The Maddest of MAD

[_Pokatator]

I don't know about other posters, but I was banned from MAD because of DCP. For what it's worth, I couldn't care less and am thankful he did it.

That place has become the Mormon version of Matt Slick's crappy site.

I refuse to even lurk there.

GoodK I am going to make DCP happy because this post is about him, again, as always. But I don't blame DCP for my being banned at MAD but my last post was to him.

My last post before being banned from MAD was on a thread Markk started. It got heated with BCSpace and DCP vs Markk and Solo. It boiled down to an argument that DCP was defending. He was defending that there was no monitoring of the web by anyone in the church and that the brethren knew about the opposition message boards but they were not monitoring them and that no organization in the church was either. Markk's question just boiled down to, "If the brethren know about it all, but they are not monitoring and not having anyone else monitor or a church org monitoring, How do they know about it? Who is telling them about it?" DCP was arguing that no one was telling them. This went on for 4-5 pages. Then DCP responded with the following post and then I responded.

Nov 4 2006, 04:26 PM "Then The Brethren Don't Know?"

Markk asked who is telling the FP and GAs about the WWW?, well the answer has been right here all long.....

(Daniel Peterson @ Nov 1 2006, 09:03 PM)

My evidence derives from direct conversations with General Authorities and Church employees at all levels and about a number of subjects, including subjects touching very much on this one. With regard to the suggestion that, for example, members of the Public Affairs staff in Australia are involved in monitoring anti-Mormonism there and on the web, my evidence derives from the fact that I know every single member of that staff, both employed and Church service, and have spent considerable time with each and every one of them during the past two months. I know their assignments and what they do. Those do not include monitoring anti-Mormons or watching web sites. I know for a fact, from direct conversation, that senior Public Affairs officers at the headquarters in Salt Lake know a great deal less about anti-Mormonism on the web and about various message boards such as this one than I do.

It's Dr. Peterson!!! (smilie)

Next post by Dadof7

Hide the Mrs. and the Tots Brother 'Tater! You just outed a Danite. I prophesy twice baked for Sunday supper! (smilies)

The great banning was two days later, I believe was a Sunday. So my humor was so egregious and threatening that I deserved banning and being blocked from even viewing the MAD board. I don’t think so and even the great Paharon who researched my last several posts later at MAD didn’t either.

Nov 2, 2007 MD board Thread “Mister Scratch, a word with you please”

When I asked if I deserved to be banned?

Pahoran wrote

Not that I can see. I wasn't exactly offended.

Now I really don’t think that DCP specifically banned me, I think I was banned for posting there and here at the same time but I also believe that DCP is protected by the mods there. I think the “wrong headed wench” protected the doctor from my humor that bordered on the truth and banned me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

GoodK I am going to make DCP happy because this post is about him, again, as always.

The very fact that Pokatator once again feels the need to post about me is immediately turned, itself, into a way of trying to make me look bad: It seems that my ego craves such posts as Pokatator's about me.

He was defending that there was no monitoring of the web by anyone in the church

I wouldn't defend such a proposition. How could I possibly know that nobody in the Church monitors the web?

I don't know everybody in the Church.

and that the brethren knew about the opposition message boards but they were not monitoring them and that no organization in the church was either. Markk's question just boiled down to, "If the brethren know about it all, but they are not monitoring and not having anyone else monitor or a church org monitoring, How do they know about it? Who is telling them about it?" DCP was arguing that no one was telling them.

I don't remember making such a stupid argument.

I know that they -- at least some of them -- know that anti-Mormon web sites exist. It's not impossible that a few of them (most likely among the Seventy) have even glanced at such a site or two. But I'm sure that local leaders and members have told them about such web sites. (Whether they're aware of message boards, specifically, I don't know. I've never heard any of them mention a message board.)

Now I really don’t think that DCP specifically banned me,

I can guarantee that I didn't ban you.

I can't ban anybody there.

Like anyone else on the message board, I could write to the moderators and request that such an action be taken. But I've never done so.

I don't quite see why some here are so fascinated with this topic,

[_Ray A]

I'll come to Dan's defence here, because he has been quite consistent about this in his private emails to me over the years. I have never seen any indication, in any of those emails, that he proactively tried to have anyone banned from MAD. No one. In fact, he mentioned that he felt uncomfortable about Kevin Graham's banning, but he nevertheless didn't try to stop it.

However, I agree that the MAD mods were almost sycophantic towards him, and didn't like obsessive attacks upon him. That's not Dan's problem. And if he was really so concerned about "protection", what is he doing here?

[_The Dude]

That's not Dan's problem. And if he was really so concerned about "protection", what is he doing here?

I gotta say, that seems totally true about Dan. He's not like that coward, Pahoran, who never comes to Shadyville.

[_Ray A]

I gotta say, that seems totally true about Dan. He's not like that coward, Pahoran, who never comes to Shadyville.

They won't come here, or when they do come, sooner or later it's "see you later, I've had enough", or "this board is beneath my personal integrity".

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it would be pretty difficult to make the case that I'm too cowardly to show up in venues where I'm not protected. But am I insane? That's much more plausible.

In defense of Pahoran and the others, I have to honestly say that being constantly targeted here by certain folks (principally by the Scratches and by a loose group of smaller fry) does get pretty tiresome.

I frankly don't know why I bother. There seems no real point to it.

Unless I'm crazy.




.

[_Pokatator]

I never tried to make you look bad, I used your quote and I used humor similar to your use of humor.

I wouldn't defend such a proposition. How could I possibly know that nobody in the Church monitors the web?

I don't know everybody in the Church.

You can go back and view the thread if you like.

I don't remember making such a stupid argument.

Of course not.

This was directed to GoodK

Now I really don’t think that DCP specifically banned me,

I can guarantee that I didn't ban you.

Is there an echo in here?

I believe you get special treatment and protection at MAD, I stated no more or no less than that about your involvement.

Doctor do you think my use of humor deserved me being banned? Pahoran didn't think so. Even Dadof7 thought it funny.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You can go back and view the thread if you like.

I don't need to.

I'm entirely confident that I never said that nobody in the Church monitors the message boards or the web.

What I have argued is that, so far as I can tell, nobody at Church headquarters monitors message boards or the web. I know of one employee there who occasionally looks at anti-Mormon sites, but I'm pretty sure that that's a matter of his own personal interest and it's probably on his own time. And he plainly doesn't know as much about them as I do, because he's sometimes asked me questions about the topic that I was easily able to answer.

I have no reason to believe that anybody has been assigned by Church headquarters to keep current on such things, and I've never seen anything to indicate that the General Authorities pay any attention.

Doctor do you think my use of humor deserved me being banned? Pahoran didn't think so. Even Dadof7 thought it funny.

I don't remember the episode, but, from the way you describe it, I see no reason to have banned you.

Of course, I don't know what the moderators were thinking when they took the action they did. Perhaps this was the last straw for a cumulative case? I have no idea.

[_John Larsen]

I'll come to Dan's defence here, because he has been quite consistent about this in his private emails to me over the years. I have never seen any indication, in any of those emails, that he proactively tried to have anyone banned from MAD. No one. In fact, he mentioned that he felt uncomfortable about Kevin Graham's banning, but he nevertheless didn't try to stop it.

However, I agree that the MAD mods were almost sycophantic towards him, and didn't like obsessive attacks upon him. That's not Dan's problem. And if he was really so concerned about "protection", what is he doing here?

I concur.

[_GoodK]

Your disagreement holds no significance for me. I'm not waiting to be persuaded as to whether or not I asked that you be banned. On that matter, I have direct personal knowledge, whereas, at the most, you have an inference.

Like I said in my first post, EAllusion already detailed how it happens. No one said you "asked that I be banned." I don't believe you specifically asked for me to be banned. I do believe all your huffing and puffing and comments of "growing tiresome" let the charlatans that moderate that board know exactly how you felt.

I have little doubt that you were banned in connection with that thread.
Although I have no direct knowledge of it, and although the moderators have never told me one way or the other, that seems probable.

If, then, I was banned for that thread, something isn't adding up. I doubt I commented on your person. I was banned because I pointed out that you linked to an inactive website, then used your own FARMS essay against you, and said that your drawn out explication on the prefix "anti" was silly.

That seems a little fishy to me.

I'm pretty sure I came out victorious in the thread Scratch mentioned

I'm aware that you think you did. You were claiming victory over here, if I recall correctly.

It's not your fault. Being right is a very defensible position. But again, for the record, I don't think you requested I be banned. I think either you and the mods have an unspoken understanding, or they are just hypersensitive to your feelings and presence. That's understandable.