Joseph Smith believed all sects were false

[_why me]

dv,

And she said this:

Since you are again continuuing to employ ad hominem, I might consider moving some of these post to the upper forum. I haven't decided. I might respond in here, I don't know. But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

If this is not emotional as well as ad hominem I don't know what is. Marg often drops into this behavior. She is also demanding and rude in almost every thread she is on. I challenged her on what she had read that Smith had written due because it is a key to understanding the man and her theory here that he believed in a non interfering God. She called that ad hominem. It was not. It was pertinent to the discussion. I pointed out that she is a bore when she bullied liz and yes that was ad hominem, emotional and true.. She then says that she won't debate with me and now "dimisses" me.

Ok. But this is all emotional. I was willing to move on, went back and made posted some responses that she could have worked with. But instead she retreats to pouting or putting on an air of "I am too rational and too much of a critial thinker to debate with you irrational cultist. That is emotional as well.

I see this quite often. Miss marg is not at all the even thinker you think she is.

Tah, tah.

I have this strange feeling in my gut that marg is actually Dr. Shade's wife and is allowed to do such things. I have the same opinion that you have. She is quite demanding and intolerable. One must write according to her whims or be darned. I also have this feeling that she is the deputy dog of the board, often doing the job of a moderator. I like Grampa75. Hopefully he sticks around. Loosen up Marg. And shades, is marg your wife or cousin...or sister...?

[_Fortigurn]

I have this strange feeling in my gut that marg is actually Dr. Shade's wife and is allowed to do such things. I have the same opinion that you have. She is quite demanding and intolerable. One must write according to her whims or be darned. I also have this feeling that she is the deputy dog of the board, often doing the job of a moderator.

I'm not defending marg's conduct, but now you know what it's like for non-Mormons to be on MAD.

[_why me]

I have this strange feeling in my gut that marg is actually Dr. Shade's wife and is allowed to do such things. I have the same opinion that you have. She is quite demanding and intolerable. One must write according to her whims or be darned. I also have this feeling that she is the deputy dog of the board, often doing the job of a moderator.

I'm not defending marg's conduct, but now you know what it's like for non-Mormons to be on MAD.

No, I am afraid you are wrong here. I have seen no comparison with Marg at MAD. In fact, most LDS would have been suspended for harassment on MAD if they behaved as consistently as marg has. She needs to loosen up because when she makes a personal comment about a poster's style, she seems to sidetrack the thread and it becomes derailed. Just let it fly by is my motto.

[_Runtu]

No, I am afraid you are wrong here. I have seen no comparison with Marg at MAD. In fact, most LDS would have been suspended for harassment on MAD if they behaved as consistently as marg has.

Have you never met Pahoran?

She needs to loosen up because when she makes a personal comment about a poster's style, she seems to sidetrack the thread and it becomes derailed. Just let it fly by is my motto.

We could all stand to loosen up and quit making things personal, myself (and marg and everyone else) included.

[_harmony]

I have this strange feeling in my gut that marg is actually Dr. Shade's wife and is allowed to do such things. I have the same opinion that you have. She is quite demanding and intolerable. One must write according to her whims or be darned. I also have this feeling that she is the deputy dog of the board, often doing the job of a moderator. I like Grampa75. Hopefully he sticks around. Loosen up Marg. And shades, is marg your wife or cousin...or sister...?

I'd be willing to bet marg isn't related to Shades at all. From what I remember, she's in Canada for one thing, born to non-religious parents. Her story in on one of the threads in the Celestial board.

Shades prefers to let the posters work out their personality issues among themselves. If everyone starts to ignore marg, she'll either modify the way she posts or else get bored and leave. She won't be asked to change by the mods, nor will she be banned for her tone. This ain't MAD.

[_Jersey Girl]

dv,

I'd like you to link me to any post made by marg on this board or any other board that represents her discussing things "emotionally". If you're able to do so, it will be the first time I've witnessed emotion driven content on the part of marg in several years of reading her.

Let's see it.

Here you go Jersey Girl

I wrote to the supposedly stable and unemotional marg this:

Jason Bourne wrote:

Not ad hominem at all marg. Facts. You are a bully to people. You bullied liz and gramps 76.

I then offered this:

So, let's move on. I gave you some substance. Address it. And tell us what you have read. That is not ad hominem and is pertinant to the discussion.

And she said this:

Since you are again continuuing to employ ad hominem, I might consider moving some of these post to the upper forum. I haven't decided. I might respond in here, I don't know. But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

If this is not emotional as well as ad hominem I don't know what is. Marg often drops into this behavior. She is also demanding and rude in almost every thread she is on. I challenged her on what she had read that Smith had written due because it is a key to understanding the man and her theory here that he believed in a non interfering God. She called that ad hominem. It was not. It was pertinent to the discussion. I pointed out that she is a bore when she bullied liz and yes that was ad hominem, emotional and true.. She then says that she won't debate with me and now "dimisses" me.

Ok. But this is all emotional. I was willing to move on, went back and made posted some responses that she could have worked with. But instead she retreats to pouting or putting on an air of "I am too rational and too much of a critial thinker to debate with you irrational cultist. That is emotional as well.

I see this quite often. Miss marg is not at all the even thinker you think she is.

Tah, tah.

Jason,

"Miss marg" is exactly who I think she is. I've been reading her for years and one of my main complaints about her has always been that I think she tends to over analyze and over intellectualize issues without connecting to the emotions and psychology of people. Because I make my connections in the total opposite direction and often think that she doesn't seem to understand what makes people "tick", I find it frustrating to attempt discussion with her. That is who she is on these types of boards and that is why she and I have never been well matched in discussion, typically fail to produce anything fruitful, get stuck and grate on eachother's nerves. We annoy eachother and rarely have anything to do with eachother.

Setting aside how you characterize what she said such as when you say "But instead she retreats to pouting or putting on an air of "I am too rational and too much of a critial thinker to debate with you irrational cultist." That is how you receive what she says.

I see no emotion driven content in her words to you. That is my honest opinion, Jason. I can see how her words would produce an emotional reaction in you. Whether or not that was her intention, I would have no way of knowing that.

Jersey Girl

[_Jason Bourne]

So Jersey Girl, you really think this:

But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

...is not emotional?

I guess we will have to disagree. It is both emotional and ad hominem.

[_Jersey Girl]

So Jersey Girl, you really think this:

But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

...is not emotional?

I guess we will have to disagree. It is both emotional and ad hominem.

Okay...I'm going to be perfectly blunt and if you dislike profanity stop reading this right now.

<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Still here? Okay, as one who once referred to marg as a heartless bitch and who thinks she could extract the pole out of her ass and lighten up a bit and who also knows she doesn't give a damn about what I think any more than I do her, I pose the following questions to you:

On this thread:

1. Where is the first indication of ad hom?
2. Who responded by bearing their testimony?
3. Who posted the first off topic response?
4. Where is the first indication of harrassment?

Do I need to read this thread and find those incidents myself?

Jason, I know just exactly what marg is looking for in a topical discussion/debate because we originally come from the same posting background. On LDS boards, when I've gone into debate mode and try to pull a poster or thread back onto topic, I get the same exact reaction that she is getting here.

Jersey Girl

[_marg]

Grampa75 is a new poster. From how you addressed him, it appeared that it was completely inappropriate for him to respond the way he did, and even intimated that it was not allowed.

I still think there is misunderstanding here. In the scheme of things in life this is not important. However if I’m going to take what I write on a message board seriously, and not treat it like one big joke, if I’m going to treat other posters with respect and assume they post with serious intent to communicate, and if something said angered me then to some extent it’s important to me. Relative to my life it’s not important, relative to participation on this board it is. by the way Grampa75’s post did not anger me.

Please keep in mind Liz I fully appreciate your moderation efforts are work, it’s not fun, it’s not something I’d ever want to do, it’s time consuming. You volunteer, so there is no need to take s*** from anyone. You have better things to do with your time and don't deserve that.

I wrote: “It's not just a matter of this thread Shades, if someone posts a reply to someone else..and in that reply they don't address the content of what they are replying to, it is should be within anyone's right to comment in response that the post didn't address content and to please next time do so. It simply is not acceptable for a moderator under those circumstances to counter that request and say it's a free speech zone..anything goes.” But from your response, you are still not appreciating the concepts I'm trying to get across.

I'm going to comment on your response, Liz:

Grampa75 is a new poster. From how you addressed him, it appeared that it was completely inappropriate for him to respond the way he did, and even intimated that it was not allowed.

The intimation is your perception. I didn’t intimate anything of the sort that he wasn’t allowed to post his testimony on the board. Grampa75 made one post in the thread, he quoted my post.

Look at what I say to him: please do not respond with your testimony of your faith, please stick with the issues presented and address contents of post to which you are replying using your "reasoning".

It’s a request, it’s not a demand. Grampa 75 did absolutely nothing wrong. And I didn’t say he did. Your focus is on the word “testimony” that he should be able to give his testimony. Grampa75 could just as easily have posted a song, a poem, a quote from somewhere, or utter nonsense and I likely would have said the same thing if his response to me had nothing to do with my post. I’m treating Gramp75 with respect. I’m responding to him, not ignoring him, and I’m letting him know what I expect if I’m going to communicate with him. And if he wants to communicate with me.

Now, I admit...if Mak or Gaz had posted the same thing, I probably wouldn't have said anything...because they would have countered the way they saw fit. And, frankly, their counter to you, right or wrong, may have been that their testimony was their proof, and they stand by it.

The issue is not that Grampa75’s post was a “testimony.” It only happened to be one in this case. It’s that the testimony in my view had little bearing on anything I said . I appreciate threads don’t stay on topic, they veer off. But if Grampa75 wants me to respond, I need to let him know what it is I will respond to. If Mak or Gaz had done what you suggest, they would be ignoring my request to post in response to my words using reasoning. And they would also be treating me with disrespect. Not everyone is respectful of others that’s not something one can control. But there are ways one can choose to react to disrespect. If an individual makes a reasonable justifiable request of another individual and that request is ignored…a response might be to treat the individual with disrespect in return or simply ignore them.

You can't control how others respond to you. You can, however, set limits of the types of responses you would like to see happen in a thread that you start. And for that, I admit, I crossed the line.

Liz I did not make any demand. And I wasn’t demanding that limits be set. I was making a request to an individual. Where moderation is required is when someone attempts to disrupt a thread and it’s blatantly obvious. If I had made that request and then Grampa75 started posting many posts which were off topic testimony bearing and it was obvious he was just being disruptive…it would be a good time to moderate, and remove those deliberately made disruptive posts out. But it’s got to be blatant attempts at disruption. I haven’t been reading Jason’s posts. What I have read appear to me to be intentionally disrespectful and disruptive. I’ve chosen to ignore him. In my view he's immature, and not worth putting in any effort communicating with him. Good moderation would get rid of his disruptive type posts. But I’m not demanding that. This thread isn’t that important to me, if it was then I’d make that demand. But for this thread…I’ll let his words be a reflection of the person he is. His words are not a relection of me, so it doesn't concern me what he says.

As I stated earlier, my intent was not to hurt you or disrespect you. My intent was to protect a new poster. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Well there is still misunderstanding, but there is no need to apologize. I know you had no malice intent. I appreciate more than you are aware of why you responded as you did. However, I hope you don’t mind my being open with my thoughts on this matter. The best one can hope for is that people treat others with the respect they deserve. We don’t always do so, whether intentional or not and sometimes it’s a result of misunderstandings.

[_marg]

So Jersey Girl, you really think this:

But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

...is not emotional?

I guess we will have to disagree. It is both emotional and ad hominem.

You think I'm being emotional with the above? It's really being quite objective and honest. Mormonism is listed on web sites which list cults. That's not my doing. The reason I used the word "cult" is because of the way people have reacted in this thread, very cultish. The notion that Smith might have been atheist or deist..is upsetting emotionally to Mormons it seems and the way it's handled is by being disrespectful to the messenger, by pushing one's own agenda(bearing testimony), by ignoring the reasons given, by attempting to disrupt the thread, by protecting Mormons who bear their testimony, by adhominem fallacy..that is shifting focus away from the argument made and onto the person and attacking them.