DiscussMormonism.com

than the Celestial Forum?

I see posts from time to time trying to have Shades and the Mods turn the Terrestrial Forum into ... well, into the Celestial Forum.

If the rules of the Celestial Forum are so much better, it makes one wonder why those posters just don't confine themselves to the Celestial Forum, the one with the rules and moderation level they try to foist on the Terrestrial Forum--is it so that traffic on the Terrestrial Forum would drop off to the level of the Celestial Forum?

What draws those complainers to the Terrestrial Forum that they find so detestable as to come here and bitch that it is not moderated at the level and applying the rules of the Celestial Forum?

It seems that the Terrestrial Forum has the highest traffic of any on MDB because it strikes the right balance between the Celestial Forum and the Telestial Forum here.

Shades, you are to be applauded for the Terrestrial Forum. It is the place to which most of the MDB traffic gravitates. I think it is just fine as it is--even with the posts that bitch about it.

There's not much difference these days. Have a closer look at some of the threads there, and you judge whether they meet this criterion:

3. No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

Now look closely.

Sample Thread.

Good points, Sock. Also, The Terr. Forum is popular because, well, because it's popular. People know this place has the most traffic so they tend to come here.

The Celestial Forum has more of a Celestial feel to it. You know, like when you sit through an endowment session.

I freely admit: I post more in the Terrestrial so I can get off a real shot or two if I want. But that is more a holdover from the false decorum on another board. Righteous indignation (extant only in TBM's) should be allowed in the Celestial. I'm just not used to it is all.

sock puppet wrote:
I think it is just fine as it is.....

Well then the rules for Terrestial should change. This rule should be taken out of there:

"No blatant or otherwise obvious personal attacks allowed."

RayAgostini wrote:There's not much difference these days. Have a closer look at some of the threads there, and you judge whether they meet this criterion:

3. No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

Now look closely.

Sample Thread.

Looks to me to be typical DCP posts:

1) Name dropping
2) Bragging about himself, his accomplishments, his travels, his lectures, his publications, etc.
3) Refusing to answer questions when he knows he can't defend his position
4) Attack the poster while ignoring the content of the argument
5) Acting like he's too good to even enter into the discussion because he's intellectually superior to critics

To a certain degree, he acts like a typical academic. I've worked at both academic and non-academic institutions. I often notice when I encounter an academic:

1) They mention or note their credentials
2) In conversation, they frequently reference and name drop experts in the field, even when it's not necessary to get the point across
3) They frequently reference published articles, even when it's not necessary to get the point across
4) When they come into my office, they first look at my diplomas, then at my bookshelf (a way for them to size me up, I think)

These things almost never happen when I work with non-academics. It's not that these things are inappropriate. Rather, I just find it highly annoying.

sock puppet wrote:than the Celestial Forum?

I see posts from time to time trying to have Shades and the Mods turn the Terrestrial Forum into ... well, into the Celestial Forum.

If the rules of the Celestial Forum are so much better, it makes one wonder why those posters just don't confine themselves to the Celestial Forum, the one with the rules and moderation level they try to foist on the Terrestrial Forum--is it so that traffic on the Terrestrial Forum would drop off to the level of the Celestial Forum?

What draws those complainers to the Terrestrial Forum that they find so detestable as to come here and bitch that it is not moderated at the level and applying the rules of the Celestial Forum?

It seems that the Terrestrial Forum has the highest traffic of any on MDB because it strikes the right balance between the Celestial Forum and the Telestial Forum here.

Shades, you are to be applauded for the Terrestrial Forum. It is the place to which most of the MDB traffic gravitates. I think it is just fine as it is--even with the posts that bitch about it.

My theory is that message boards are more about entertainment than enlightenment. Yes, there are some good nuggets of discussion and information, but I think most people, including myself, enjoy the back-and-forth jabs and arguements. Most of us have already made up our mind about the issues and it's very difficult to dissuade.

I also think that anonymity is a contributing factor. It's either very brave or incredibly stupid to post under your real name. Peterson, for example, is taking big risks (this is NOT a threat). People know who he is, where he works. Considering the animosity he invokes (not always his fault), it would only take one nut-job poster to get offended and do something stupid to mess with him (again, not a threat). With thousands of posts here and elsewhere, many of which could be used against him, he's probably blown his chance at ever becoming a GA.

bcspace wrote:I freely admit: I post more in the Terrestrial so I can get off a real shot or two if I want. But that is more a holdover from the false decorum on another board. Righteous indignation (extant only in TBM's) should be allowed in the Celestial. I'm just not used to it is all.

Now we see the honest mind of a believer. The real CK is not really what it's talked up to be. God will be pretty lonely, ruling over the few who commit to live there for ETERNITY.

selek wrote:
Looks to me to be typical DCP posts:

1) Name dropping
2) Bragging about himself, his accomplishments, his travels, his lectures, his publications, etc.
3) Refusing to answer questions when he knows he can't defend his position
4) Attack the poster while ignoring the content of the argument
5) Acting like he's too good to even enter into the discussion because he's intellectually superior to critics

I have to confess that I do the same, too. RFMers were also pretty proud of "knowing" Tal Bachman, and linking his songs there ad nauseam. Not that I think he isn't a good singer, he is. As for point 2, do check out how the Tanners always made sure that anyone who supported their position was referred to as "Dr.", or "Professor", and those who didn't were referred to as "Mr.". And let me brag some, I've read every edition of The Salt Lake City Messenger. Yep.

Maybe you have a lot more humility than I do. If so, good onya.

As for point 3, I don't believe it's because he "can't defend his position", but rather because he's been doing it for over 21 years, to his satisfaction, even if you or I don't accept it. We have differences of opinion (DCP and I), but I don't believe for one minute that DCP "can't defend his position". Maybe he just gets sick and tired of "groundhog day", for him.

As for point 4, on this board DCP has almost always been subjected to "preemptive" attacks, because critics "already know what he's going to say", and he knows they won't have a bar of his explanations for why he believes A, or B.

As for point 5, I don't believe it's because he thinks he's "too good". I think he just thinks on a different level, not necessarily a "higher one", and realises that if he starts talking about something like "miracles", or "rod divining", or "inspired translations", or miraculous family healings brought about by prayer - he's going to be lambasted to kingdom come.

Cheers.

I believe that Dan is actually open to dialogue and feedback, as demonstrated Here.

I'm as guilty as anyone else, but maybe there comes a time when we really should listen more? You know, like, actually have dialogue rather than just "DCP-bashing"?