moksha wrote:Makelen, you might ask who Dunamis and Kemara really were and why they were never in violation of the rules.
Will that call down the thunder of victimhood upon me?
No, of course not (unless you chose to ask this question at MAD). The point was, that those who made the rules about puppets also readily broke the rules about puppets. Of course they had their reasons for doing so, but knowing that they exist might demonstrate that a fluid interpretation of the rules can easily be made. For example, Juliann wanted her anonymity as the moderator Dunamis (and only added Dunamis post total into her own when she realized her total posting crown was in danger from Charity). Pahoran introduced the character of Kemara, to add increased credibility to his argument that folks from a noncaucasian background were right happy with the Church and all its history and thought the idea of having an Apostle of Color was a bunch of hooey.
Posting crown? Okay, now I've heard every absurdity imagineable. Are you saying that Juliann is invested in post counts?
Posting crown? Okay, now I've heard every absurdity imaginable. Are you saying that Juliann is invested in post counts?
Jersey Girl
Retirement fund?
Gold stars? Big shiny medal?
Jersey Girl ;-)
I should learn to keep quite. Jayneedoe asked earlier if this is true and I can only give my own observation and those of the voices in my head as corroboration. When I made the prediction one time that Charity would have the most posts by a certain date, I noted soon after that Juliann's count had risen. Strangely it was by about the same amount that Dunamis had in her account. It made sense to me, since an anonymous poster had already let me in on the Dunamis secret. It is said in life there can only be one Queen Bee. There, now that I have said that I must make penance by being nice the rest of the week.
Okay, here is something good about Juliann: On a post discussing South Park and the Joseph Smith Episode, I had said that I thought the constant, "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb" being sung in the background whenever Joseph Smith was on the screen was a bit too heavy handed of humor. Juliann countered by saying she thought nothing was wrong with that and she thought the whole thing was funny. I realized that I was undoubtedly being the fuddy duddy and Juliann was displaying a more open mind and greater acceptance. She impressed me with her opinion.
Plutarch wrote:Well, when the faithful here are called arrogant, pompous asses all the time, and derided at every turn, with little effort to engage in focused substantive discussion, what the hell are they supposed to do.
I agree that it can get pretty rough around here, from both sides, but this is more an issue of 'thick skin' than administrative banning. I was pummeled every day over on FAIR, but refused to leave until queued/banned. During my time on FAIR, I posted several times my belief that FAIR allowed more open debate and discussion than RfM did; I now don't think so.
By the way, I enjoyed your information about Elder Packer's talk and to whom it was delivered etc etc.
Thanks. I hope it was helpful.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Well, when the faithful here are called arrogant, pompous asses all the time, and derided at every turn, with little effort to engage in focused substantive discussion, what the hell are they supposed to do.
OK, I found something else on one of the Threads that was Posted by the former Moderator Dunamis there on the "FAIR"MA&D Board. Here it is:
Dunamis:
I decided it was better to be up front and direct about a new situation that is developing. We are having more incidents of cross-posting by a few from Dr. Shades message board and recruitment ads are being put into posts on this board.
This presents two problems for our board:
1. This message board is a staging area for a few disgruntled critics of FAIR, apparently with most of the content dedicated to extreme and vulgar attacks on FAIR and FAIR posters with posts and emails being copied wholesale. 2. This message board contains temple content, obscenity, profanity and soft porn graphics so we cannot link to the posts--which makes it a one-sided squabble that does not benefit or interest FAIR in the least.
We would like critics who are angry with this board to know about Dr. Shades' message board. It can easily be found with a search engine. We encourage you to use it! We hope you will have a more satisfactory experience there. But we are not going to allow further cross-posting that will develop into board wars or bring more disgruntled and angry posters loaded for bear here. We hold the same philosophy on attacks that Dr. Shades does so I think we should be able to respect each other on this point at least. Dr. Shades on his message board [In Defense of Ray A, Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 5:39 pm] defended a poster's attacks because he was only "retaliating" which was permissible because "he does so only as a counterattack, never as a pre-emptive attack." We have no disagreement with that and only ask that Dr. Shades and his posters have the courtesy to not bring "pre-emptive attacks" to our board. I do not think many (if any!) of our Mormon posters will show you that discourtesy, Dr. Shades. It is a recipe for a nonstop brawl if we disrespect one another's boundaries.
Brackite wrote:OK, I found something else on one of the Threads that was Posted by the former Moderator Dunamis there on the "FAIR"MA&D Board. Here it is:
Dunamis:
I decided it was better to be up front and direct about a new situation that is developing. We are having more incidents of cross-posting by a few from Dr. Shades message board and recruitment ads are being put into posts on this board.
This presents two problems for our board:
1. This message board is a staging area for a few disgruntled critics of FAIR, apparently with most of the content dedicated to extreme and vulgar attacks on FAIR and FAIR posters with posts and emails being copied wholesale. 2. This message board contains temple content, obscenity, profanity and soft porn graphics so we cannot link to the posts--which makes it a one-sided squabble that does not benefit or interest FAIR in the least.
We would like critics who are angry with this board to know about Dr. Shades' message board. It can easily be found with a search engine. We encourage you to use it! We hope you will have a more satisfactory experience there. But we are not going to allow further cross-posting that will develop into board wars or bring more disgruntled and angry posters loaded for bear here. We hold the same philosophy on attacks that Dr. Shades does so I think we should be able to respect each other on this point at least. Dr. Shades on his message board [In Defense of Ray A, Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 5:39 pm] defended a poster's attacks because he was only "retaliating" which was permissible because "he does so only as a counterattack, never as a pre-emptive attack." We have no disagreement with that and only ask that Dr. Shades and his posters have the courtesy to not bring "pre-emptive attacks" to our board. I do not think many (if any!) of our Mormon posters will show you that discourtesy, Dr. Shades. It is a recipe for a nonstop brawl if we disrespect one another's boundaries.
Well, there's lies, there's damned lies... and then there's FAIR/MAD. And that's okay. Lying for the Lord is a time-honored tradition that Joseph evidently restored with the rest of what he restored... whatever that was... Egyptian, from what I'm seeing now on a few other threads.