Charity wrote:I think you don't spend a lot of time with FAIRites. Most of the posters on MA&D are not members of FAIR. I happen to be now, but I posted for quite a while on the FAIR message board and now MA&D without being a member. And still, even after I joined I spent quite a while as a fairly passive member before I joined the e-list and started actually participating in FAIR activities.
I know what these individuals talk about about the issue of people leaving the Church. They don't smugly dismiss anyone's reasons.
This is an interesting point. It's one of the reasons I'm glad that FAIR and the FAIR Message Board parted ways.
Have you ever spoken with any of the more caustic folks on MAD and mentioned that the attitude portrayed typically there is completely counter to FAIR's purpose?
It might not make a difference, but who knows?
Like you said, FAIR and MA&D aren't the same thing. I only know a couple of the "more caustic" folk on MA&D. They have different posting styles than mine. I suppose it is pretty much the same thing as merc's insults, that we are all supposed to be tolerant of. You know, that tolerance and openess that makes this board such a wonderful place to be compared to MA&D.
charity wrote:Like you said, FAIR and MA&D aren't the same thing. I only know a couple of the "more caustic" folk on MA&D. They have different posting styles than mine. I suppose it is pretty much the same thing as merc's insults, that we are all supposed to be tolerant of. You know, that tolerance and openess that makes this board such a wonderful place to be compared to MA&D.
I would tolerate selek and Hammer here fine. Tolerating them on MAD is a whole different issue because neither they nor the mods return would that tolerance there, which I'm sure you realize.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
charity wrote:Like you said, FAIR and MA&D aren't the same thing. I only know a couple of the "more caustic" folk on MA&D. They have different posting styles than mine. I suppose it is pretty much the same thing as merc's insults, that we are all supposed to be tolerant of. You know, that tolerance and openess that makes this board such a wonderful place to be compared to MA&D.
Sigh. I'm not tolerant of Merc's insults, but that's how this board is run. And no one is asking you or me to be tolerant of those insults. Why is it so hard to see that there is bad behavior on both sides? I don't like hate, no matter where it comes from, and I certainly wouldn't excuse it as a "different posting style."
The Church is busy trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. It doesn't need to use its time and resources responding to every crackpot and yahoo that brings up an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument.
You only pasted part of it, zoidberg. A little deceptive there since you left off important information. By design?
This is the whole entry.
"Question: If the Church doesn't respond to the anti-Mormons, then why do you?
Answer: The Church is busy trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. It doesn't need to use its time and resources responding to every crackpot and yahoo that brings up an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument. We, on the other hand, are volunteers that like doing this stuff. We hope it is helpful to you."
Are you a crackpot or a yahoo with an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument? If not, then that doesn't apply to you, does it? However, if you are, then no, the Church doesn't need to use its time and resources to respond to you.
I find it interesting that some people self-identify and then get mad about it.
charity wrote:Are you a crackpot or a yahoo with an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument?
She might not be, but I am. :)
If not, then that doesn't apply to you, does it? However, if you are, then no, the Church doesn't need to use its time and resources to respond to you.
I find it interesting that some people self-identify and then get mad about it.
Most people just get mad about backhanded slams (like the preceding).
charity wrote:Like you said, FAIR and MA&D aren't the same thing. I only know a couple of the "more caustic" folk on MA&D. They have different posting styles than mine. I suppose it is pretty much the same thing as merc's insults, that we are all supposed to be tolerant of. You know, that tolerance and openess that makes this board such a wonderful place to be compared to MA&D.
I would tolerate selek and Hammer here fine. Tolerating them on MAD is a whole different issue because neither they nor the mods return would that tolerance there, which I'm sure you realize.
I know selek personally, but not hammer. I haven't seen anything that selek posts on MA&D which is objectionable. Hammer is a little over the top, as far as I am concerned. But only very occasionally. They call things as they seem them, but are not anything like the name calling juveniles that post here.
charity wrote:I know selek personally, but not hammer. I haven't seen anything that selek posts on MA&D which is objectionable. Hammer is a little over the top, as far as I am concerned. But only very occasionally. They call things as they seem them, but are not anything like the name calling juveniles that post here.
You must have missed the part where selek told mms to take the cap off the Preparation H before shoving it up his rectum. Is that somehow less objectionable than Merc's use of profanity?
charity wrote:Like you said, FAIR and MA&D aren't the same thing. I only know a couple of the "more caustic" folk on MA&D. They have different posting styles than mine. I suppose it is pretty much the same thing as merc's insults, that we are all supposed to be tolerant of. You know, that tolerance and openess that makes this board such a wonderful place to be compared to MA&D.
Sigh. I'm not tolerant of Merc's insults, but that's how this board is run. And no one is asking you or me to be tolerant of those insults. Why is it so hard to see that there is bad behavior on both sides? I don't like hate, no matter where it comes from, and I certainly wouldn't excuse it as a "different posting style."
I agree with you about hate. I haven't seen any "hate" even in the caustic posts. I know one person whom you might call "caustic." Another couple come to mind that I don't know personally. The one I know does not hate ex-Mormons or critics, but does not "suffer fools gladly." If you want to make an anti-argument around this person, there had better be no chinks in your armor or you will get an arrow in a soft spot.
I don't like bad behavior on either side. We agree.
The Church is busy trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. It doesn't need to use its time and resources responding to every crackpot and yahoo that brings up an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument.
You only pasted part of it, zoidberg. A little deceptive there since you left off important information. By design?
This is the whole entry.
"Question: If the Church doesn't respond to the anti-Mormons, then why do you? Answer: The Church is busy trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. It doesn't need to use its time and resources responding to every crackpot and yahoo that brings up an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument. We, on the other hand, are volunteers that like doing this stuff. We hope it is helpful to you."
Are you a crackpot or a yahoo with an old rehashed anti-Mormon argument? If not, then that doesn't apply to you, does it? However, if you are, then no, the Church doesn't need to use its time and resources to respond to you.
I find it interesting that some people self-identify and then get mad about it.
I don't see how it was being deceptive. What does the last part of the answer have to do with anything?
I think saying "they don't have time to reply to every crackpot and yahoo with rehashed anti-mormon arguments" strongly implies that most, if not all of the anti-mormons are crackpots and yahoos. And have crappy arguments. Nice frame. Note that the question asks about anti-mormons in general, not the anti-mormons of below average intelligence, and the Church doesn't respond even to self-identified anti-mormons such as the Tanners, who are obviously neither crackpots nor yahoos. Not to mention the fact that their gift of discernment is much better than GBH's. When it comes to forgeries, at least. So the answer appears to imply that anti-mormons, in general, are stupid.
I don't identify as an anti-mormon, crackpot, or yahoo. But why are you dragging me into this? You say FAIRites don't engage in smug dismissals. So I give you an official statement from them that appears not only to assert inferiority of a group of people as opposed to their own superior apologetic abilities (isn't that what smugness means? me no speaky English, so correct me if I'm wrong), but to also dismiss all arguments out of hand as old and rehashed. Looks like a smug dismissal to me, and pretty broadly applied at that. Am I alone in this opinion?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
charity wrote:I agree with you about hate. I haven't seen any "hate" even in the caustic posts. I know one person whom you might call "caustic." Another couple come to mind that I don't know personally. The one I know does not hate ex-Mormons or critics, but does not "suffer fools gladly." If you want to make an anti-argument around this person, there had better be no chinks in your armor or you will get an arrow in a soft spot.
I don't like bad behavior on either side. We agree.
Well, maybe I'm too close to this issue, but when your "caustic" friends ridicule my depression, tell me that my suicidal feelings are my own fault because I left the church, say I'm in big trouble with God because I "know better," call me a hypocrite, liar, "wolf in sheep's clothing," whiner, loser, moron, and so on, I tend to see that as hate.