UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_harmony]

I left harmony out because she also was too biased in favour of Spalding, and very active in support of it on the thread.

Actually, I just like the people... Dale and Brent especially. I know very little about the theory itself, especially in comparison to what the rest of them know.

[_marg]

And who did I suggest should moderate? Someone like Liz or Scottie. I left harmony out because she also was too biased in favour of Spalding, and very active in support of it on the thread.

The real point here, however, is that a moderator should, in theory, be able to moderate regardless of their bias. Blind Freedy could see your bias.

Ray, evidence is what indicates my bias and you've not shown it, it's just a mantra you've been saying for the last month, not just in relation to the S/R theory but first about the NDE paranormal, then Smith's automatic writing and then you tied those with S/R theory. In all the discussions that was your focus..attack me with that and avoid the issues.

I asked a specific question and you didn't answer it, let's try again. And don't give specific names.

by the way, you mentioned something abut "a moderator who is against the S/R theory shouldn't moderate it". I suspect you made a mistake and meant for the theory shouldn't moderate it. But why would that be? Why would yu think someone who is for the theory not be good to moderate that thread? Please give your reasons for that.

[_Ray A]

And I said "might" remove future ad homs.

AND whole posts.

If you continue I might start deleting them and if they get out of hand move your entire post.

"Get out of hand" after one ad hom by mikwut? Sledgehammer, meet fly. Yet, again, you ignored several ad homs from pro-Spalding posters.

Dale did not and does not need a security guard. However the Spaldin theory does need protection because there are lots of people motivated to hinder that thread as it goes against their religious faith beliefs. And for whatever reason even you seem motivated to hinder it, as you said The S/R theory should be viewed with contempt.

And there you go again, admitting again that the Spalding thread needed special protection! That is what Shades specifically tried, in vain, to correct you about. No thread is "unique", and no poster will receive "special protection".

As for bias, what about your own anti-religious biases??? Just look at your own signature line.

So with this, again:

However the Spaldin theory does need protection because there are lots of people motivated to hinder that thread as it goes against their religious faith beliefs.

You are hopelessly biased, and because of your above statement, I stand by my statement that you should have been sacked.
>
>
>

[_Ray A]

Yes the question asked by Brent was a continuation of the exchange between mikwut and Dale in whic both acknowledged Mikwut had insulted Dale. And it was in regards to Dales' faith, which is personal. If Dale wished to respond to Brent because I knew he'd seen Brent's post, Dale could choose to respond and in fact he did respond to Brent's question in the off topic are. What's your point?

This is what several posters were objecting about, your "nannying" of Dale. Your over-protection of both him and the thread. You did not allow time for further discussions in which, I am sure, both mikwut, Brent and Dale would have sorted out their personal differences. But like the security guard you jumped in to control grown up and mature posters, who have a long history of debating each other - without your patronising protection.

[_marg]

And I said "might" remove future ad homs.

AND whole posts.

I said if it got out of hand I've move posts. In other words, while off topic posts were moved I would only move a post with excessive ad homs and likely in which an exchange went back and forth derailing the thread.

If you continue I might start deleting them and if they get out of hand move your entire post.

"Get out of hand" after one ad hom by mikwut? Sledgehammer, meet fly. Yet, again, you ignored several ad homs from pro-Spalding posters.

By out of hand I meant, a number of posts involving the same things, discussion of the insult, for example if others picked up on the "flippant and dismissive charge and were continuuing along the same vain. My goal was to discourage Mikwut from rehetorical gamesmenship in discussion.

Dale did not and does not need a security guard. However the Spaldin theory does need protection because there are lots of people motivated to hinder that thread as it goes against their religious faith beliefs. And for whatever reason even you seem motivated to hinder it, as you said The S/R theory should be viewed with contempt.

And there you go again, admitting again that the Spalding thread needed special protection! That is what Shades specifically tried, in vain, to correct you about. No thread is "unique", and no poster will receive "special protection".

That's where you are wrong. It needs to be protected from being derailed. So many threads on this board and most typical boards get derailed. Sometimes there is motivation to do so. I believe there is strong motivation for people to attempt to derail it. Every single time for example that wade would enter a thread that thread seemed to veer off into attack type exchanges with him. No one is doing that a few times it sort of started up and they got moved. But some people are good at derailing threads, and they fully realize what they are doing, sometimes it's quite intentionally. Yes the spalding theory discussion needs protection from those who would wish it wasn't being discussed seriously and who might wish to sabatoge it.

As for bias, what about your own anti-religious biases??? Just look at your own signature line.

This is again a mantra from you "anti-religious bias" What wrong with the sig line? I can't remember what it is actually I believe about morality. You got to appreciate Ray that there is nothing wrong with people expressing differing opinions. Everyone is biased, but not everyone can hold that bias in check and look at other points of view objectively and/or maintain a skeptical attitude. Quite frankly you are not able to look at other points of view objectively, I know that because you shut down and rather than discuss issues you stop discussion by attacking the other person with some sort of ad hom such as in my case..'marg is biased, closedminded, not informed..and therefore to heck with the issues she should be dismissed. That's the extent of your reasoning.

A skeptical attitude does not mean a skeptic doesn't form an opinion. It means they do but that they maintain an open mind such that if new information or reasoning is presented they would look at it objectively.

So with this, again:

However the Spaldin theory does need protection because there are lots of people motivated to hinder that thread as it goes against their religious faith beliefs.

You are hopelessly biased, and because of your above statement, I stand by my statement that you should have been sacked.

No Ray my statement doesn't mean I'm hopelessly biased it means I'm able to appreciate all claims are not equally received. If I was discussing a rock star with his fans I'd appreciate for example, his fans are not likely to objective about any criticism of him. Likewise Mormons are not likely to be able to be objective about anything which is counter to their faith.

I think when I say protection you are miscontruing what I mean. I mean being prepared and ready to prevent something which is predicted might likely happen because of the variables involved.

[_marg]

Yes the question asked by Brent was a continuation of the exchange between mikwut and Dale in whic both acknowledged Mikwut had insulted Dale. And it was in regards to Dales' faith, which is personal. If Dale wished to respond to Brent because I knew he'd seen Brent's post, Dale could choose to respond and in fact he did respond to Brent's question in the off topic are. What's your point?

This is what several posters were objecting about, your "nannying" of Dale. Your over-protection of both him and the thread. You did not allow time for further discussions in which, I am sure, both mikwut, Brent and Dale would have sorted out their personal differences. But like the security guard you jumped in to control grown up and mature posters, who have a long history of debating each other - without your patronising protection.

First of all Brent posted and it was a continuation of an exchange between Dale and mikwut in which mikwut insulted Dale, Dale responded with indignation, then mikwut did another post with an insult I believe and Dale responded and then Mikwut apologized.

The insult has to do with Dale's faith. (whatever that is) Brent's question was opening it up again, 3 more posts were made connected to that. Dale shouldn't have to respond to insults. He did, but he shouldn't have to continue focus on that. The off topic thread is for that. Dales' faith is not on topic.

This is not patronizing protection this is keeping it on topic. I realize you have no particular interest in that and would prefer for the thread to veer off and get derailed.

[_Ray A]

never said others were morons, I said about others that they eagerly post to write complaints about things for which they really have little to no knowledge. That's human nature and I sarcastically said "I love it" It's just so predictable of people especially on message board.

"Never said others were morons"?

To skippy the dead:

Look some people on here are morons, and they like to throw their 2 cents in when they really don't know what the heck they are talking about. There is a lot of that that goes on here, because message boards such as this it's easy to do......

Even if some were not fully aware of all the details all the issues, why are they morons? Skippy is a lawyer, and I would think, very far from being a "moron". She made judgements based on your moderating, and I would hazzard a guess - your attitude to them and others.

More ad homs (excluding the very colourful one to me):

To B23:

What is this about? Ok wimps what are you complaining about?

To EAllusion:

Sheesh you are a twit-nit.

(Not sure what a "twit-nit" is, either)

Being as I quit mod'ing I didn't feel obligated to restrain.

To Jason:

This is why your little 2 cents in this thread is worthless. You aren't offering advice or criticism regarding moderation of the Book of Mormon thread, you are voicing your chip on your shoulder, anger whatever. Yes I am overbearing. And when people such as yourself don't like it , I think good I'm doing something right.

So let's face it, marg, you've gone on this campaign of revenge in which you're only doing more damage to yourself. Everyone else is wrong, and you are right.

[_Ray A]

This is not patronizing protection this is keeping it on topic. I realize you have no particular interest in that and would prefer for the thread to veer off and get derailed.

BS. My last post on that thread was to Dale, and here is what I wrote:

It's nothing personal, Dale. I doubt I'll comment on this thread anymore. Have a good night, and God bless.

[_marg]

So let's face it, marg, you've gone on this campaign of revenge in which you're only doing more damage to yourself. Everyone else is wrong, and you are right.

Ray other people are wrong making comments inaccurate when they don't know the facts. You on the other hand are underhanded. In other words your actions were a function of other issues besides true interest in the S/R thread and that you had noted mod bias. I think male chauvinism played a role, your inabililty to discuss with me using reasoning, and you resorted to a smear against me because of your inadequacies and I guess it made you feel better.

[_marg]

This is not patronizing protection this is keeping it on topic. I realize you have no particular interest in that and would prefer for the thread to veer off and get derailed.

BS. My last post on that thread was to Dale, and here is what I wrote:

It's nothing personal, Dale. I doubt I'll comment on this thread anymore. Have a good night, and God bless.

So what... that's your last post. You said the S-R theory deserves contempt. That does not indicate a person passive about the theory, it indicates a person who would wish the theory be shown disrespect.