Everybody's welcome?

[_Blixa]

[What happens to a scholarly thread if one of the posters here decides to attack? It would go right down the tube.

Actually, a mod would split the "attack" part off into a separate thread to send down the tube. I wondered about this at first too, but then saw that this was the method of handling that kind of thing.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Yes everyone is welcome.

Whether all the posters will be welcoming is another story....

[_Some Schmo]

Did you read the thread that Nightingale quoted? Exactly what did Dr. Peterson say to deserve the vulgar, obnoxious attack he got? His comments were benign--but he's got a big target on him that some posters just can't resist taking pot-shots at.

Oh, come on! His comments in that thread were benign, sure, and if that was the only thing he ever wrote on a message board in his life, you'd have a point.

Seriously... (I can't believe I have to say this) he has a reputation. Have you never read the things he's said before? Is this your first exposure to Dannyboy?

[_Nightingale]

harmony:
"This isn't MAD. Try to keep us straight."

I don't know much, 'tis true. But I am certainly capable of discerning a difference between this board and MAD thankyouverymuch.

harmony:
"MAD is the over-moderated post-menopausal vision of a woman with significant issues. MDB (note the different spelling)..."

Well, they ARE close so that is a tough one for me but I'll try. What is amazing is how "harmony" and "charity" are not the first words that spring to mind when I read some of the offerings by the two posters, no matter which board they're on.


"...is the non-moderated vision of a man determined to give everyone a voice, even those who are silenced on MAD."

So MAD the BAD is symbolized by a poxy female and MDB the GOOD is symbolized by an enlightened male?

Eek.

"Posters need a thick skin, a minimal elementary understanding of the subject matter, and the ability to give and take. Some Saints would not survive here. Daniel isn't one of them. Daniel's biggest problem isn't that he couldn't do well here, and score some points. Daniel's problem is he'd have to give only his best here, and he has no desire to make that effort. It's much easier for him on MAD, where he's never challenged and he's constantly protected. It's not our fault he makes that choice."

So, like MAD, there are unstated rules (funny, that was close to the worst thing for me about being a convert to Mormonism). One of them is that you don't actually want DCP to post here.

If the majority did want that and the mods, I'd think the door would be wider open. You cannot seriously expect people to submit to personal attacks to participate here?

Yes, the potential for a unique discussion board is here. Is the reality of that too much to hope for?

I understand that people have history with DCP et al. However, not all readers and participants on these boards know the entire backstory on it all (or can keep it all straight). I can barely tell who's LDS and who's ex and who's neutral unless they are obviously blatantly biased either way. So, it's just hard to understand why board mgt would say this is a completely open board if it isn't really. Surely, nobody will show up here if it means they're going to get dumped on?

That's all I'm trying to say. If you don't want to talk to somebody, fine. But do you need to take every opportunity to mock and jeer to their face (so to speak)? Why can't you just stay off it and let them participate? (General you, not harmony you).

As for taking the board/s too seriously; well, I did think that people wanted meaningful discussion, yes.

Do what you want. I don't even care at this point.

But I did have an interest in seeing an endeavour such as this do well. It would indeed be remarkable if even vigorous opponents could find a place - and a way - to engage each other in meaningful discussion. That's more important to me than cheap thrills from a well-aimed pot shot. Any day.

[_Alter Idem]

Did you read the thread that Nightingale quoted? Exactly what did Dr. Peterson say to deserve the vulgar, obnoxious attack he got? His comments were benign--but he's got a big target on him that some posters just can't resist taking pot-shots at.

Oh, come on! His comments in that thread were benign, sure, and if that was the only thing he ever wrote on a message board in his life, you'd have a point.

Seriously... (I can't believe I have to say this) he has a reputation. Have you never read the things he's said before? Is this your first exposure to Dannyboy?

I'm hardly a neophyte, schmo. His reputation(as you see it) was not the point. His comments on that particular thread were benign and one poster made a vulgar, rude attack without provocation. If one never reacts in any different way to a poster, then there will never be any chance for dialogue.

My assumption was that the message board was for discussion and so even someone like Dr. Peterson should be treated with common courtesy, if the community here wishes to have a thriving message board. You all have to decide if that's what you want...or if you want your own little exclusive club. Personally, that what I don't like about the new incarnation of MADB--it is becoming more of a little club with outsiders(those who don't fit the MADB mold) barred. I'd hate to see that same thing happen here at MD, and this could happen, if the outspoken rabid anti's are allowed to run off those posters they don't want here.

[_Some Schmo]

His comments on that particular thread were benign and one poster made a vulgar, rude attack without provocation. If one never reacts in any different way to a poster, then there will never be any chance for dialogue.

Well, maybe that's the difference between you and the person making the attack: perhaps that person doesn't really think there's a chance for dialogue with someone with whom they already have experience.

I don't see any reason at all to coddle DCP more or less than anyone else here or anywhere else. People tend to get back what they give out, and it should be no surprise to anyone.

I do agree that the comments were harsh, but again... thick skin. DCP can be pretty harsh too. Oh well. Meh... what can you do?

[_grayskull]

Look at it this way, the board is perfect but the members aren't.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nightingale,

for what it's worth, I agree with all that you stated in your OP here. However, when someone's only weapon in discussion/debate is a feminine hygiene product, they're not really worth your time and effort to respond.

Jersey Girl
:-D

[_beastie]

Of course not many LDS are going to want to participate here as long as some posters do have the attitude that discussion with apologists is automatically pointless and dismissive, rude behavior is justified as a response instead. It does seem to me that folks with that belief would be more comfortable on RfM, but some of these same posters hate RfM.

I'm not sure what can be done about it other than allowing certain posters to post only in the telestial forum, due to their posting history.

I've often said I don't quite understand the level of antipathy against DCP, and why he seems to personify apologia to some people. Some have told me it's because he's so visible on the internet and is so heavily involved in FARMS.

I do understand possessing antipathy towards LDS internet apologia, however.

[_Some Schmo]

So, it's just hard to understand why board mgt would say this is a completely open board if it isn't really. Surely, nobody will show up here if it means they're going to get dumped on?

(snip)

As for taking the board/s too seriously; well, I did think that people wanted meaningful discussion, yes.

Do what you want. I don't even care at this point.

But I did have an interest in seeing an endeavour such as this do well. It would indeed be remarkable if even vigorous opponents could find a place - and a way - to engage each other in meaningful discussion. That's more important to me than cheap thrills from a well-aimed pot shot. Any day.

But it really is an open board. It's not the board management's fault if people choose not to participate for whatever reason.

I suppose some people want meaningful discussion, but I think some of us (well, me, anyway) have come to the conclusion that it's largely a fruitless effort to hash out the issues with the idea there may be resolution (or whatever else someone might mean by "meaningful discussion" - perhaps you could tell me what you think "meaningful discussion" means to you and what you hope to accomplish by it).

But I will never claim to be above "cheap thrills."