skippy the dead wrote:For you, my friend Down Under, I'll post the link itself long enough for you to use it, then I'll kill it to restore the proper page format.
Ray A wrote: Links from MADB to this predominantly anti-Mormon board don't work, and with good reason.
Fear = good reason.
The truth, Harm, is that Beastie is intelligent. And the mods realised this. She wasn't there just to nitpick about peccadilloes. And she didn't try to post under a pseudonym, or harp on past grievances. Unlike Abinadi, she didn't go "in disguise".
Ray A wrote: Links from MADB to this predominantly anti-Mormon board don't work, and with good reason.
Fear = good reason.
The truth, Harm, is that Beastie is intelligent. And the mods realised this. She wasn't there just to nitpick about peccadilloes. And she didn't try to post under a pseudonym, or harp on past grievances. Unlike Abinadi, she didn't go "in disguise".
What I can't figure out is how really smart people can't figure out the rules and follow them.
charity wrote:What I can't figure out is how really smart people can't figure out the rules and follow them.
I don't think Beastie ever violated the rules. California Kid and CKSalmon haven't been banned, either. They may have been warned, but not banned. That's because MADB is interested in informed commentary which isn't libelous, like calling "apologists" "idiots and hacks". I think the mods are very willing to maintain commentary that is critical, but not abusive. Most of the posters banned, in their opinion, have not sufficiently contributed to "informed commentary", and may have seemed to have more of a gripe, than making substantial, critical contributions to debate. I think they can pick this a mile away. Kevin didn't get banned because he was uninformed, but because he couldn't restrain the cheap shots.
Thanks, Ray, for stating that I did not violate the rules. I did not, but was banned the first time I went to FAIR. The only reason I was invited back was due to the mods granting brant gardner's "hint" that I should be allowed back. TD was banned the same day I was, and she was always polite, just as she is here. She was eventually let back in, and then mods lied and insisted she'd never been banned in the first place.
The reason TBM MADdites often insist that posters are only banned due to bad behavior is because they simply do not know the amount of critics who have been banned. There is no formal announcement. There is no opportunity for the critic to defend him/herself, and often there has been no warning. They just disappear. Unless they come here and read about the number of critics who were banned, posters are only aware of a few cases in which the poster WAS being rude and WAS warned, because the warning made it public. So TBM MADdites don't know, for example, that the mods periodically "weed out" the number of critics on the board by mass bannings - and some of those involved in the mass bannings had never been "in trouble", had never been warned, just tried to log in one day and couldn't.
Whether or not Charity will ever admit it, this is the fact of MAD moderating, and is a good part of the reason that, although I was "invited" back and still am "on the rolls", I refuse to participate. They can run their board however they want, but I can choose to not participate when I find the way they run the board noxious.
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.
FYI: I was never rude to a poster on FAIR/MAD. I was a Moderator there. Here are the details of my banning taken from Shades' blog. It goes against the broad stroke that Charity has painted:
Shades' blog wrote:Background and/or posting style:
After the FAIR boards went down in June or July of 2006, Liz e-mailed the previous mods to tell them of her computer science expertise and to offer her services. In preparation for an upcoming server transition, they went ahead and brought her onboard as an additional moderator and site administrator.
Therefore, Liz wasn't your typical FAIRite. She was actually a moderator who was banned! As such, her periodic insights--post banning--into the moderating process over there have been highly illuminating.
Circumstances behind her banning:
While moderating FAIR, Liz also posted here at MormonDiscussions.com. This made the other moderators extremely nervous for some reason. Later, they managed to convince themselves that Liz had shared the screen names of the other FAIR moderators, apparently an unforgivable offense. What makes this assumption even more bizarre is that they never accused anyone of exposing their real names, merely their online screen names. So they still would've been anonymous, even if Liz had shared such information! Paranoia, anyone?
In the meantime, Liz had exchanged several PMs and e-mails with "Who Knows," another poster here. Determined to dig up dirt on Liz, the FAIR moderators looked through all the PMs and e-mails of these two and who knows how many others (no pun intended). This little invasion of privacy did not pass unnoticed and was published far and wide, to the FAIR mods' extreme embarrassment.
Liz had shared no such information, however, at any time. Her integrity as a moderator remained intact throughout the entire ugly episode. She tried to PM Dan_G, the chief FAIR moderator, to give her side of the story and to protest her innocence, to no avail--Dan_G banned her while she was composing the PM! He didn't even wait long enough to hear her point of view!
Ray A wrote: Links from MADB to this predominantly anti-Mormon board don't work, and with good reason.
Fear = good reason.
The truth, Harm, is that Beastie is intelligent. And the mods realised this. She wasn't there just to nitpick about peccadilloes. And she didn't try to post under a pseudonym, or harp on past grievances. Unlike Abinadi, she didn't go "in disguise".
I commented on why the link didn't work, Ray (because of the fear MAAD has of MDB). You commented on something else entirely. Of course Beastie is intelligent. That's what got her banned in the first place. Unlike TD, Jersey Girl, and several others like myself, who were banned for simply being who we are... not for something we said, not for any rudeness or bad behavior, but simply because we are who we are.
charity wrote:I just hope I'm not in the same ward with Rollo Tomasi and don't know it. After some of the things he said on another board, one of these days a bolt of ligthning is going to come down and get him. I wouldn't want to be standing too close when that happened.
Don't worry, sweetie -- you're safe next to me!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
I have no idea as your mental state or body of knowledge re: the MADB thread. I'd like to assume the best, though your definition of "doesn't exist" is plainly wrong.
I was being as hyperbolic as I could be (in the liar post) to goad you into admitting you were simply mistaken, wrong, or incorrect.
I have never name called. I have suggested that people are behaving in irresonsible ways, but I have never called anyone an idiot. Are you going to bring up the "words of one syllable" post again? You really ought to study up on the writings of Haim Ginnott. He had a very interesting theory on raising children, which I always followed. He said you should never characterize a person by a name, but it was often useful to call to their attention behaviors. So, instead of telling a child they were messy, but you could say, "Your room is veyr messy." You kept the behavior and the individual separate. That is what I have tried to do.
I do not call names. Just so there won't be any confusion, name calling is labeling a person with a derogatory term.
That's rich. You telling me you need to "dumb down" your posts for me and use words of "shorter syllables" wasn't calling me dumb. Sure, charity.
Accpe the invitaiton, but don't spit on the floor, put your feet on the furniture or slap the hostess around! An invitation is not carte blanche to engage in rude behavior. There are non-member posters over on MA&D who understand that and get along fine with everybody. They don't agree with us, but they can express their disagreement politely. What I can't for the life of me see is why anybody has to be rude and hostile. I have never seen a poster on MA&D suspended or banned without being really, really rude. The best argument they can come back with is, "Well, when I called somebody a liar they called me a liar back. I got banned and they didn't. " The guy who draws first is the bad guy. That is our Western heritage.
You repeating this over and over doesn't make it true. I was once banned and hadn't been "really, really rude". Truth Dancer was banned and was NEVER rude. AND posters who haven't even posted lately get banned - for being critics. You really are speaking out of ignorance, whether deliberate or accidental, I don't know. AND LDS posters are often "really, really rude" without getting banned - like Juliann.
I don't watch every post on MA&D.. I have known of quite a few people who were banned. And I never saw one that wasn't banned without have been really rude. And then some of them come over here and demonstrate just how rude they can be, but you don't think they were on MA&D?
And about being critical. You can be critical without being offensive.
Anyone can say they don't believe in the foundational stories of the Church, without calling everyone involved a con man, deluded, delusional and a pedophile.
Bolded part: I was banned from FAIR after I'd stopped posting for a month. How do you explain that, charity?
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.