Do you think once someone over there says this place is filled wiith porn, that they all believe it?
Not all, but a certain "type" does. The same type that believed we made fun of Charity for being disabled... which was always a bald faced lie.
But the "type" that believes this sort of tripe believes, deep down (or right on the surface) that exmormons are filled with the spirit of satan, so OF COURSE we're making fun of disabled people and posting porn all over the board.
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.
Okay, so after reading on here that the thread in question was closed I checked into MAD to see what the outcome was and found this truly bizarre statement by Juliann:
QUOTE(Sput @ Feb 15 2007, 07:01 AM) *
Actually I thought the point of this thread was to discuss if LDS could hack it on a supposed neutral site, and if so why they choose to be here instead of MDB. Anyone want to discuss that?
What do you mean by neutral? Is no moderation considered neutral? I think those are two different concepts. It is easy to claim neutrality when you pit a group who will verbally cage fight with those who won't. The "winner" is obvious. I think the question is why those who only want to dialogue in that manner won't stay in moderated forums where they aren't allowed to play dirty.
What on earth is she talking about there? I saw no evidence whatsoever that beastie or James Bond were "cage fighting". Why would she attempt to rewrite the script when the entire series of exchanges is there for anyone to read? Is she talking about other posters such as those who were banned? If so, how is it that banned posters fail to stay? She's not making any sense.
And one more thing. I'm not going to go there to pick up the quotes but it seemed to me that throughout her exchanges with beastie, Juliann repeatedly noted that there was no moderator intervention on that thread. Perhaps it was planned that way. In closing comments, one of the moderators referred to their "experiment". Again, it seems to have been planned that way. Was the outcome anticipated? I have no idea however it's highly likely that at least some posters reached their Juliann saturation point as a result of those threads. Well, who knows?
Jersey Girl wrote:Okay, so after reading on here that the thread in question was closed I checked into MAD to see what the outcome was and found this truly bizarre statement by Juliann:
QUOTE(Sput @ Feb 15 2007, 07:01 AM) *
Actually I thought the point of this thread was to discuss if LDS could hack it on a supposed neutral site, and if so why they choose to be here instead of MDB. Anyone want to discuss that?
What do you mean by neutral? Is no moderation considered neutral? I think those are two different concepts. It is easy to claim neutrality when you pit a group who will verbally cage fight with those who won't. The "winner" is obvious. I think the question is why those who only want to dialogue in that manner won't stay in moderated forums where they aren't allowed to play dirty.
What on earth is she talking about there? I saw no evidence whatsoever that beastie or James Bond were "cage fighting". Why would she attempt to rewrite the script when the entire series of exchanges is there for anyone to read? Is she talking about other posters such as those who were banned? If so, how is it that banned posters fail to stay? She's not making any sense.
Jersey Girl
That comes most certainly from my "What Did We Learn From These Board Wars" thread. On a previous thread, moshka had thought a cage match would be interesting be juliann and liz. I said in that thread (above) that a cage match wasn't going to happen between liz and juliann (as a joke). Obviously this shows that the MADs are reading everything here.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Bond...James Bond wrote:That comes most certainly from my "What Did We Learn From These Board Wars" thread. On a previous thread, moshka had thought a cage match would be interesting be juliann and liz. I said in that thread (above) that a cage match wasn't going to happen between liz and juliann (as a joke). Obviously this shows that the MADs are reading everything here.
I see, James. This brings up another observation. Juliann doesn't seem to be able to identify humor when she reads it. I remember your post about cage fighting. Instead of seeing it for what it was, as others did, she somehow takes it seriously and uses it to describe ...oh what the hell...who knows what she's using it for?
And one more thing. I'm not going to go there to pick up the quotes but it seemed to me that throughout her exchanges with beastie, Juliann repeatedly noted that there was no moderator intervention on that thread. Perhaps it was planned that way. In closing comments, one of the moderators referred to their "experiment". Again, it seems to have been planned that way. Was the outcome anticipated? I have no idea however it's highly likely that at least some posters reached their Juliann saturation point as a result of those threads. Well, who knows?
I believe the outcome was anticipated, and the entire point.
When I stated my belief, on this board, that the re-opening of the thread and the deliberate "dog-piling" on me, without moderator intervention, was part of her intent to push me off the board, she pretended the speculation was crazy. The last time I was on FAIR she hounded me on almost every thread I participated on, in her often pointless way. That convinced me to leave previously. I think she had to escalate this time.
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.
And one more thing. I'm not going to go there to pick up the quotes but it seemed to me that throughout her exchanges with beastie, Juliann repeatedly noted that there was no moderator intervention on that thread. Perhaps it was planned that way. In closing comments, one of the moderators referred to their "experiment". Again, it seems to have been planned that way. Was the outcome anticipated? I have no idea however it's highly likely that at least some posters reached their Juliann saturation point as a result of those threads. Well, who knows?
I believe the outcome was anticipated, and the entire point.
When I stated my belief, on this board, that the re-opening of the thread and the deliberate "dog-piling" on me, without moderator intervention, was part of her intent to push me off the board, she pretended the speculation was crazy. The last time I was on FAIR she hounded me on almost every thread I participated on, in her often pointless way. That convinced me to leave previously. I think she had to escalate this time.
I'm thinking she escalated to the point of shooting herself in the foot this time. Oh well.
Jersey Girl wrote:Okay, so after reading on here that the thread in question was closed I checked into MAD to see what the outcome was and found this truly bizarre statement by Juliann:
QUOTE(Sput @ Feb 15 2007, 07:01 AM) *
Actually I thought the point of this thread was to discuss if LDS could hack it on a supposed neutral site, and if so why they choose to be here instead of MDB. Anyone want to discuss that?
What do you mean by neutral? Is no moderation considered neutral? I think those are two different concepts. It is easy to claim neutrality when you pit a group who will verbally cage fight with those who won't. The "winner" is obvious. I think the question is why those who only want to dialogue in that manner won't stay in moderated forums where they aren't allowed to play dirty.
The irony here seems delicious. Here is Juliann fresh from the kill of driving off her opponents, while their forum was temporarily freed from over regulation. She went hog wild enough to garnish the disaproval of her fellow board members. I suppose she failed to see the sign post up ahead telling her she had crossed over into the Twilight Zone. Hey, maybe we will be neighbors. I wouldn't mind if she decided to leisurely close her drapes at night wearing that certain black satin teddy.
What do you mean by neutral? Is no moderation considered neutral? I think those are two different concepts. It is easy to claim neutrality when you pit a group who will verbally cage fight with those who won't. The "winner" is obvious. I think the question is why those who only want to dialogue in that manner won't stay in moderated forums where they aren't allowed to play dirty.
I wonder if Juliann, on any level, recognizes how assiduously she has ignored the real topic? The real topic wasn't an UNmoderated board, but a NEUTRALLY moderated board called "ZLMB". Even Sput seemed to have finally understood my point. Yet Juliann's response immediately takes a 180 degree turn from a NEUTRALLY moderated board and pretends that the topic is an UNmoderated board.
Juliann is the person who most vigorously courted Z members to flee Z for FAIR by promising them a preferable climate. Yet she is also the person who refuses to answer the actual question.
What was the only difference between the climate of Z and FAIR? The fact that the moderators had an LDS bias and were willing to make decisions based on the "health" of the board and not strictly based on the behavior of specific posters.
Each person that actually tried to explain the Z exodus gave explanations that had nothing to do with the CORE difference between the two boards - the moderating.
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.
