A Meltdown of Epic Proportions

[_sock puppet]

I remember in junior high school being invited into THE social club to belong to. Only about 8% of the classmates were invited. There were these "great" parties. After a month and three such parties, I dropped out for two reasons. It was obvious that the "it" girl and the "it" guy at our school did not have enough adoring people as members of the club to feed their narcissism adequately. Their misguided solution was to create an even smaller subset. The really elite. The crème de la crème, right?

The other reason for my quick departure was that the mix of all was so much more interesting and entertaining. There was One of the 'great' parties was at the same time as a school function, that I missed out on. Putting my Levis back on, I felt like I'd returned home.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that within 5 weeks of my exit, both the social club and its subset dissolved. It seems that the "it" girl and the "it" guy just couldn't get satisfaction. Elitism isn't as fun as it looks at first.

What is this thread about?

[_RayAgostini]

... Shades' "board vision".

What do you conceive that to be?

First all, I have always, and still do appreciate Shades' willingness to give everyone a voice, and his policy of never "de-inviting" anyone from his board, even subtly. Personally, I have enormous respect for this. But I think it's very clear that this board has now become dominated by atheists, or critics, et.al. I don't see that as being healthy for MDB. Years ago there were incredibly vibrant discussions here, but it has now become an echo chamber for people of "like mind". You've just traded one dogma for another, without any really significant discussions going on here.

You have become an echo-chamber, and any opposition to your "absolute truths", is only deserving of mockery. Watch the minders and guarders of "truth" march to defend that which should never be questioned. The enemy isn't truth, it's dogma, and that happens in both science and religion.

[_RayAgostini]

What is this thread about?

it seems to be about another person who has a serious gripe about not being invited to a private board.

[_harmony]

I would like to make this very clear ... Timpanogos (me) did NOT leak this informaiton to scratch ... nor have I ever leaked any information to scratch in the past.

edit:

Nor did I leak this information to anyone else, on this board or elsewhere. Same for in the past, I have never leaked any information ... I tend to man up to what I say/do. And this was not me

I didn't think you did. Nor did I. However, I am not surprised.

[_sock puppet]

What is this thread about?

it seems to be about another person who has a serious gripe about not being invited to a private board.

Maybe. Or maybe about how yet another person needed to set his sights on his 'friends' since his enemies were out of range.

[_RayAgostini]

Maybe. Or maybe about how yet another person needed to set his sights on his 'friends' since his enemies were out of range.

One day, maybe you'll realise how pathetically un-objective this board is (despite it's other virtues). You people decry Mormonism for holding to "dogma", yet you lay down your creeds, and your articles of faith, the fist one being Dawkins speculations on theology. You worship them. You love them. They are your "idols". In that sense, the unquestioning fervour is no different. You wanna die forever? - then go die forever. Preach it from the housetops! Get converts!!! Preach, preach, preach!!!

What a fool you have become, sock, just a another stubborn, narrowminded fool who will not entertain anything beyond the confines of his own mind and reasoning. This is possible: Tick. This is not possible: Tick.

We surely have all the answers, and only a fool could question those "answers". The age of questioning and inquiry has officially ended - with the discovery of TRUTH! And don't you doubt it!!!

[_sock puppet]

Maybe. Or maybe about how yet another person needed to set his sights on his 'friends' since his enemies were out of range.

One day, maybe you'll realise how pathetically un-objective this board is (despite it's other virtues). You people decry Mormonism for holding to "dogma", yet you lay down your creeds, and your articles of faith, the fist one being Dawkins speculations on theology. You worship them. You love them. They are your "idols". In that sense, the unquestioning fervour is no different. You wanna die forever? - then go die forever. Preach it from the housetops! Get converts!!! Preach, preach, preach!!!

What a fool you have become, sock, just a another stubborn, narrowminded fool who will not entertain anything beyond the confines of his own mind and reasoning. This is possible: Tick. This is not possible: Tick.

We surely have all the answers, and only a fool could question those "answers". The age of questioning and inquiry has officially ended - with the discovery of TRUTH! And don't you doubt it!!!

Our dogma doesn't ask for 10% or any other part of your income. Our dogma does not have a middle aged man asking your 12 year old son or daughter what he or she does in the bathroom with the door locked. Our dogma does not ask your loyalty to men when they are wrong (DHO). Our dogma does not fear monger these behaviors with a future judgment day, playing off of basic human insecurities.

Our dogma does not equal their dogma. Our dogma is not used to gain leverage over and subjugation of others.

[_Corpsegrinder]

One day, maybe you'll realise how pathetically un-objective this board is (despite it's other virtues). You people decry Mormonism for holding to "dogma", yet you lay down your creeds, and your articles of faith, the fist one being Dawkins speculations on theology. You worship them. You love them. They are your "idols". In that sense, the unquestioning fervour is no different. You wanna die forever? - then go die forever. Preach it from the housetops! Get converts!!! Preach, preach, preach!!!

What a fool you have become, sock, just a another stubborn, narrowminded fool who will not entertain anything beyond the confines of his own mind and reasoning. This is possible: Tick. This is not possible: Tick.

We surely have all the answers, and only a fool could question those "answers". The age of questioning and inquiry has officially ended - with the discovery of TRUTH! And don't you doubt it!!!

Two meltdowns for the price of one. Awesome.

[_RockSlider]

Ray, when I first started here and on MAD 3 years back, I notice you right off. If I remember right, at the time you were in a very level headed critic place (critic is not the right word, liberal? cafeteria pushing nom). Similar to how you see LDSToronto to have flipped to an opposing extreme, I'm also seeing you flip to one.

If you were to closely look at my 3 year posting history here, you will see me cycling as well. So I do understand this, really I do. And I fully expect to see it in many who struggle this.

Ray, In the past you seemed to post with such an intelligent - no wise - demeanor. Your recent posts on the cafeteria showed me yet another impressive side of you, how darn well read you are in all things Mormon. What breaks my heart is to see you come here and get nasty in attacking individuals, and especially for the cause of defending Dan.

You are really showing some great signs of friendship and loyalty, which is admirable. I'm really sorry to see that it's this hill you are willing to die for Dan on.

God Bless Ray … I really mean that. Please forgive me and come and participate with us again.

[_Droopy]

"Emeritus" status certainly has its perks. It affords one the opportunity for deep reflection, and it opens up new avenues for reflection. Perhaps most importantly, it frees up a great deal of time whereby one can pursue more in-depth projects.

As many here are aware, our beloved fellow-poster and moderator Liz embarked on a fresh, new project of her own this past summer as she launched a "new and improved" messageboard called "The Cafeteria." This board, according to its founder and Head Administrator, was meant to be a place where "NOMs" could discuss Mormon-related issues without the "free-wheeling" atmosphere that often defines MDB, and without the stultifying and draconian moderating that characterizes the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board. Though there was some controversy surrounding the launch of the site, and there were questions about its ostensible purpose, the board appeared to be well on its way to firmly establishing itself in the online Mormon landscape. Of course, this board was and is "by invitation only," and after its existence was made known here on MDB, Liz swiftly yanked it away from public view.

In spite of these controversies, the participants--which included people like Beastie, Scottie, Ttribe, Harmony, The Nehor, and Dr. Peterson--praised the board, and continued to hold high hopes for its success. Certainly, Liz launched it with the optimism of a wide-eyed school girl.

The trouble is that wide-eyed school girls can also be naïve, and the naïveté in this case seems to have been Liz's assumption that Daniel Peterson would refrain from turning the board into an echo chamber for his own relentless, unflagging and freakish obsessions. Indeed, dear readers: you have been missing what can only be described as a meltdown of titanic scale. Dan Peterson has blown his top in a way that could only have happened within the confines of the faux privacy proffered by The Cafeteria. So on that note, Liz: we salute you.

Now on to the nitty gritty. Readers here are surely well aware of the fact that Will Schryver and DCP were utterly incensed over the signature line that I only recently deleted. It was this, apparently, that provided a critical spark in Dan's descent into self-centered lunacy, and the resultant backlash from The Cafeteria community. So on we go with the drama:

[Note: due to the lengthiness of the threads in question, I'm not going to bother delineating each and every quote. I think it should be clear who is saying what on the basis of the dialogue tags and the context.]

Act 1: The Turn of the Schryver

I hadn't known that "sock puppet" was "Nimrod" until just now. (I don't care much, either, truth be told.)

What a weird place that is.

It features at least three current threads devoted to Will Schryver, too. He hasn't posted there for many months, yet the obsession plainly continues.

Bizarre.

Ahem. I was actually the one who "outed" Nimrod some time ago. He at first denied it, but eventually took it like a good sport. Nothing surreptitious there on my part. There was "guessing thread" about who SP is, and after long checks of the archives I noticed distinctive similarities between SP's posts and Nimrod's posts.

Now if I could only find out who Scratch is. Wink

Daniel Peterson wrote:
It features at least three current threads devoted to Will Schryver, too. He hasn't posted there for many months, yet the obsession plainly continues.

I'm not denying that William gets threads at MDB dedicated to him that hardly need to exist, but in this case, he posted at MDB (via Droopy) one week ago:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20665&p=509164#p509164

Given that Will (bizarrely) accused posters at MD of engaging in a conspiracy against him, I think the posters at MD have every right to discuss Will.

I'm a libertarian.

I've never suggested that they don't have a right to "discuss" Will.

They also have the right to discuss Paris Hilton, toothpaste preferences in Borneo, and Lady Gaga.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
.

I'm a libertarian.

I've never suggested that they don't have a right to "discuss" Will.

They also have the right to discuss Paris Hilton, toothpaste preferences in Borneo, and Lady Gaga.


I'm sorry I gave you the opportunity to parse my words. I should know by now how carefully I have to phrase things.

Yes, you never stated that they didn't have the "right" to discuss Will. But you said it was "weird" given he hadn't posted there in so long.

It's not weird. Will continues to postulate (strange) ideas about what happened to him on MD. MD posters will inevitably respond and have increased interest in him. There's nothing weird about what's currently going on in regards to the Will threads.

It's also not weird that MDB posters would take an interest in his (alleged) upcoming publications given that he was beating the drum about them and how great they were going to be over on MDB for years.

But there have been plenty of times when I have clicked on MDB, rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "Not another William Schryver thread . . . "

beastie wrote:
There's nothing weird about what's currently going on in regards to the Will threads.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I find the fixation on Will Schryver there quite weird.

And it's not as if, otherwise, that board is a place of chastity, civility, restraint, and charity.

What did my mention of Will here have to do with the opening post? It's simple, and I'll outline my fascinatiing chain of associations for you:

The opening post called attention to the on-going hostile obsession among some there with certain people who no longer post there. Ttribe, in particular. I followed his link, verified the on-going hostile obsession with him, recalled the analogous on-going hostile obsession of some there with me, and then, while there, noticed evidence of a similar on-going hostile obsession with Will Schryver.

The common element is on-going hostile obsession with certain individuals who no longer post there. (In case that wasn't obvious.)

[Note: TTribe was claiming rather aggressively that Sock Puppet "hates" him and views him as little more than a "cockroach" due to some mix-up involving a U2 concert. As to why Elder Tribe would be complaining about this on a private board---who knows?]

[Note 2: It should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's comments about "on-going hostile obsession" are both remarkable and hypocritical, given, well, his own comments.]

So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy", and links to MD (If I recall correctly, on a different thread, I'm too tired to check). But it's weird that MD posters respond back.

Ok.

beastie wrote:
So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy",

Not particularly.

beastie wrote:
But it's weird that MD posters respond back.

You think that's what they're doing? And have been doing for months and months?

I find it perfectly bizarre.

He seems to be one of the biggest stories any of them have ever encountered. Worth endless rehashing and retelling.

http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/646/

Daniel Peterson wrote:
beastie wrote:
So it's not weird that Will posts about some MD "conspiracy",

Not particularly.

Damn straight, beastie. There's absolutely nothing weird about eccentric charges of conspiracy against members of message boards you haven't participated on for months based on no evidence whatever.

Speaking of which, it seems I've been effectively banned from the ironically-named "Mormon Dialogue & Discussion" forum. When I try to post there now, I get a message that says, "This post must be approved by a moderator before this post will appear." Last week I attempted to post there and my post has yet to appear.

I have not posted on MDDB since June, and I never received notice of disciplinary action of any kind, so I'm left to conclude that my banning was the result of an elaborate conspiracy against me during my hiatus from the board.

Ms. Jack wrote:
Damn straight, beastie. There's absolutely nothing weird about eccentric charges of conspiracy against members of message boards you haven't participated on for months based on no evidence whatever.

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying, to some extent.

But it's not important.

And I don't agree with him on the matter anyway, so I feel no need to defend him on it, and no strong need to talk about it much.

I certainly don't want to spend a lot of time going back and forth on l'affaire Schryver. It didn't interest me then, and it doesn't interest me now.

[Note: And yet, as was pointed out, it was Dan who brought up Schryver in the first place. This strange flip-flopping--i.e., this raising of issues and subjects only to turn around and declare that he's "bored" with what he himself started--will figure prominently in this "Meltdown."]

Act 2: "Stabbed in the Back"

At one point, to the bafflement of The Cafeteria community, Ray A made a very strange announcement (I'm guessing it was the result of a private communication of some kind):

Well, I think it's good night from DCP. I sincerely hope I'm 100% wrong, but I doubt it. Scottie claimed that he (DCP) was "among friends", but once again, he got stabbed in the back for expressing his honest opinions. I'm only too familiar with this sort of treatment on some Mormon boards, and it was the last thing I expected here.

And, it's good night from me...

Hunh? Did I miss something? Where did he get stabbed in the back here?

I think Ray is projecting.

I don't know if Ray is projecting, but I honestly don't understand where DCP was stabbed in the back. He expressed his honest opinion and others honestly disagreed with that opinion. If that feels like being stabbed in the back to DCP or Ray, that seems an extreme reaction.

Seriously, wut?

Ask Liz to publicly comment on the the PM's I sent her.

[SNIP!]

Ask Liz for the full story, which I explained to her by PM. He was basically censured for expressing his honest opinion of harmony.

[Note: At this point, we finally get clarification from the Poster-Moderator known as "Chickdeario"]:

If you are referring to the financial thread, he wasn't censured. He was asked to stay on topic.

Further, he was invited by harmony herself to begin a new thread with her and his opinion of her as the topic.

Chickdeario wrote:

If you are referring to the financial thread, he wasn't censured. He was asked to stay on topic....

No one was censured and I dislike the misrepresentation of what took place.


Tell me where you disagree with anything I sent in this PM to Liz:

Quote:
Perhaps the better word would be “censure”: “an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.”

To my knowledge, this is the first time, at least the first time I’ve seen her ask a poster to stay on topic. Granted, I don’t read every thread, and maybe I missed former “requests”. The most obvious factor here is a conflict of interest. Her first “joke” was a flippant remark about banning DCP. That was half-serious, but it’s also a realistic indication about how she feels about Dan. I’m quite sure the feeling is mutual between them. Dan does not like her online persona at all, and has said he’d rather not interact with her. You should be able to see this very clearly, Liz. Just in case you missed it, here is my post about what happened to me on MADB with LoaP/Hermes:

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/faithfulnomc ... omcom#2577

I’m not suggesting that Jersey Girl went that far, obviously not, but Dan may possibly have seen this as an indication of things to come, the beginning of further “requests”, which is a form of moderator control of the discussion. In view of Dan’s and harmony’s nine year “love fest”, that was unnecessary. I’m quite sure harmony can look after herself without “moderator help”. By the way... [If Asty,] or you, had made the call on Dan, I would not have had a problem.


And here was Liz's thread comment:

Quote:
However, I would like to ask Dan this question:

You say that Harmony's point is not worth pursuing because she is an "unconventional" or "non-mainstream" Mormon.

Why is that the case? Would Harmony's point be any more valid if it was brought up, by say, Nehor, or one of your colleagues who you find to be more "conventional"?

I think that her topic is still worth discussion.

You say, Dan, that the Church does not need to be transparent to its members in its financial dealings because it is unimportant to God. Is there a scriptural reference you are referring to which can back this assertion?

And, what principle do you think inspired these other Christian churches to publicly reveal their financial holdings as a standard practice?
(Emphasis added).

But you killed it, stone dead.

So Liz wanted the discussion to continue, including the questioning of harmony's motives questioned by DCP. She wanted to explore this reasoning more (to try to understand it). And that's what message boards are about, Jersey Girl. Not moderators stepping in and saying "stay on topic". Dan had very valid questions about harmony's allegiance to Mormonism, and thus her interpretations of Mormonism. That's not "allowed"? Harmony then made the classic comparison that what ever "sock puppet" said about Mormonism, is as valid as what anyone else, including defenders, said about Mormonism. Really? LOL. Is an apostate of any hue going to give an objective report about Mormonism? Harm seems to think so.

I sent a direct request to Liz to take me off mod status. I'm not willing to spend time on things like this.

I'll do no further moderating (not that there is much to moderate on this board) until she removes the mod keys.

Feel free to derail any threads y'all like in favor of personal attack until this place resembles MDB.

That's why I made the request, Ray, it had not a thing to do with DCP personally. Nor did the same request I made to As. It had to do with preserving the integrity of Liz's goals for this board.

I've never made a mod call on this board or MDB that was motivated by personal bias and I won't spend more time defending myself against it.


Given the fact that I made the same request to As and that you've totally ignored it in favor of taking exception to the request to DCP, you've now succeeded in reinforcing the claims of others that DCP requires special protection.

Enjoy.

Chickdeario wrote:
.... visions for the board.

Which is why my request to him ended with "Geez...

I'm not playing this game with you, Ray, and I don't appreciate the swipes at my integrity.

Goodnight or whatever.


What "visions". To take generous swipes at DCP's personal integrity, motivations, and accusing him of not understanding working class people? Of being a "high brow" academic "out of touch with reality", and insulting, defaming, condemning, and lambasting the Church he loves and belongs to, and has given his whole life to?

You need some "priority reorganisation", Jersey Girl. it's okay to give harmony a free pass to say whatever she wants about the things DCP holds sacred, but when DCP returns the personal questions, it's "stay on topic!", and "on topic" is harmony's incessant criticism and degradation of the Church she claims "allegiance" to.

My, what a "game".

I have very little interest in the church's finances, so hadn't even read the thread. Unless there is some other thread in discussion here, I concur with chick and harmony. Dan's comments were clearly a diversionary tactic. If that is all that happened to make him want to say "good night" to this board, then his skin is just too thin for internet boards. Period.

Of course, if something terrible occurred on some other thread, I will amend my opinion.

Dan is in a position of influence and power in real life. That tends to lead to one living in a protective bubble, surrounded by yes people. I don't know if that's the case with Dan in real life, but if it is, it could explain why he, at times, just doesn't appear to be equipped to deal with the rough and tumble of internet board discussion. [...] I'm just talking about this example, and, If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I think knowing that Dan has the tendency to take quick offense and threaten to leave is why the MAD mods developed the tendency to tiptoe around him.

I don't have any vested interest in Dan staying or leaving this board. But I won't tiptoe around a poster, either. He was off topic. He was diverting the thread in a way that seemed quite deliberate. He wanted to turn the thread into a referendum on Harmony rather than discuss the topic. If I were a mod, I would have cautioned him as well.

Instances like this is exactly why I would never be a mod on a board ever again. Never.

I don't play games, Ray. I have no reason to play them on these boards. I despise board politics and largely stay out of the feuds. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Daniel Peterson isn't central to my experience on this or any other board.

A simple request to stay on topic is just that.

If a moderator cannot request that Daniel Peterson stay on topic when his remarks served as catalyst for a shift from topic to poster, without this becoming some sort of high level controversy, then the problem is not with the moderator.

What your statements here serve to do is to reinforce that assumption that Daniel Peterson requires special handling on the boards and in essence, you do him no favors when you raise the flag of controversy over a simple request to stay on topic.

Great, more sycophant activity, one of these days our worlds are all going to end, when the great and mighty one moves on.

At last, Liz surfaces to try and smooth out this matter:

OK, people..

I finally caught up on all of the threads in question.

First of all, THANK YOU, Asty and Chick, for all of your hard work. It has been a crazy week and a half for me, and I haven't been on the boards that much.

As I stated in my response on the other thread, and also in more detail with Ray in PM, I did not find anything wrong with Chick's call. Dan DID veer off topic. There was no censure...no posts removed...nothing even split. Just a polite reminder to stay on topic...period.

Chick actually differred to me as to whether or not anything should be split. I chose not to do it because I didn't want to ruin thread continuity. Also, Harmony, the thread starter, indicated that she was fine with the thread remaining intact, since she understands how much of a pain it is to split threads. Wink

As I explained to Ray, I like Dan very much. But then again, I like EVERYONE here! This board is kind of a "dream team" of posters, as far as I'm concerned. You wouldn't have been invited to post here if you weren't my friend to begin with.

Based on the fact that we don't have the calibre of negativity that exists on other boards due to the "invitation only" atmosphere, Dan's celebrity isn't as much of an issue, and I think that, overall, he feels much freer in being able to post here. Along with that freedom also comes respect. I am not going to treat Dan any differently than I would treat any of my other friends on this board.

I think it is a disservice to him to tiptoe around him. I have a lot of respect for Dan, and for his knowledge of the gospel. I think that there is a lot we can learn from him.

But I also acknowledge the "love/hate" relationship that he and Harmony have had since Z. I really try and keep a "hands off" approach to their conversations unless it just escalates to the extreme.

I appreciate Ray's concern about the future of the board, and I do hope that Dan continues to participate here. However, if a gentle reminder to remain on topic is going to be enough to set him off, then, as Chick indicated earlier, I think he may need to rethink participating on ANY forum. I wouldn't take offense if someone politely asked me to stay on topic on their forum, and, I honestly don't think that Dan is enough of a primma donna to be offended either.

Dan has sent me no private correspondence, or given any type of indication to me that he had plans to leave the board due to Chick's comment. I think that Dan's only reason for waning participation here would be due to time constraints.

So, Chick...I hope that you will consider remaining a Mod here. If you choose to step down, I will accommodate you, but I really do appreciate your help, and I hope that you will stay.

Ray, I do consider you an online friend, and I hope that everyone can get past this iincident. I appreciate your concern for the board, and enjoy your participation here as well.

Act 3: The Meltdown Begins

With this series of incidents in place, it was clearly only a matter of time before His Highness began to erupt in earnest. Naturally, it was a comment from Beastie that set him down this dark path:

beastie wrote:
Dan is in a position of influence and power in real life. That tends to lead to one living in a protective bubble, surrounded by yes people. I don't know if that's the case with Dan in real life, but if it is, it could explain why he, at times, just doesn't appear to be equipped to deal with the rough and tumble of internet board discussion.

LOL.

Read through the reader comments on any randomly chosen week of my Deseret News column. Look me up on Infymus's Website. Do a search for my name on the so-called Recovery board. Look in on the Shades/Scratch board, three months or so after I've stopped participating on it. Etc., etc., etc.

Yup. I'm just unaccustomed to being criticized on line. This was a first for me.

beastie wrote:
I think knowing that Dan has the tendency to take quick offense

ROTFL.

If that were even close to true, I would have been dead years ago.

beastie wrote:
He was diverting the thread in a way that seemed quite deliberate.

No, he was not.

beastie wrote:
He wanted to turn the thread into a referendum on Harmony rather than discuss the topic.

Flatly false.

Zzzzzzzzzz. I'm so unbelievably, inexpressibly, unutterably tired of being the topic.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
No, as a matter of fact I didn't.

What is amazing is that even when you are caught in the act ... you will continue to deny it until the cows come home.

that is what gets Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Just go back to sleep, then.

Ignore my posts, and I'll ignore yours.

I expect we'll both be happier.

I'm sorry that you can't understand or follow my point.

I wish I could help you.

But I'm much less sympathetic to your fantastic notion that your inability to grasp it somehow puts you in a position of moral superiority.

Somehow I don't think I'm alone in this fantastic notion/observation that Dan can just never be wrong.

I have no need to ignore your posting, feel free to ignore mine if you must.

...And so the stage is set. This individual--the valiant Timpanogos--will play an increasingly important role in this Greek Tragedy of a meltdown...

Stay tuned!

To Be Continued....

Yes, I'm sure this Scratch meltdown - one among many over the years - will indeed continue.

And continue, and continue and continue, and...