all, Shades' description of the Celestial Forum is as follows: The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.

Now, let's take a look at the description of the Terrestrial Forum: The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

(bolded emphasis mine)

The Celestial Forum is NOT a debate forum. The Terrestrial Forum is. Shades has repeatedly stated that the tone of argumentation in the Celestial Forum should mirror the type of "disagreement you might have with your favorite grandmother".

If you will take a look at about page 7 of the "Evidence" thread,

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=126

you will notice that the back and forth between Kevin, JAK, and couple of other folks begins to become much more "debate-like" in nature.

When JAK accused Kevin of being a liar, which, I believed occurred around page 8, Kevin PM'd me and suggested that since things were getting heated, I may want to think about moving the thread to Terrestrial.

The reason I decided to move the thread to Terrestrial was NOT to penalize you, or anyone else. I was actually trying to maintain the integrity of the thread. Rather than go through and attempt to split out portions, and mess with content, I thought it would make more sense to move the thread to Terrestrial, where it could continue as more of a debate. That way, all participants could speak a little more freely, without having to worry about Mods stepping in, and the content could be maintained and not bothered. I'm not a big fan of censorship.

Now, when Richard, who had originated the thread to begin with, spoke of his concerns, and he pointed out that he had asked the thread to be moved to Celestial to begin with, I thought it best to comply with his wishes, and move the thread back to Celestial. And, even though the ad hom's etc. really should have been edited out, I chose not to do that. I just moved the whole thing back so that, again no censorship would occur, and the integrity of the thread could be maintained.

I have, however, suggested to Shades that we may want to think about creating a forum specifically for Scholarly Debate.

That type of a forum would allow participants to be a little more aggressive in their debate skills, but would still be a little more research-based in nature.

I hope this answers your question.

liz3564 wrote:Marg-

Since I moved the thread, I will address this. I thought I had explained myself before. I will explain my reasonings again here. Accept it, or don't. I am at the beach with limited Wi Fi access, so I'm not going to be able to engage in a huge back and forth with you on this.

First of all, Shades' description of the Celestial Forum is as follows: The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.

Now, let's take a look at the description of the Terrestrial Forum: The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

(bolded emphasis mine)

The Celestial Forum is NOT a debate forum. The Terrestrial Forum is. Shades has repeatedly stated that the tone of argumentation in the Celestial Forum should mirror the type of "disagreement you might have with your favorite grandmother".

If you will take a look at about page 7 of the "Evidence" thread,

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=126

you will notice that the back and forth between Kevin, JAK, and couple of other folks begins to become much more "debate-like" in nature.

When JAK accused Kevin of being a liar, which, I believed occurred around page 8, Kevin PM'd me and suggested that since things were getting heated, I may want to think about moving the thread to Terrestrial.

The reason I decided to move the thread to Terrestrial was NOT to penalize you, or anyone else. I was actually trying to maintain the integrity of the thread. Rather than go through and attempt to split out portions, and mess with content, I thought it would make more sense to move the thread to Terrestrial, where it could continue as more of a debate. That way, all participants could speak a little more freely, without having to worry about Mods stepping in, and the content could be maintained and not bothered. I'm not a big fan of censorship.

Now, when Richard, who had originated the thread to begin with, spoke of his concerns, and he pointed out that he had asked the thread to be moved to Celestial to begin with, I thought it best to comply with his wishes, and move the thread back to Celestial. And, even though the ad hom's etc. really should have been edited out, I chose not to do that. I just moved the whole thing back so that, again no censorship would occur, and the integrity of the thread could be maintained.

I have, however, suggested to Shades that we may want to think about creating a forum specifically for Scholarly Debate.

That type of a forum would allow participants to be a little more aggressive in their debate skills, but would still be a little more research-based in nature.

I hope this answers your question.

Liz I very much appreciate your honesty! If I respond it will be a little later.

I'd like to add a comment or two without getting entrenched in further discussion on this thread, marg. Everything that Liz has stated with the exception of Kevin's PM suggestion, has been discussed on these threads with you. There is nothing going on here that hasn't already been stated publicly.

I've made a suggestion to Shades for his consideration for an idea that may prevent this type of misunderstanding from happening in the future.

Just to make things perfectly clear...

I would NOT have betrayed a confidence, or specifically mentioned that Kevin had PM'd me had Kevin not stated himself that he had PM'd one of the Mods in that very thread. Here is Kevin's quote from page 9 of the Evidence Thread:

Kevin wrote:I PM'd the mod just to suggest moving the thread to terrestrial. Why? Because JAK started with the baseless accusations, and when he does this, the discussion only deteriorates from there.

I was the mod he was referring to.

marg wrote:I asked a simple question J.G. and if you don't know or don't want to say what problems you found with the thread, I'm talking specifics here and why you agreed with it being moved, then that's fine, don't say. I did ask you in dart-marg-Jak thread specifically because I want clarity on this. Even if you think you addressed it in that thread, it's lost in there with all the other tangents. http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=137277&highlight=#137277


Supposedly there were complaints to Shades, he even said maybe it should have been moved to the Terrestial, Liz had problems with tone /feeling which is so vague I have no idea what she means.

"One would think that if all you guys were honest you'd want clarity for all, to be upfront and open abut this.
How are JAK , Kevin or I going to appreciate what has been violated so that it isn't repeated? "

"So if you have nothing to offer as evidence for what the problems were and why the thread should have been moved, then that speaks volumes to me in and of itself."

"If you were honest and upfront you'd have no problems answering my question in the OP insted of going off on your tirades."

Added note: for the record I still think you are manipulative and conniving. It was your post in this forum which was an attack on the credibility of JAK myself and Kevin. You made it sound like we weren't serious participants on that thread and you were. This after the lengthy posts to you JAK had made and barely a response from you. I too replied to you and barely a response from you. So if anyone wasn't adding much to the thread it was you. And I note since, JAK stopped and I, you've written nothing. I believe you've given the impression to others, Sam Harris is one person that somehow all of us, JAK, kevin and I were responsible for being problematic in that thread. So that in my opinion is extremely manipulative.

Let's get a few things straight between you and I, marg. Thankfully Liz has chosen to put her comments in one post. Having said that...

My comments on the other thread had nothing to do with challenging anyone's credibility. They had to do with pointing out instances where the exchanges interrupted (not prevented) my participation due to being tasked with heavily policing the Celestial Forum, not taking action since I was a thread participant (a policy that I voluntarily place on myself) to avoid conflict of interest. I have stated so previously in my exchanges with you and otherwise publicly in general comments.

With regards to JAK's lenghty responses to me which you brought up on the other thread and I chose not to address because you clearly didn't read the exchanges in the thread. If you read the thread, you will see my request to JAK to go to one for one exchanges. JAK didn't reply to that request and I chose to cease posting to him until he had a chance to reply to it.

With regards to this statement: "JAK, kevin and I were responsible for being problematic in that thread. So that in my opinion is extremely manipulative."

No, it's a statement of fact. Read carefully Liz's comments above in her detailed post and you will see that she echo's the same things I have. There is nothing "manipulative" in that and certainly not "extreme".

Those were the basis for the mod cautions as well as the thread being moved.

In mod discussions, I took every single instance on a case by case basis. I took no mod action on the thread whatsoever.

I'd like you now to tell me, how I could have been "manipulating and conniving" when I did nothing to the thread at all out side of asking other moderators to review it. Everything I've done on this board with regards to moderation is fully transparent, your digs at my character are wholly unwarranted. You apparently think that the mod team here cannot read or think for themselves which is yet another slap in the face.

Do you think these things through before you post them? Apparently not.

These remarks made by you:

One would think that if all you guys were honest you'd want clarity for all, to be upfront and open abut this.
How are JAK , Kevin or I going to appreciate what has been violated so that it isn't repeated?

So if you have nothing to offer as evidence for what the problems were and why the thread should have been moved, then that speaks volumes to me in and of itself.

If you were honest and upfront you'd have no problems answering my question in the OP insted of going off on your tirades.

Those are character attacks and innuendo that have not a thing to do with the reality of what has been presented to you for I have been nothing but honest and upfront on these threads. How much time do you expect people to spend detailing things for you? These aren't "tirades", marg. These are the words of one who has given you information and explanations repeatedly to someone who doesn't seem able to read and absorb them.

As I stated in a previous post. I have made a suggestion to Shades who is considering an alternative to the types of exchanges you are seeing now.