? for Ray A

[_Jersey Girl]

Productive in what way, Ray? Could you describe what you think a productive discussion is?

Jersey Girl

A productive discussion is like what occurs on the Dan Vogel thread. Unfotunately the rest of the board shows no sign of that. Think about why so many LDS posters have such negative opinions of MDB. I'm sure they don't all expect to be given a sliver platter, but just think about why so few come here, and when they do, eventually leave. When someone smells bad, very few have the guts to tell them they need to start using deoderant.

Okay, you're in it up to your eyeballs, Oz Man. ;-) I agree that the Dan Vogel thread is top notch. In just 2 months it's generated in the neighborhood of 18,500 views.

THIS thread has been on going for just 10 days and has generated in the ball park of 5,400.

Are you sure you want to stick with the "why so few come here" position?

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

Okay, you're in it up to your eyeballs, Oz Man. ;-) I agree that the Dan Vogel thread is top notch. In just 2 months it's generated in the neighborhood of 18,500 views.

THIS thread has been on going for just 10 days and has generated in the ball park of 5,400.

Are you sure you want to stick with the "why so few come here" position?

Jersey Girl

There's a difference between views/hits, and posts, you know? You can have a website that gets many views, but no corresponding comment. Now if it got just 1,000 of those viewers to post, it would be a different story. Or even 100. So when I said "come here", I meant actually posting.

Ray "up to my eyeballs in it" A

[_Ray A]

Hey, Ray, I noticed you posted on the MMM thread. You may want to consider sharing your opinion that BY and other church leaders share some responsibility for the massacre due to their violent rhetoric.

Quite possible, maybe even probable. You do have a point there. But why should I "share" this on MAD? This happened 150 years ago. What relevance does it have today? Is President Hinckley secretly arranging another massacre? That's the thing, beastie, you want to dig old skeletons out of closets to embarrass Mormons. Considering how the Church has evolved, I think this is mean-spirited, and that's why I won't say anything.

[_Ray A]

If you honestly feel that the purpose of this board is to belittle Mormonism, then you need to re-read Shade's mission statement. That's not what this board is about. The purpose is to create a forum where posters feel comfortable discussing topics of interest regarding Mormonism in a lightly moderated environment. But let's face it. There are a lot of issues surrounding the Mormon Church which are controversal, and different people are going to have very passionate, heated opinions on these issues.

Shades made a statement on another thread several weeks ago (I can't remember which one) which sheds a different light on this. Currently, MDB is more "critic-heavy". However, if that were to evolve, and the board were to become more "apologist-heavy", Shades would be fine with that.

I think you are misrepresenting the board when you say that it was created to belittle Mormonism. If you read the Mormon Discussions Home Page, and read anything that Shades, who is the creator and founder of the board has posted, you can see that this is clearly not the case.

I missed your post, and only just saw it. I did not say that Shades created this board to belittle Mormonism. I said that it has gone in the direction which the posters desired - and that is to belittle Mormonism. I have nothing against Shades for this, but this a fact of having a free board. The board is not "critic-heavy", it is critic-overladen. About to sink. I have supported Shades' belief in freedom of speech, but without intervention and moderation you are like a rudderless ship. The board has become anti-Mormon. So I do wonder if this idea of free speech is a good one, without moderation. This will sound almost blasphemous, but I think you should follow MAD. Have more moderator intervention. Posters here are allowed to defame and slander people in the name of "free speech". It is irrelevant whether those slandered choose to respond, or not. Any person with a sense of fairness and decency will not allow this open slather, and especially on the pretext that those accused choose not to respond. If their name is mud on a forum, and nothing they say can assuage that, why should they submit to the abuse they know they will get? It is the moderators who should stop this unconscionable abuse. Unless they feel like feeding Christians to the lions.

[_Ray A]

Let me ask you about this also, Liz:

I think we struck a good balance with the Kathy Worthington Memorial Thread situation. I regret, however, that rampant insults were flying, and there was a huge dramatic mess before I, or Shades, had a chance to view what was happening. (emphais added)

Were the mods only concerned about the insults against Kathy Worthington?

[_Ray A]

Of course anti-Semitism only seriously occured in the 1930s, right?

A SCHOOL role playing exercise on the Holocaust went horribly wrong when some students took the lesson too far and the "Germans" spat on and punched the "Jews".

The Academy school in Waxahachie, 50 kilometres south of Dallas, Texas, runs the role play every year to teach year nine students about intolerance and discrimination.

During the role play students tagged as Jews were forced to stand against the wall as the "Germans" passed by the hallway, AP reported. The Jewish students had to pick up everyone's garbage at lunchtime and were the last to eat.

But students said the exercise got out of hand when the "German" students spat on and hit the "Jewish" students.

"They would spit on them. They would push them down the stairs. They would be really rude," student Tiffany Zimmerman told AP. "I think it was too rough and over the edge."

Principal John Aune told a Dallas-Fort Worth television station the point of the lesson was "learning about the problems of intolerance and the problems of discrimination and helping kids understand what some people went through to change the world."

Mr Aune said the school had run the Holocaust exercise for five years and had never received any reports of violence.

"I think that some of the kids were kind of harsh, but it taught us a little bit about how it was back then," student Trevor Smith said

Some kids were "kind of harsh", but this is the "reality". Of course, no need to worry. Sanity will prevail. (Report, April 11.)

[_Yoda]

Let me ask you about this also, Liz:

I think we struck a good balance with the Kathy Worthington Memorial Thread situation. I regret, however, that rampant insults were flying, and there was a huge dramatic mess before I, or Shades, had a chance to view what was happening. (emphais added)

Were the mods only concerned about the insults against Kathy Worthington?

I'm not sure what your point is here. In the case of this particular thread, yes. The woman had just died. There were very tasteless and rude comments being said about her. Shades and I stepped in.

If Ms. Worthington had been a Church member with lifelong LDS service and people were tearing her apart, we would have done the same thing.

Before I was brought on board to moderate, and Shades was basically the sole moderator, he stepped in when a thread became too ugly concerning President Hinckley.

I don't think that you can honestly claim that MAD is any better at keeping stinging insults and hard feelings off of their board than we are. The main difference I see is that with MAD, it's one-sided. The insults are flying toward the critics, and when the critics attempt to defend themselves, they are either pounced on by a Mod, or the thread is simply shut down.

I don't know how many posts of mine you have read, but I can tell you that I have voiced my opinion regarding personal insults to critics and apologists alike.

[_beastie]

Ray,

Here's what I don't understand about your reasoning. You insist that the mean things said about specific Mormons and Mormonism in general portend future acts of violence against Mormons. Yet all you do about it is to come to this board and tell us how horrible we are and how we will have blood on our hands one day.

I stated earlier in this thread that if you're really concerned about future acts of violence against Mormons, you should be doing something that could stop it, like contacting the Romney campaign, which has the public platform in the US right now, and try to convince them to address the problem. You acted as if that were a ridiculous suggestion.

I view your approach as evidence as to what you really are trying to do. In other words, action speaks louder than words. You say you're worried about future acts of violence against Mormons, and yet all you do is come here and fuss at us. Ironically, at the same time, you tell us that critical exmormons are the LAST people who will get the church to change. So exactly what results do you expect your criticisms here to have? That's right, you know the answer. Zero. So the reality is that you are engaging in ZERO actions to stop the future wave of violence against Mormons. Isn't that a bit odd, if you really believe what you're saying? Why aren't you trying to save Mormon lives?

I think the answer is obvious. Since you are a decent and moral person, if you really believed Mormons were at serious risk of violence, you would do what you could to stop it. So I don't believe you really believe it. I think you are simply creating an issue through which to "get back" at exmormons who have been critical of you. "Look at what awful people you are!!!! You're like the nazis!!!!"

Quite possible, maybe even probable. You do have a point there. But why should I "share" this on MAD? This happened 150 years ago. What relevance does it have today? Is President Hinckley secretly arranging another massacre? That's the thing, beastie, you want to dig old skeletons out of closets to embarrass Mormons. Considering how the Church has evolved, I think this is mean-spirited, and that's why I won't say anything.

Why? Because the topic is being discussed, and, predictably, the believers are adamant that only a wild-eyed bigot would implicate BY in the event. You know better, and yet remain silent.

MMM is an important historical event in the history of this country, just like Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11. MMM remains an obscure footnote in history, despite the fact that it was the most significant act of domestic terrorism until Oklahoma City Bombing. We're not supposed to talk about our history because it might embarrass someone?

Why are you willing to embarrass Germany with your constant holocaust references, considering how Germany has evolved?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Or perhaps, something wrong with their distorted perceptions of Mormonism?

Perhaps. But you also dismissed all those 300 plus articles on the word of a Mormon apologist. If you haven't read them then how do you know they're all distorted? Have you read all those 300 plus articles to know they're distorted?

What's a "decent Mormon"?

One who does not encourage or support a board whose aim is to belittle Mormonism or its leaders and portray them in the worst possible light - at every opportunity. Is there anything positive about Mormonism here? I see one or two possible neutral threads in the Terrestrial Forum. This is the truth, Bond, even if most posters here tried to be fair or neutral, it is beyond their capability.

And MAD has neutral threads? Neutral threads are impossible to achieve because people write based on their own prejudices and opinions.

So who are the "decent Mormons" on this board who should leave?

Ray A,

Are you going to respond to the above question (in bold) or should Fortigurn start working on "Lazy Research debunked: Ray A X 1 (by Bond X 1)?

[_Bond...James Bond]

The board has become anti-Mormon.

So what? It could easily be pro-Mormon if the MAD posters made a concerted effort to fill this board with pro-Mormon posts.

This will sound almost blasphemous, but I think you should follow MAD.

There's a good idea. Not!

It is irrelevant whether those slandered choose to respond, or not.

Actually it is relevant because Peterson starts personal threads about Scratch where Scratch is unable to post. DCP could easily sign up here and post.

Any person with a sense of fairness and decency will not allow this open slather, and especially on the pretext that those accused choose not to respond. If their name is mud on a forum, and nothing they say can assuage that, why should they submit to the abuse they know they will get?

Why do they read then? DCP knows his name is poison on RfM...why in the sam hell does he continue to read?

It is the moderators who should stop this unconscionable abuse. Unless they feel like feeding Christians to the lions.

How should the moderators stop this abuse? Bannings? The Q? Red words admonishing people to "be nice when talking about that religion you have absolutely no respect for"?

And please stop with the over the top analogies. Nazis, Christians to the lions.....what's next, crucifixion? The pit and the pendulum?