Okay, I give. What critics?

[_cacheman]

I remember a group of very effective critics skilled in the art of debate. Off the top of my head, here are a few:

Exegete
EAllusion
Addictio
Analytics
7ofNine
Baneemy
John Corrill
Black Moclips
Soho
Don Bradley
Truth Dancer
etc.

Some were more effective than others, but all of them had their strengths.

As far as what prompted the LDS posters to leave en masse, I would have to presume that it was the witty, intelligent, charming, and ever formidable critic known as cacheman. Man, he was something else!

cacheman

[_Blixa]

Also Gadianton

[_cacheman]

Also Gadianton

How did I forget him?

Also,
Cinepro
negaburn
Alf Omegus
Phaedrus UT

Just to name a few more...

cacheman

[_beastie]

7 of niine was there during that time also, and she kicked butt.

She was also remarkably beautiful, wasn't she?

;)

[_Jersey Girl]

7 of niine was there during that time also, and she kicked butt.

She was also remarkably beautiful, wasn't she?

;)

I actually thought she was a goddess, beastie.

;-)

[_beastie]

Every so often the mass exodus of apologetic posters to FAIR from ZLMB is mentioned and that the apologists on Z couldn't stand up to the critics.

I had to have been posting there when this took place. I didn't notice a mass exodus and I'd like to know what critics people are talking about.

Got names?

Certainly believers stood up to critics, and probably felt that they did a good job refuting the critics. Yet, the discontent was obvious in the result - Z is a ghost town.

So what was the problem? Rehashing of old arguments? Yes, but that also occurs on FAIR/MAD. It's the same old topics, that is the nature of the beast. Certainly old ZLMBies who went to FAIR were seeing the same arguments.

Here's what I think reveals the problem that resulted in the exodus: what was the difference between FAIR and ZLMB? There had to be SOME difference, and that difference is why believers preferred FAIR to Z.

Is it that new, exciting topics are discussed at FAIR that were ignored at Z? Of course not, the idea is silly.

Some of the more notable critics also posted, at least for a time, on FAIR, (like Brent Metcalfe), so it's not just the idea that the critics were too good for the apologists, (which seems to be your insinuation)

What was the primary difference between FAIR and Z?

The only answer I've come up with is that FAIR has an openly biased moderating style, as well as an openly biased format. So the question is: why do believers prefer that format?

[_Jersey Girl]

I remember most of those posters you forgot SR1030 and I don't think Alf was so active when I came on Z...anyway, when would this alleged exodus have taken place? Time frame?

That doesn't seem like enough posters to be swamped but then I wasn't on the receiving end of them either!

Thanks!

Jersey Girl

[_truth dancer]

And who could forget Primary Chorister? ;-)

Anyone remember The Vines?

And there was Sansfoy and Brianspro! Two of my favorites!

If I recall correctly, part of what happened was when the board started limiting posts. It just wasn't the same after that!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Dr. Shades]

There was also Enigm0 and Phos1.

[_beastie]

I was still a moderator during the period in which Pac and the mods were trying to figure out how to fix Z. The problem was definitely believers were discontented with Z. They did not feel adequately protected, and they felt outnumbered. We bounced around various ideas, and I even suggested some tactics that FAIR seemed to use - such as limiting the number of critics, and refusing to engage in any discussion regarding moderating. (I made it clear when I made those suggestions that I was suggesting these changes as possible ways to help believers feel better about the situation, but also made it clear I would not be interested in participating on such an openly biased board)

So FAIR has helped believers by being openly biased in their behalf and by (at times arbitrarily) limiting the number of critics, and yet they still are unhappy with the situation (judging by Juliann's recent comments at MAD about feeling distressed at having created this situation). Just what do they want?

I think the hard fact isn't that critics are particularly better at these debates, or that one group is meaner than the other - the hard fact is that believers who are defending the faith just have the harder job. I've said this many times - which would be easier? Criticizing Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, or defending it? Criticizing the Book of Abraham "translation", or defending it?

Critics have a far easier job - one of my favorite critics, Gadianton, used to say that apologists are probably brighter people, because it's hard to come up with some of these defenses, and that critics can be of mediocre intelligence and still wipe up the floor with the apologists.

There is no situation that is going to make believers feel completely comfortable defending their faith against critics who know what they're talking about. That's because, well, the church is a man-made fantasy, constructed by a man who engaged in the same "benefits" that almost every other religious alpha male indulges in.

I bet scientologist apologists have the same problem (in fact, I would bet MONEY on it, given the extent the organization goes to to shut up critics). No matter how openly biased the moderating team is, no matter how hard the mods are on critics, no matter how limited the number of critics - it's just hard to defend the basic claims of scientology. Aliens dropping frozen aliens in volcanoes? Okay.

LDS believers will feel insulted by this comparison, but the only reason LDS beliefs do not strike them as inherently absurd as scientology beliefs (assuming we would agree that frozen aliens in volcanoes is, indeed, inherently absurd) is because they BELIEVE in them. (and were often RAISED in an environment that just accepted them)

This is why I've given up on real dialog between believer and nonbeliever. The believers just have a harder job, and they are hugely emotionally invested in their beliefs, and there is just no way to avoid them feeling attacked and persecuted, no matter HOW biased the moderating may be. So they're going to react as if they were personally attacked, and then the critics are going to feel unjustly attacked, and respond in kind (generalization, not true for each individual case).

It's just pointless. in my opinion, the only solution is for LDS to stop creating boards that are open to critics in the first place.