Chap wrote: As a result of this, any critic who wishes to continue posting on the MAD board in a fashion that is not completely neutered has to resort to a continual tone of irony so subtle as to be doubly ironic in its subtlety. In the end this becomes a kind of artform, the practice of which is almost an aesthetic pleasure in itself, and that I suspect is one of the motives that makes people continue to post there, despite all the frustrations to normal communication.
The Dude wrote:Bull s*** Hermes! I was banned on somebody's whim, less than one minute after the "warning" was pinned, without having a chance to see it. Furthermore, I didn't even violate the warning. See above.
Do you think there is a chance that your PM account was full? I have never found the PM account to be very reliable at MADB, and I have always thought Hermes was one of the more balanced moderators at MADB. I sure hope that this is just a big miscommunication and misunderstanding, and that it can be resolved soon.
Hamblin and I were debating the temple ceremony a couple months ago... but I had to take a break, due to other priorities (helped my grandmother move in with my parents, my kids came to visit for a couple weeks, and I got my final draft review from my thesis committee). It is a good thing this happened before the big-love show... otherwise, I'd be banned along with you. Unfortunately, though, now Hamblin has the last word.
Hermes wrote:The Dude was given many many chances this time, contacted thropugh private message about particular matters, but decided he did not want to live up to the board expectations.
As a result of this, any critic who wishes to continue posting on the MAD board in a fashion that is not completely neutered has to resort to a continual tone of irony so subtle as to be doubly ironic in its subtlety. In the end this becomes a kind of artform, the practice of which is almost an aesthetic pleasure in itself, and that I suspect is one of the motives that makes people continue to post there, despite all the frustrations to normal communication.
The more I think about this, the truer it sounds. I enjoy the difficulty of trying to say what you need to say, but doing it in a way that doesn't get you banned. It makes me think long and hard. It also forces me to be on my toes, since the slightest mistake will be blood in the water. There is zero degree of tolerance for critics. That tension makes it more fun.
I mean, there are a 1000 boards out there where rationalists are eating "believers" lunch, but what fun is that?
John Larsen wrote: As I said in my long post above. I agreed with Peterson. I think his assessment was right on. I think he could post the cure for cancer here and he would still be lit up.
I respectfully disagree. It's when he says he's going to post the cure for cancer, but instead he explains he's too busy to do it, isn't interested in sharing it, is working on it and will post his cure on another more worthy forum, insults everyone that takes umbrage with his lack of forthrightness, makes critical threads about Mormonism about himself (every single time), obfuscates, ad homs, red herrings... On and on...
I'm sorry some of you feel the sting of his loss, but I don't reeeeeally see what he added outside of an entertainment value. Is that what you miss?