Page 1 of 2

The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:02 am
by _Kishkumen
After enduring the latest round of slogging it out with the various characters who conveniently show up here to mislead and confuse the issues in the wake of some apologetic gaffe or "boner" coming to light, I thought it would be useful to pause for a moment and consider the possibility that, like the defenders of Scientology against its critics, LDS apologists have become increasingly sophisticated in the way that they try to suppress any negative, critical, or even candid discussion of the LDS Church and the apologists who defend it. Indeed, I think it not unlikely that they have read up on Scientologists' methods of dealing with the internet and have applied these lessons, even here on lowly MDB.

Consider the following, taken from the wikipedia article on Scientology and the Internet:

After failing to remove the newsgroup, Scientologists adopted a strategy of newsgroup spam and intimidation.[25] Scientologists hired third parties to regularly flood the newsgroup with pro-scientology messages, vague anti-scientology messages, irrelevant comments, and accusations that other posters are secret Scientologists intent on tracking and punishing posters. This makes the newsgroup virtually unreadable via online readers such as Google Groups, although more specialized newsreading software that can filter out all messages by specific "high noise" posters make the newsgroup more usable.


This should seem very familiar by now, since for some time we have had our seemingly benign doofus posters like Simon Belmont, stemelbow, and now static, who do their very best to play the dullard (perhaps not with much extra effort in some cases), misread everything, interpret things in misleading ways, and generally muck up every discussion they get involved in. Obviously, these guys have their own schtick, but it is clear to me that the intention is to perform some kind of damage control when an apologist gets caught in his zipper and needs some distraction, etc.

Moving on, the following passage is highly reminiscent of the More Good Foundation's early stated goals:

In the early days of the World Wide Web, Scientology attempted a similar strategy to make finding websites critical of the organization more difficult. Scientology employed Web designers to write thousands of Web pages for their site, thus flooding early search engines.[27] This problem was solved by the innovation of clustering responses from the same Web server, showing no more than the top two results from any one site (e.g. Google).


Most recently, we have witnessed the appearance of Mormon Voices, the stated purpose of which is to:

...respond to public discussions and comments from public figures that misrepresent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


We saw up close how ridiculous and disproportionate such responses could get in the TIME Lightbox incident, wherein Daniel Peterson, Will Schryver, and some others did their best in the quixotic enterprise of making a photographer who took some pictures of his Utah family look like an anti-Mormon because the photos were not sunny and peppy--much to the chagrin of non-apologist members of the LDS Church who thought these apologists were nuts and making the Church look bad by overreacting.

In any case, it is important to understand who we are dealing with. These are highly motivated people, some who have dedicated their entire lives and staked their entire fortunes, humble though they may be, on fighting a war. They see us, as different from each other as we may be, and they see an enemy in that war, because we dare to talk to each other here on MDB and say things about apologetics or Mormonism that do not tend to flatter the subject. That just will not do, and we must be stopped. The Scientologists have blazed the trail for the apologists, and now the LDS apologists have picked up their playbook of spamming, irrelevancy, legal threats, and the like, and made it their own.

We have all been fairly warned by the things we have watched unfold lately.

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:04 am
by _static
Here, let it all out

http://www.livejournal.com/

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:10 am
by _Kishkumen
static wrote:Here, let it all out

http://www.livejournal.com/


Hey, Simon, nice to see you back so soon.

Are you Irish? Horny? Just curious about the green fetish.

Belmont is an English name, which isn't too far off.

Anyhow, hi.

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:12 am
by _static
Kishkumen wrote:Hey, Simon, nice to see you back so soon.


Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not Simon Southerton. I wish I were - he's probably loaded.

But continue the guessing game if you don't want to discuss the issues or cry on your LiveJournal account.

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:13 am
by _Kishkumen
static wrote:Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not Simon Southerton. I wish I were - he's probably loaded.

But continue the guessing game if you don't want to discuss the issues or cry on your LiveJournal account.[/color]


Southerton? No. I don't think Simon Southerton is into humiliating himself online by playing stupid in the way you do. I was thinking more Simon Belmont.

But you knew that. You just love to play stupid, as you did in the days when you went by the name "Simon Belmont."

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:15 am
by _Kishkumen
Did you get kicked off of LiveJournal, Simon? Is that why you have come back here? Or do you remember how much we enjoyed your idiocy and deception last time you were here, and now you are back for more?

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:16 am
by _TrashcanMan79
The ignore feature works wonderfully.

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:31 am
by _RockSlider
I was thinking about the same thing driving home today (the total spamming of major event threads so as to obfuscating the content to a “guests” eyes).

My thoughts turned to Shades and his desire for free speech discussion of Mormonism, and how this is used against this board to destroy discussios.

Shades and the moderation team should consider some kind of measures to help curve this type of activity.

One possibility would be for them to take the stance that anyone spamming in this fashion will be exposed to the thread as doing such … i.e. you know the ip’s coming in, if it’s a known spamming sock puppet, at least expose this fact .

As for the regulars, quit quoting the spammers. Simply make it known in the threads that guests may want to consider putting the spammer on ignore if they are interested in following the actual discussion.

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:33 am
by _Hasa Diga Eebowai
-

Re: The Apologetic War against Online Criticism

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:38 am
by _Infymus
In the early days of the World Wide Web, Scientology attempted a similar strategy to make finding websites critical of the organization more difficult. Scientology employed Web designers to write thousands of Web pages for their site, thus flooding early search engines.[27] This problem was solved by the innovation of clustering responses from the same Web server, showing no more than the top two results from any one site (e.g. Google).


Allen Wyatt has done this for years using millionaire David G. Neeleman's money. And yep, Google pretty much did this in.

Know who else does this? Porn site owners.