Are the LDSforums a successor to FAIR/MAD?

[_Mister Scratch]

The dawn of a new message board....LDS Forums. *cue 2001: A Space Odyssey*

Oh goody....another board for people here to obsess over and gossip about. I can hardly contain my joy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I bet, Wade, since we all know that you thrive on playing "Dr. Phil" to all the folks here.

[_Mister Scratch]

Rollo, you forgot to add in his best post:

Well, it's not as if the standard is all that high.

It just has to be better conversation than:

"I did not."

"You did too."

"I did not."

"You did too. Why don't you just admit it?"

"I did not."

"Yes you did, and, until you admit it, I'm going to follow you around and demand that you admit it and apologize."

And better than:

"Justify your position."

"I have. Here, and here."

"I'm not going to read those things. Justify your position."

"Read what I wrote."

"No. See? You've got nothing. You're lying. And this is why you're lying."

"I'm sick of this."

'You're sick of trying to justify your claim that Q."

"I never claimed that Q."

"Yes you did."

"No, I didn't."

"Yes you did."

"I'm really sick of this."

"By claiming that Q, you've smeared A, B, and C."

"I never claimed that Q, and I've never smeared A, B, and C!"

"Yes you did. Why don't you just admit it?"

"I've had enough of this."

"Oh? Running away, coward?"

Lol....

[_beastie]

I'm teetering on the brink of deciding that participation on message boards burns up far more time than it's worth -- I've just ended a supremely pointless and exasperating stint on a certain well-shaded board that won't be named -- but I like what I think is the concept behind this one: A board where serious discussion can occur that might actually be helpful to some people. If it works, that would be worthwhile.

I wish I had a buck for every time Daniel has talked about pondering whether or not to continue on message boards. I know he was saying the same thing years ago on Z.

And "A board where serious discussion can occur that might actually be helpful to some people." is code for "discussing controversial issues in an environment where one is preaching to the choir".

It's so funny to watch the evolution of these boards.

[_Sethbag]

The main problem with the notion of "serious discussion" and "dialogue" between TBMs and critics on boards like these is that if the LDS church really is not true, and Joseph Smith really did make it up, and he really did boink other mens' wives adulterously, and he really did make up the Book of Abraham, and he really did tell a few of his followers, within earshot of William Clayton, that he could translate the Kinderhook Plates (and that these plates were real ancient records), and all the rest, then there's really no way to "dialogue" with believers in a way that will be acceptable to them, because all of these things demonstrate the manmade character of their church. If, however, the LDS church really is true, then all of us critics must be the tools of Satan, and frankly that's just as impossible to us as the LDS church not being true is to them.

When the subject matter is what is our favorite color, or baseball team, or whatever, that's one thing, but in the TBM/critic "conversation", there really isn't a middle ground that's acceptable to either side. Either one side believes in a fairy tale, or the other side are the spawn of Satan.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, you forgot to add in his best post:

Well, it's not as if the standard is all that high.

It just has to be better conversation than:

"I did not."

"You did too."

"I did not."

"You did too. Why don't you just admit it?"

"I did not."

"Yes you did, and, until you admit it, I'm going to follow you around and demand that you admit it and apologize."

And better than:

"Justify your position."

"I have. Here, and here."

"I'm not going to read those things. Justify your position."

"Read what I wrote."

"No. See? You've got nothing. You're lying. And this is why you're lying."

"I'm sick of this."

'You're sick of trying to justify your claim that Q."

"I never claimed that Q."

"Yes you did."

"No, I didn't."

"Yes you did."

"I'm really sick of this."

"By claiming that Q, you've smeared A, B, and C."

"I never claimed that Q, and I've never smeared A, B, and C!"

"Yes you did. Why don't you just admit it?"

"I've had enough of this."

"Oh? Running away, coward?"

He added that one later. I must say, he sounds very bitter. I swear, all I did was push for one darn citation! ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

He added that one later. I must say, he sounds very bitter. I swear, all I did was push for one darn citation! ;)

Lol, yeah, I know. We must have really given him the butt-kicking of the year for him to carry on like this. Hopefully he will swing on back some time for a re-match.

[_Runtu]

He added that one later. I must say, he sounds very bitter. I swear, all I did was push for one darn citation! ;)

Lol, yeah, I know. We must have really given him the butt-kicking of the year for him to carry on like this. Hopefully he will swing on back some time for a re-match.

Hey, I just thought of something. If you two are really the same person (as DCP has suggested), that means you're referring to yourselves in an imaginary conversation. OK, I'm now officially weirded out. ;-)

[_Yoda]

Frankly, I hope that Dr. Peterson does decide to come back.

If he does come back, I hope that he would actually be up for engaging in true conversation rather than simply gravitating to the Quinn threads.

Jason and I both asked him questions in the Celestial Forum that really could have sparked some interesting dialog.

[_wenglund]

Daniel Peterson is already up and running over there.

Be sure and file your spy report with Homeland Security.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

Daniel Peterson is already up and running over there.

Be sure and file your spy report with Homeland Security.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No need. Scratch is parked in front of DCP's house, remember? He goes through DCP's trash on a regular basis.

;)