Shades, its time to restore the thread

[_cwald]

The youtube temple vids are being discussed at MDDB now

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58425-temple-video/

I think it is quite comical they will never list this board by name...only as the "other board" or the "critics board."

[_cwald]

...aaaaand now the MDDB YouTube temple thread is gone.

That didn't last long.

[_Alter Idem]

The youtube temple vids are being discussed at MDDB now

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58425-temple-video/

I think it is quite comical they will never list this board by name...only as the "other board" or the "critics board."

In the past they sometimes call MDB 'the board which shall not be named' or 'the trailer park' etc., but in this case, she wasn't referring to MDB--she was referring to a board called CARM. I'm not familiar with it other than some of the MADB posters belong to CARM and spar with the members there--a couple have even been banned from CARM as I recall.

The thread didn't last long but that should be expected. Temple content is against board guidelines and the thread was allowed to remain open until the person who put the videos up on Youtube showed up to defend and publicize his 'work', so I don't blame them for closing it.

[_Dr. Shades]

And what about honoring your agreement with the whole community to maintain a free speech environment?

I do my best. It's a balancing act. I always allow free speech to reign supreme unless it has the potential for negative real-life, real-world consequences to someone (unless the mainstream media has already reported it).

I heard that when you first started this board, that Nort was one of the first two posters to post here and that he did not post on ZLMB.

That's correct, but it has nothing to do with moving threads.

It was then assumed, by those here at the time, that there is a close in real life relationship between him and you.

Nortinski has already truthfully commented on the nature of our friendship. Nevertheless, I would've extended him the same courtesy even if I didn't know him from Adam. Likewise, if you posted something inadvisable that could easily have real life consequences and you later asked me to remove the material, I would comply.

Once again, my philosophy is that this message board is to be an asset to all participants, not a liability. If anything is revealed or alleged here that could, in my reasoned judgment, have direct consequences off-board--typically legal, ecclesiastical, or marital--I generally remove the offending material if the (potentially) affected party asks.

I'd like to know whether the treatment Nortinski received is special.

No. See above.

That is, can any poster request that an entire thread be removed and Shades will remove it until given permission by the poster to put it back?

As I explained above, I won't remove a thread unless I reasonably judge that it could have direct, negative, off-board, real-life legal, ecclesiastical, or marital consequences.

Or is this a one-off thing?

With Nortinski? So far, yes.

Does Nortinski have veto power over all his own threads or just this one?

See above.

I have met Shades MAYBE three times in my life.

I count four:

1. The going-away party for the guy in Lehi where you and I first met. I met your second wife when she showed up partway through.
2. The big party that you described. It was the same party wherein I met Mav and Keene.
3. The podcast that we recorded at Hyrum's house.
4. The ex-Mormon Conference of 2005 wherein you hooked me up with tickets.

But hey, that's okay. :-)

But I don't think I have his phone number.

You're welcome to it if you want to PM me. Heck, I'll even give you my work number.

I certainly do not know where he lives.

You're welcome anytime, but please call ahead so I can clean up first. :-)

I know very little about Shades and his personal life. We are hardly what one would consider "close friends" although I do credit him for opening my eyes to the truth about Mormonism.

When it comes to my personal life, there's absolutely nothing I wouldn't feel comfortable telling you. As for the "close friends" part, I'm sure we'd be closer friends if we didn't live so far apart!

Care to explain just why you would have gotten into this "agreement" with this type of individual in the first place?

Yes. When it comes to protecting someone's real-life, uh, real life, I don't care what "type of individual" a person is. In my opinion, everyone deserves that courtesy just for being human.

You once mentioned that it was because of protecting him from physical threats, but he obviously has zero interest in backing down from this and continues to advertise his intentions over multiple public forums.

His continuing to show control/power over you and this board in this manner continues to mock the standards of this board and makes a fool out of you for giving this Nort special privileges/status on the board.

I admit that I'm just as surprised as you are that he doesn't care that people continue to post links to cached versions of portions of that thread. Nevertheless, What he does or doesn't do after I moved the threads has no bearing whatsoever on my end of the agreement. I said I'd pull the threads, and I did. I didn't attach any sort of conditions, such as "I'll pull them just so long as you yourself never mention the content again, either." This is now about me keeping my promises; it no longer has anything to do with Nortinski.

Nort now claims you are not even friends, and yet controls you like a puppet.

We might be friends, but like I said, our friendship has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular issue. If I was to make a promise to William Schryver, I would honor that, too.

Ha. I said we are not "close friends." We ARE friends. I just don't know his address or home phone number.

You can have my address too, anytime you want. I've been to your house, so it's only FAIR. :-)

I assumed he would dig in his heels again with this strange (for this site) moderating decision and what also appears to be some personal bias.

No personal bias. I've done it before. I'll do it again if absolutely necessary--even for you.