charity wrote:Another p.s. The hope expressed that other faithful LDS will want to come here to discuss is a pretty vain one, in my opinon. Most people simply will not put up with the garbage that gets thrown at them. I am just a glutton for punishment, I guess.
I think you are right, Charity. The moderation is TOO minimal to attract most apologists.
They simply don't want the personal insults. And they are abundant here against the apologists.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Dr. Shades wrote:As has been pointed out, the issue at hand here isn't severity of personal attacks. The issue here is moderatorial double-standards. You're right, personal attacks--some of them quite severe--happen on both message boards. However, moderatorial double-standards happen only on MA&D. Here, offenses aren't noted according to whether the offender is a believer or a disbeliever--that only happens on MA&D. There is no hypocrisy here.
That's really great.
OK. You and your sarcasm are not welcome around here. Do you want the boot? We can give it just as easily as can MAD. Mods.
Wow, interesting. I can say I'm not surprised considering the source (Will). As you (Runtu) know, I took a stab at participating on the MAD board for a while, and haven't been back for a few months because of the personal attacks and biased moderating. I was quite stunned at what the mods allowed from the (protected) mopologists, but would suspend us for the slightest attack on them or their beloved Joseph. I think it says something when you have to prejudiciously "protect" a few heroes.
To me, it is clear what should be appropriate -- personal attacks are not necessary if the poster can logically make their point on the subject. To me, if one must stoop to attacks, they have admitted defeat. I understand that many TBMs take attacks on Joseph as a personal attack -- as they hold him sacred. But last time I checked, attacking a religious figure is not ad hominum, so you must change the definitions first, or adapt to common rules of engagement. Seems the mods over there don't understand that.
Runtu wrote: As I've said before, we all ought to think twice before we say things to hurt other people. In fact, I shouldn't have to say that at all.
I think it's so subjective it's difficult to always know. Of course you participated in a thread where I was an emotional wreck, sobbing, and beside myself. And you continued to participate in that thread when I stated I was incredibly upset, and thought that the sentiments were cruel and uninformed.
About the Church critics -- I suggest that if someone equates attacking a philosophy, or religious belief, in the same category as a personal attack on a poster's personal life they need to get a grip.
Runtu wrote: As I've said before, we all ought to think twice before we say things to hurt other people. In fact, I shouldn't have to say that at all.
I think it's so subjective it's difficult to always know. Of course you participated in a thread where I was an emotional wreck, sobbing, and beside myself. And you continued to participate in that thread when I stated I was incredibly upset, and thought that the sentiments were crue and uninformed.
About the Church critics -- I suggest that if someone equates attacking a philosophy, or religious belief, in the same category as a personal attack on someone's personal life they need to get a grip.
I suspect it has to do with intent. I have never hurt you or anyone else intentionally. If I contributed to hurting you, I am genuinely sorry.
Runtu wrote: As I've said before, we all ought to think twice before we say things to hurt other people. In fact, I shouldn't have to say that at all.
I think it's so subjective it's difficult to always know. Of course you participated in a thread where I was an emotional wreck, sobbing, and beside myself. And you continued to participate in that thread when I stated I was incredibly upset, and thought that the sentiments were crue and uninformed.
About the Church critics -- I suggest that if someone equates attacking a philosophy, or religious belief, in the same category as a personal attack on a poster's personal life they need to get a grip.
Jinx! (by the way, Mon, I love your avatar...I went to Japan on my mish and certainly lusted after the beautiful women during my time of celibacy (I mean, "service!") ;)
Runtu wrote: As I've said before, we all ought to think twice before we say things to hurt other people. In fact, I shouldn't have to say that at all.
I think it's so subjective it's difficult to always know. Of course you participated in a thread where I was an emotional wreck, sobbing, and beside myself. And you continued to participate in that thread when I stated I was incredibly upset, and thought that the sentiments were crue and uninformed.
About the Church critics -- I suggest that if someone equates attacking a philosophy, or religious belief, in the same category as a personal attack on someone's personal life they need to get a grip.
I suspect it has to do with intent. I have never hurt you or anyone else intentionally. If I contributed to hurting you, I am genuinely sorry.
I agree it comes down to intent. Which is why I told you that I didn't feel you intended to hurt me -- you were uninformed. Yet, this happens so often on this board when personal lives are drawn into the debate -- and it need never happen imho.
Runtu wrote: As I've said before, we all ought to think twice before we say things to hurt other people. In fact, I shouldn't have to say that at all.
I think it's so subjective it's difficult to always know. Of course you participated in a thread where I was an emotional wreck, sobbing, and beside myself. And you continued to participate in that thread when I stated I was incredibly upset, and thought that the sentiments were crue and uninformed.
About the Church critics -- I suggest that if someone equates attacking a philosophy, or religious belief, in the same category as a personal attack on a poster's personal life they need to get a grip.
Jinx! (by the way, Mon, I love your avatar...I went to Japan on my mish and certainly lusted after the beautiful women during my time of celibacy (I mean, "service!") ;)
Japan is a wonderful country! I'm going on a much needed vacation shortly to that beautiful country. Can't wait to go to Hiroshima!
Moniker wrote: Japan is a wonderful country! I'm going on a much needed vacation shortly to that beautiful country. Can't wait to go to Hiroshima!
I owe you a soda!
Yes it is, and I'm jealous! I haven't gone back, but would love to someday. I keep looking at the falling dollar and fantasize that it will turn around sometime, but it ain't happenin! Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and splurge sometime....
Ironically, I point to my experience living in Japan as a subtle turning point in my spirituality. Teaching the people Mormonism required that we understand them a bit, and it was my first glimpse of understanding what it means to "look inside" as the source for my guidance. Generally, I don't think that is on the radar for most Mormons.