Ray A wrote:That's true, they can pretty much do what they like. But the thread was started by Juliann, and she's a Pundit (and possibly a mod, I don't know), so she can ask for it to be moved. There are only seven threads in Pundit (except for the removed Metcalfe/Hauglid one and the one started by Kevin, as far as I can see), and it's hardly used, and slow moving. It wouldn't make sense to chuck every controversial thread in there. It would just get cluttered, and that's not the purpose of the forum.
I agree it doesn't make much sense, but hey, not much over there does.
Besides, I'm just speculating. We'll see what happens... ;)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Dr. Shades wrote:The Pundits Forum is a little more sinister than that, Ray.
To accomplish any of the goals you listed, all they'd have to do is restrict the ability to post to only certain people.
But they've gone one step further: They also restrict the ability to even view the forum to only registered members. Which means if they don't want you to see the discussions there, they just ban you.
Shades, here's the real problem, getting banned. LOL. I don't agree with the bannings anymore but I have NO influence in decision-making. One of the posters in Discussions remarked that they should not ban "these guys" because "these guys bring electricity to the board". Anyone can start a thread in the Discussions forum to comment on the Pundit debates, sometimes derisively known as "The Peanut Gallery". You can say what you like there to your heart's content, but I understand what you're saying, however I don't know what their motives are for only allowing registered users to see the Pundit forum. I'm not going to say it's "sinister" unless I know the reason, and I don't.
If I thought Brant was really interested in Book of Mormon discussions, I'd consider sticking around to try, but I don't believe he is. I think he has decided that it's too difficult, or unproductive, to discuss complex issues on an internet board. (at least so he informed me in the past) I understand his point, that's why I decided to write some lengthier essays on the subject myself, instead of just rehashing topics over and over. But still, the Book of Mormon discussions over there are very disappointing in general, in my opinion. Not much substance. Brant does post now and then, but not much as far as I can see.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Brackite wrote:I do think though that the more interesting/controversial threads will be moved with more frequency to the Pundit forum.
Doesn't work like that. They're not going to remove threads started in LDS Discussions to let Pundits alone debate it. Who says they will even want to debate it? Only Pundits can start new threads in the Pundit forum, or ask for threads from the main froum to be moved to Pundit. That's how I understand it.
Ray,
How do you understand the banning of Lady Sundancer and widdley?
How do you understand the banning of Lady Sundancer and widdley?
Jersey Girl
I didn't even know you were widdley until I read it on this board this morning. As for the LSD banning, I don't recall any "charges" being laid against you. From my perspective, you were there, then gone, and I didn't even know you were banned until I read it here. So I know nothing of specifics.
How do you understand the banning of Lady Sundancer and widdley?
Jersey Girl
I didn't even know you were widdley until I read it on this board this morning. As for the LSD banning, I don't recall any "charges" being laid against you. From my perspective, you were there, then gone, and I didn't even know you were banned until I read it here. So I know nothing of specifics.
Ray,
I hadn't posted as "widdley" since April 2005. widdley was my original screen name on FAIR. Later, I registered again as Lady Sundancer to promote a Kerry Shirts DVD. I haven't posted on FAIR/MAD in any fashion or form since October of this past year.
beastie wrote:They're probably mad at you for posting the email exchange commentary before it got deleted.
MAD can be mad at me all they like. Anyone can view the board registered or not and copy exchanges. I'd like to make something clear, I do not object to the banning. It is the slander and innuendo that I object to.
As a demonstration. A poster on this board has contacted me via PM's and offered me the use of a proxy server to post on MAD. I don't agree with the use of proxy servers to thwart a banning or whatever, and so I respectfully declined.
Neither widdley nor Lady Sundancer has posted on FAIR since October. April 2005 for widdley. You can search on those screen names and see that is true.
Dr. Shades wrote:The Pundits Forum is a little more sinister than that, Ray.
To accomplish any of the goals you listed, all they'd have to do is restrict the ability to post to only certain people.
But they've gone one step further: They also restrict the ability to even view the forum to only registered members. Which means if they don't want you to see the discussions there, they just ban you.
Shades, here's the real problem, getting banned. LOL. I don't agree with the bannings anymore but I have NO influence in decision-making. One of the posters in Discussions remarked that they should not ban "these guys" because "these guys bring electricity to the board". Anyone can start a thread in the Discussions forum to comment on the Pundit debates, sometimes derisively known as "The Peanut Gallery". You can say what you like there to your heart's content, but I understand what you're saying, however I don't know what their motives are for only allowing registered users to see the Pundit forum. I'm not going to say it's "sinister" unless I know the reason, and I don't.
The reasons for the existence of the Pundits Forum are fairly obvious. It exists A) to protect the "NOC-listed" MAD posters, and B) to allow for uninterrupted discussion between some of the more scholarly posters. I.e., if a "scholar" such as David Stewart is getting his butt kicked in the main forum, the mods will happily chapperone him off to the Pundits Forum. I guess the bottomline is that it's meant to protect the weak apologists from the critics.