DiscussMormonism.com

Looks like MAD can rest a little easier as one more critic has been shown the door.

I went through his last few posts and I can't see any mention of why he was banned, and none of his posts looked ban-worthy.

Any idea why, Seth?

Scottie wrote:Looks like MAD can rest a little easier as one more critic has been shown the door.

I went through his last few posts and I can't see any mention of why he was banned, and none of his posts looked ban-worthy.

Any idea why, Seth?

I was just wondering the same thing. Sometimes things seem so capricious over there. Oh, well. It's their loss.

He got a warnig for a comment about the profit, but then he said nothing ban worthy the next couple of posts then suddenly they banned him. His perspective will be missed over there. When I get banned it will be a zinger.

I don't believe he warranted a banning at all, personally. Nothing that I saw, anyway.

Apparently "bach" was also banned. He made a quip about God being a homosexual.

So it looks like disagreeing with the brethren about homosexuals is on the hot trigger to get you banned over there. Got it.

The "bach" quip/comment was at least a strong warnable offense. Disagreeing with the leadership over the same sex attraction/union/marriage is a kiss of death. Seth's perspective will be missed.

OMWO2 wrote:The "bach" quip/comment was at least a strong warnable offense. Disagreeing with the leadership over the same sex attraction/union/marriage is a kiss of death. Seth's perspective will be missed.

It's the same pattern over and over at that place. The Pahorans and seleks and Hammers post freely, but the Bachs and Sethbags have to walk a very thin line to avoid suspension and banning. Eventually, even the most reasonable critic gets tired of having to deal with the double-standard, and they start being a little harsher. And, presto, they get banned.

If the mods over there would ask for believers and unbelievers alike to adhere to the same standards, this stuff wouldn't happen. We see these critics who have contributed a great deal get banned, but when was the last time they banned a believer? I'd rather have ten irritable Seths than one vacuous Hammer or bitter Pahoran.

Runtu wrote:

OMWO2 wrote:The "bach" quip/comment was at least a strong warnable offense. Disagreeing with the leadership over the same sex attraction/union/marriage is a kiss of death. Seth's perspective will be missed.

It's the same pattern over and over at that place. The Pahorans and seleks and Hammers post freely, but the Bachs and Sethbags have to walk a very thin line to avoid suspension and banning. Eventually, even the most reasonable critic gets tired of having to deal with the double-standard, and they start being a little harsher. And, presto, they get banned.

If the mods over there would ask for believers and unbelievers alike to adhere to the same standards, this stuff wouldn't happen. We see these critics who have contributed a great deal get banned, but when was the last time they banned a believer? I'd rather have ten irritable Seths than one vacuous Hammer or bitter Pahoran.

Except, from what I could tell, he wasn't even irritable! His posts were respectful and had a very calm tone to them.

Runtu wrote:I'd rather have ten irritable Seths than one vacuous Hammer or bitter Pahoran.

I thought that is what this board is for, runtu.