marg wrote:The issue is whether or not undue moderator bias occurred, not what I said in a reply to Ray.
Think of it this way: What if I started a new thread that said, "From here on out I will be deleting any posts that disagree with me or contradict my opinion in any way." Let's also say I never, even once, follow through on my threat at any point thereafter.
Now, would people
never lose confidence in the message board,
since they could never gather evidence that I was biased, or would they
immediately lose confidence in the message board
due to what I posted?That's interesting Shades so where's the evidence of mod bias from me against critics, in favor of Dale?
The evidence is that you used the two forbidden words. As we saw with the above exercise, the words
were the evidence. The words
alone caused loss of confidence. People didn't
need to amass evidence for loss of confidence; the loss of confidence was already a reality, whether we like it or not.
Remember Shades I'm being accused of bias against critics.
Critics
of the Spalding/Rigdon theory, to clarify.
I changed those words retroactively, but first I contacted Bryon who never responded to my pm. Never opened it up, I eventually deleted it. In pm I was requesting him to look at the change and hopefully agree with me to keep Daniel instead of Danny Boy and then I or he would remove the ad hom notice. But no one noticed it, that certainly was never on the radar screen of anyone. I brought it up.
What would Dr. Shades do? The answer is that this is the Terrestrial Forum, so "Danny Boy" is acceptable.
So what else is there...a warning to Mikwut who previously himself acknowledged being insulting to Dale and apologized?
Probably not. But, like I said, there didn't need to be anything else.
Frankly it was disappointing to see you made a decision publically without speaking to me first, without trusting me. For some reason I thought you had observed a little bit of Rays tactics of the whole month previous in our exchanges and would appreciate the absurdity of Ray's post, but I guess that's not fair to assume that of you, there are many threads and posts I'm totally unaware of.
To this day, I have never, not even once, clicked on the "Pearl Curran" thread.
So tell me Shades what would you have done which would have made a significant difference?
I wouldn't ever, EVER, have uttered the two forbidden words.
You know Shades don't bother thanking me in private, asking me to stay and then piss on me later in public.
You weren't "pissed on," you merely "lost" this particular round. No big deal. On any message board, there is an eternal tug-o'-war between moderators and participants. That's natural. Administrators must make judgments according to what they see as best for the board. No matter what happens,
somebody is going to feel shafted. That's just the nature of the beast.
I really don't care if I piss you off at this point. You are a rather spineless individual. Obviously 2 faced.
Of course. I'm "spineless" and "obviously two-faced" to whichever side I decide against. In this particular case, if I had insisted that the general community sit down and shut up, I'd be "spineless" and "obviously two-faced" in
their eyes instead.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley