Do some MAD posters need our validation?

[_cksalmon]

Additionally, some posters at MAD are really making an honest effort to have good discussions without being vitriolic.

This is quite true. It seems they're quickly becoming a minority voice, though. I could name probably ten of those non-vitriolic, good-natured, pleasant folks off the top of my head--and the Doc would be el numero uno.*

I was just lamenting this situation the other night with PacMan--one of the good ones (and one with whom I regularly and enjoyably disagree, by the way). I'm not saying he agreed with me wholeheartedly, but he is someone off of which one can bounce ideas.

*Attempting to validate the good doctor. *Validation Failed* "Please insert more quarters into the machine."

CKS

[_Runtu]

Additionally, some posters at MAD are really making an honest effort to have good discussions without being vitriolic.

This is quite true. It seems they're quickly becoming a minority voice, though. I could name probably ten of those non-vitriolic, good-natured, pleasant folks off the top of my head--and the Doc would be el numero uno.*

I was just lamenting this situation the other night with PacMan--one of the good ones (and one with whom I regularly and enjoyably disagree, by the way). I'm not saying he agreed with me wholeheartedly, but he is someone off of which one can bounce ideas.

*Attempting to validate the good doctor. *Validation Failed* "Please insert more quarters into the machine."

CKS

I agree. There are good people here and over there. Sometimes the good ones get drowned out by the vitriol. But I agree with you about Steuss (even Juliann likes him) and PacMan. There are some others (HiJolly has been exceedingly kind to me). Of course it doesn't help when we let the vitriolic folks get to us. I really lost my temper yesterday, and I shouldn't have.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Keep the validations coming please. It appears that my ego will still be able to fit in the car with me on the ride home.

----------

MA&D seems to go through cycles though. There will be a period of light-heartedness. Then there will be a period where LDS and nonLDS find ways to disagree without being disagreeable. Then there will be a period where a bunch of people with hardly any grammar skills will start posting in large numbers (and you need a seer stone to interpret their posts), then there will be... well, I'm sure you get my point.

I'm sure that in a few weeks (or months) we will have the greats back in action, reminding me that not all EVs are bad, it’s ok to like ex-Mormons, and atheists aren’t the spawn of Satan.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I agree. There are good people here and over there. Sometimes the good ones get drowned out by the vitriol. But I agree with you about Steuss (even Juliann likes him) and PacMan. There are some others (HiJolly has been exceedingly kind to me). Of course it doesn't help when we let the vitriolic folks get to us. I really lost my temper yesterday, and I shouldn't have.

There definitely are some good people over there! Oh, I'd list them but know I'd forget a few... but I'll try. HiJolly, GardenGirl, Eliza (oh that's not her name and I can't recall it?!), Calmoriah, DCP, Charity, Selek, Consig, Steuss, Cacheman, Deborah, Paul Ray, bluebell.... oh shoot and so many more.

I think probably the majority of the people over there are good people. It's just this medium and pack mentality can bring out the aggression at times. Too bad. :(

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed, monkeys, one must keep in mind the tendency of people online to be more brash than they might be in real life. But it really is hard to tell, either way.

[_moksha]

OK, it is nearly 4 a.m. and I wish I was sleeping. But I just checked, and half the top 10 topics are about MA&D in some way. I checked over on MA&D and there aren't any about anyone here or this board.

Why?

The why is that mention of this board is not allowed, especially with links to it. That is too bad, since I think they are interesting counterparts to one another. Sort of like the lawless wild west gunslinger as juxtaposed to the fastidious and rule oriented School Marm. These archetypes both have a place in our consciousness, you just can't talk about it at MAD - after all, rules are rules.


You've got us hot talking about rules Moksha. For that, we're gonna take you out back and beat you for a while. ~ mods

[_mms]

I just started a topic at MA&D entitled:

"Do some TBM posters here actually want people to criticize the church and its leaders?"

I stated the following:

Pahoran started a thread today entitled:

"Boyd K. Packer At Conference, The Mormon Torquemada in action"

and proceeded to post the following:

President Packer's talk is here. It is vintage BKP, absolutely spot on in terms of doctrine and factuality.

I wonder what excuses people will find to attack it?

Regards,
Pahoran

Selek chimed in:

Don't worry, P.

They'll make something up as usual.

Likely something to do with how this talk is proof that the Church hides it history becuase it wasn't branded across their foreheads with a white-hot poker in foot-high letters.

Then Will Schryver:

I just can't understand why President Packer didn't list all of the things for which the exmormons are ashamed of us, and offer up some sackcloth and ashes apologies for everything.

Finally, Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Actually when something is really good. (Not that Im not saying that all of the apostles talks arent good) IT is hard to take an issue with it. I doubt we will see anybody try to "tackle" this one.

It seems like these folks may be "double daring" critics to say something negative about Elder Packer or his remarks. It is dawning on me that it just may be (emphasis on "may") that some here (e.g., possibly some in this particular group) actually desire others to criticize, so that they can then attack the critic and feel good about "defending" the faith. Seriously, read the above again.

What was the point of Pahoran's post, then Selek's, etc.? It seems like (emphasis on "seems") the point was to lure someone into criticizing. It is as if Pahoran has been waiting patiently to pounce on someone for attacking Elder Packer's talk, and since they have not, he thought he would see what he could do to stir up some criticism. I think this may help in trying to understand the mindset of some of the most aggressive (you know what I mean) "defenders." I invite them to disabuse me (and others who may agree) of this notion.

We'll see what they have to say.

[_mms]

Well, that was quick. Thread closed after Selek told me that I had my head up my a**, etc.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

mms, is this really what you're all about? Come on, now.

[_mms]

What do you mean LOAP? I thought Pahoran's thread and the posts therein were quite interesting as they relate to this thread, here. Indeed, go back and look, Pahoran has successfully obtained the critical remarks he was seeking about Elder Packer's talk. It worked. He wanted people to criticize Elder Packer and they are (in a rather saracastic manner, of course).

But, really, what do you mean by your question, as I think I have been entirely consistent through all of my posts here and at MA&D. (According to Selek, I have consistently had my head up my a**, or a tube of preparation H up my a**--indeed, Selek seems to have a bit of a fixation.)