Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Dr. Shades]

I have now been banned from Sic et Non. Therefore, when I and/or this site are mentioned there again, please understand that my lack of a response isn't because I agree with what's written; it's because I literally can't respond.

Link?

There's no link, no formal announcement. When I type a character into a response field, a red flag appears directly underneath it that says "We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Sic et Non."

WAIT: I just experimented with it, and apparently the "Post as Dr. Shades" button still works. Perhaps any comment I make will be invisible to anyone else?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Link?

There's no link, no formal announcement. When I type a character into a response field, a red flag appears directly underneath it that says "We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Sic et Non."

WAIT: I just experimented with it, and apparently the "Post as Dr. Shades" button still works. Perhaps any comment I make will be invisible to anyone else?

Shades: I would imagine that what you're seeing is merely an indication that you can comment on other Patheos blogs. But what you're describing does indeed seem to indicate that you were banned. I'm not sure why: you were a model of civility.

[_Gadianton]

My best guess is that Midgley went into such a fury over Shades and the others being there that he privately went to DCP and said it’s either him or me. He’s publicly requested banning Shades several times.

[_moksha]

How many violations of general ethics (and perhaps the rules of the Patheos site) has Dr. Midgley racked up? That part about 'Grant Palmer being in tears and begging for his job' seemed egregiously underhanded.

[_Doctor Scratch]

How many violations of general ethics (and perhaps the rules of the Patheos site) has Dr. Midgley racked up? That part about 'Grant Palmer being in tears and begging for his job' seemed egregiously underhanded.

My God, they really did hope to ruin him:

Grant Palmer begged not to be fired for his deceit. So those who watched him in tears begging then not to fire him on the spot, graciously accepted his abject apologies for his actions, and his promise never ever to do anything like that again. Instead of giving him the boot, they allowed him to keep on drawing a salary by going to the local jail and hopefully help those in trouble often for dishonesty, to try to reform their lives. One of his family members told me that a few times a week he would go to the jail and wait for a couple of hours to see if any of those "miserable jail birds" turned up to gab with him. He spent his time working on what became An Insider's View, and playing with his pigeons. While living on tithing funds. Or as Moore has it, putting in his years and earning his pension.

I know for a fact that his case shocked those in charge of Church Education. And caused them to cease putting people caught doing what he did on probation and/or giving them a third or fourth chance, as they did with Palmer.

I want Mr. Moore to explain how this kind of behavior was honorable. And I would like Mr. Moore to explain why I should not have included in my essay some but not all that I know about Grant Palmer. And also why his tender sensitivities override the truth, which everyone ought to know about the author of a book entitled An Insider's View./i>.

Has Mr. Moore read the reviews of Palmer's dreadful book written by Jim Allen and Davis Bitton, two competent, highly respected senior historians? Yes or No, please. And has he read the reviews by Mark Ashurst-McGee and Stephen Harper, both then younger historians who are known for their competence and integrity? Yes or No, please.

Does he realize that the five of us who responded to Palmer's book dealt with different problems with that book, and we all share the same overall disgust for the book and for his dishonesty, and share the the same opinion about his incompetence?

They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Peterson's whining about people accusing him of wanting to destroy people's lives is totally, completely disingenuous.

[_Dr Moore]

Hello MD world.

Long time lurker on this and other related boards. I have not been much for posting until recently.

This year, I discovered the magnificent live production of daily hypocrisy that is SeN. I can't think of a better word for what goes on there with Dan Peterson and his privileged attack dogs.

(Dr. Shades has information necessary to verify my identity as the same Dr. Moore)

As a point of fact, I too was banned from SeN yesterday. I made a total of 23 comments there.

While it is always possible to improve with decorum and tactics, I don't think that I did anything worthy of being banned. But his board, his rules.

I did my best yesterday to defend why I believed Louis's "Prying into Palmer" article qualifies as an "unproductive and harmful" hit piece on Grant Palmer. I offered to submit additional textual quotes from the article as back up - that this article went far beyond the norms of academic writing and, at times, plumbed the depths of speculative personal attack, constituting a "hit piece". I asserted that the entire premise of the article was to attack Palmer. This primary aim is evident in the title itself!

Aside: Daniel Peterson claimed not to know much about "hit pieces" except for what shows up on this board every day... but that's, in Daniel's words, a "baldfaced lie." Does the John Dehlin hit piece affair and your subsequent firing from the MI come to mind? I could not very well accuse you of lying after you warned me not to call people liars - while simultaneously calling me a liar no less - but for the record, you were, in fact, lying.

Focusing back to the origin of my comments yesterday: Louis claimed no such example could be found, so I assumed that a valid submission of such a "counterproductive and harmful" example of his writings would be welcome for discussion.

As a result of submitting an entry and defending it, I was summarily banned from the site.

Fun fact

I chose to self-identify as an aspiring new PhD student while posting on SeN. Confession: that was a lie. I wanted to show solidarity with the many other fun-loving pseudonymous Doctors (both real and aspiring), for a bit of fun. And for a wee bit more fun, I figured the ruse would, to a degree, attenuate Midgley's gratification, certain he would play the "anonymous fake Doctor" bit over and over. Why not embrace the hate from the start? But, in the spirit of honesty, in fact I do hold a PhD, earned more than 10 years ago, from BYU no less.

[_Physics Guy]

Welcome to where the banned play on!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps faculty members of Cassius ought to discuss a new position at the university? Scientes Quod Uerificatiuum might be up Dr. Moore's alley!

- Doc

[_Philo Sofee]

Dr Moore! What a delight to have you come to the celestial version of the Mormon Apologetic cesspool. You may wear your badge of banning with honor. That means you were right, and apologists HATE it when their critics are correct against them, so they ban them so they can crow up their own value and importance without any fallout, even though it's fake.
I look very forward to your contributions here. Dr. Shades is one of the most honest and open moderators on the internet, and deep down it must gall Mormons of all types to see how he literally DOES let the discussions go on even when he is losing, rather than ban the winner and then in a hollow manner, proclaim victory anyway.
Everything about Mormonism is based on an image, a very phony one. Peterson's blog is a perfect up to date living example.
Looking forward to reading your ideas and analysis and thoughts. This message board has been home to me since I quit being an apologist for 7 years now, and it's a God send. One of the most intellectually stimulating and inquiring message boards in existence. There are no yes men here, which is why it is considered a cesspool by apologists. There are questions, challenges, answers, and great comradare...

[_Philo Sofee]

My best guess is that Midgley went into such a fury over Shades and the others being there that he privately went to DCP and said it’s either him or me. He’s publicly requested banning Shades several times.

Agreed. They can't keep patting themselves on the back and bragging about how important they are, and how many awards they have won, and the vast literature to which they have mastered if everyone keeps calling them on it with evidence to the contrary, so they ban people who challenge their lame assertions and egotistical orgasms. And banning, in their view appears to me a much more honorable thing than posting anonymously which is real close to one of the most heinous things a person can do, that is commit adultery. No facts please, just testimony of Dan and Lou allowed at Sic et Non.