If there is no antagonist, there is no discussion.
Did anyone already suggest that us evil antis & exmos (and let's not forget the self-abusers and porn addicts) just stay away - at least, stay away from posting.
Let the owner and her friends have MADB all to themselves.
Maybe a naïve question, but what would happen if, each time there was an interesting post over 'there', someone started a corresponding thread here, where Juliann does not rule? Is that somehow against the rules of this board?
Yes, and sometimes we start threads about particularly stupid threads on MAD.
But are non-TBM posters here prepared to boycott MADB? (Those who are still allowed to post, that is.) If what John said is true, they need antis & exmos more than antis & exmos need them (hmmmm, must there be opposition in all things?).
Has someone called for a boycott? Where?
Hi Jersey Girl.
Nobody who counts has called for a boycott.
I was just idly speculating, based on earlier posts in the thread. Seems to me that a number of contributors to this board who are still allowed to post on MADB are expecting to be banned or at least suspended.
It occurred to me that pre-emptive action was another possibility.
Of all people on this board, I must have close to the least cred to be calling for any kind of action.
Just thinkin' out loud - please ignore me.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
I was just idly speculating, based on earlier posts in the thread. Seems to me that a number of contributors to this board who are still allowed to post on MADB are expecting to be banned or at least suspended.
It occurred to me that pre-emptive action was another possibility.
Of all people on this board, I must have close to the least cred to be calling for any kind of action.
Just thinkin' out loud - please ignore me.
Oh, okay. I don't know who you think "counts" around here but as for me and my house, I'm not much of a joiner. Go my own way, do my own thing kind of person. I don't think this is as important as others do. Interesting approach though, I'll give you that!
It appears I have made it on to the protected list (if Aunt Jules' word is anything to go by) so hopefully I"ll still be around after the New Year.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Bond...James Bond wrote:It appears I have made it on to the protected list (if Aunt Jules' word is anything to go by) so hopefully I"ll still be around after the New Year.
beastie wrote:Certainly Z wasn't perfect - moderators still had biases that sometimes affected decisions. . . So yes, of course there were times when bias was a factor and things weren't always fair. But, for me, it was an idyllic experiment due to the stated intention of moderating without bias. In real life, that may never be able to happen, but I think it's an admirable goal.
In that case, what's your opinion of the moderation of this board?
harmony wrote:. . . that's not why I was banned. That's never been explained, although I think it was because of my last thread: the shortcomings of LDS men in bed.
How can such a thread be started in the first place? Let's be honest: What LDS woman will have had a large enough cross-section of LDS men in her bed in order to draw any conclusions in that department?
"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?"
In that case, what's your opinion of the moderation of this board?
You know, I gotta give you props on that one, Shades. I would say the moderation on this board is absolutely applied without bias. I guess it's easier to do when you keep the rules to a minimum.
But I will also say minimum moderation does tend to result in an environment that is very difficult for believers to tolerate, even aside from their desire for biased moderation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
malkie wrote:But are non-TBM posters here prepared to boycott MADB? (Those who are still allowed to post, that is.) If what John said is true, they need antis & exmos more than antis & exmos need them (hmmmm, must there be opposition in all things?).
I think the truth is that we desperately need each other to palliate (or perhaps indulge) our respective illnesses.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
beastie wrote:But I will also say minimum moderation does tend to result in an environment that is very difficult for believers to tolerate, even aside from their desire for biased moderation.
Oh well. I refuse to compromise my principles in order to pander to one group over another.
"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?"
I think we should all join forces, get in there and love bomb them with Merry Christmas greetings in a holiday cease fire. Those who aren't able to post could sneak in under the radar as sock puppets do.
Of course it's C'mas eve and a significant percentage of the male population here is probably at the mall.