DiscussMormonism.com

Speaking of the forums. Since personal attacks aren't allowed in either now, aren't they pretty much the same thing now?

Maybe you should merge Celestial and Terrestrial and call them Paradise, and then call Telestial Prison.

Buffalo wrote:Speaking of the forums. Since personal attacks aren't allowed in either now, aren't they pretty much the same thing now?

Maybe you should merge Celestial and Terrestrial and call them Paradise, and then call Telestial Prison.

One difference is the Terrestrial has tons o activity compared to the Celestial.

I always thought personal attacks weren't allowed in the Terrestrial either. The rule just wasn't enforced. I can jump on board with the change realizing there is still room for personal jabs here.

CELESTIAL FORUM:
Attack ideas: NO
Attack person: NO

TERRESTRIAL FORUM:
Attack ideas: YES
Attack person: NO

TELESTIAL FORUM:
Attack ideas: YES
Attack person: YES

Dr. Shades wrote:CELESTIAL FORUM:
TERRESTRIAL FORUM:
Attack ideas: YES
Attack person: NO

Define attack person.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19125&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Attacking Rich.

Simon Belmont wrote:People like Rich, though, seem to want to cause contention. They want to attack other's beliefs because they happen to be slightly different from their own. Instead of Christian love for his fellow Christians (JWs, SDAs, and LDS) he tells them that their faith is equal to "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives." Wasted lives.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19097&start=126

why me wrote:Maybe you should stop trying to taking the piss out of him.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19097&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

Daniel Peterson wrote:It's difficult to know whether Scratch is faking it or is genuinely crazy.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19097&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

Simon Belmont wrote:Yeah because Infymus is trustworthy, right? lol

Calling BS.

thews wrote:Define attack person.

Think of the difference between an observation, a critique, and an attack.

Observations and critiques don't count as attacks.

(I of course know what your response to the above will be, but I'll save my own response to it until after you post it.)

Dr. Shades wrote:

thews wrote:Define attack person.

Think of the difference between an observation, a critique, and an attack.

Observations and critiques don't count as attacks.

Think of the difference between a piece of dog crap and a piece of buffalo crap. Mormon apologetics are rooted in placing the people who voice opposition as evil... it's why people like Simon Belmont attack the source. Your mods have a tough task to differentiate between who gets away with what. What's the dividing line? Using profanity? Please reconsider this path you've chosen, as it cannot now, nor will it ever be enforced and there really is no need. The Celestial forum has its place as does this one.

In conclusion, I find hypocrisy in your answer. When a person is attacked, it's defined as attacking the person. All or nothing, but another option would have been (still is), let it be.

In the temples, the main difference is pure white carpet compared light tan, lots of mirrors and a giant chandelier, compared to recessed lighting and light trim along the walls.

The differences are subtle.

Same thing with the forums.

thews wrote:Think of the difference between a piece of dog crap and a piece of buffalo crap. Mormon apologetics are rooted in placing the people who voice opposition as evil... it's why people like Simon Belmont attack the source. Your mods have a tough task to differentiate between who gets away with what. What's the dividing line? Using profanity? Please reconsider this path you've chosen, as it cannot now, nor will it ever be enforced and there really is no need. The Celestial forum has its place as does this one.

In conclusion, I find hypocrisy in your answer. When a person is attacked, it's defined as attacking the person. All or nothing, but another option would have been (still is), let it be.

Perhaps it would help if you posted that one page from the HoC that you love so much.

I know it always helps me.

thews wrote:Think of the difference between of dog crap and a piece of buffalo crap. Mormon apologetics are rooted in placing the people who voice opposition as evil...

Just as long as they don't mount personal attacks, they can hold those views if they wish.

it's why people like Simon Belmont attack the source. Your mods have a tough task to differentiate between who gets away with what. What's the dividing line? Using profanity?

Nope. As I explained in the previous post, we go by whether the (potentially) offending passage is an observation, a critique, or an attack.

There is, however, another dividing line: Whether or not the (potentially) offending passage is delivered with a degree of flair, wit, or panache. Those are more likely to stay in place.

Think of the difference between a bludgeon and a scalpel. If the passage was delivered with a bludgeon, it'll probably go, but if it was delivered with a scalpel, it'll probably stay.

Think also of the number of I.Q. points required to deliver the passage. If it only required a single-digit I.Q., it'll probably go. If it required a triple-digit I.Q., it'll probably stay. FOR EXAMPLE:

If a passage says something like, "Go die in a fire you douchebag," it'll go. On the other hand, if a passage says something like, "I will now leave you to pursue your favorite hobby, that of masturbating to your vast collection of Menudo memorabilia," it'll stay.

Please reconsider this path you've chosen, as it cannot now, nor will it ever be enforced and there really is no need. The Celestial forum has its place as does this one.

Well, the community seems to like it better this way. (On a personal note, I too would've preferred to leave things the way they were. But as I've said before, what good is a Libertarian Utopia if no one wants to live there?)

In conclusion, I find hypocrisy in your answer. When a person is attacked, it's defined as attacking the person.

What's wrong with that definition?

And with that, Shades, I will leave you to pursue your favorite hobby, that of masturbating to your vast collection of Menudo memorabilia.