You just don't get it, come back in three days!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Maybe your "tone" raised some curiosity on MAD, too?


Come on Ray, who do you think you're talking to?

Well all know that all forms of "tone" are perfectly welcomed at MAD. What makes the difference is who is doing the talking. This is why the mods are constantly trying to categorize posters as they appear. They are either with us or against us, and if they don't demonstrate any apologetic tendencies, they are treated with skepticism and a watchful eye. I was told I was put on teh que because I no longer offered as many apologetic posts anymore. They felt I was no longer running to support struggling apologists, so they figured I was not worth keeping on anymore. But I did get away with challenging DCP for a few years, which is something no one else can boast.

Since then they have learned their lesson, and the minute anyone challenges DCP on any level, well, you can forget about it. He or she is history. It is only a matter minutes, hours or possibly days, depending on how long it takes the mods to conjure up some kind of deportation strategy to make them appear justified in their actions. This is why people like Scott Loyd and Russel McGregor are so welcomed there. They are always the first to jump to the scene and offer all sorts of convoluted rationalizations as to why the banned poster got what he or she deserved and why teh moderators are noble people who only expect people to follow their "rules."

When rough tone comes from pricks like Pahoran, then all is well because he is a Mormon and Mormons are persecuted victims of hate, therefore any response is merely "defensive" and therefore justified no matter what the "tone." We've heard this warped rationalization over and over. Nobody buys into it except a handful of followers there; the usual suspects. I'd bet that the majority of the TBMs at MAD aren't buying it either. I know quite a few who think he and Juliann and a few other are first class jackasses.

But the board is owned by the leading jackass.

No surprises there.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

GoodK wrote:It's really more simple than that. Are you saying that me calling you a Mormon is offensive?


Not at all. I'm talking about applying labels. Assuming labels.

There are two posters here, one admits to being an anti-Mormon, the other anti-Mormonism. I like that honesty, to be frank.

But because someone rejects the title "anti-Mormon", doesn't mean they aren't anti-Mormon. I don't recall Ed Decker ever admitting that he's an anti-Mormon. Do you think blind Freddy can see the truth?
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Has Dan ever called you an anti-Mormon? I don't know, you tell me.


I am pretty sure he has, though it wouldn't have really bothered me enough to respond to.

I know I have been called anti-Mormon by several at MAD.

They need me to be designated as such because that is half the battle when they are trying to convince people never to listen to me. Because if you listen to an anti-Mormon, Satan might be able to suck you in. The spirit won't protect you because, as a good Mormon, you should have known better than to listen to anti-Mormonism.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

GoodK wrote:I see. A personal bias was obvious, just didn't know where exactly it was coming from.


And you have no personal bias. When do you get translated into heaven?
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Ray A wrote:
GoodK wrote:It's really more simple than that. Are you saying that me calling you a Mormon is offensive?


Not at all. I'm talking about applying labels. Assuming labels.

There are two posters here, one admits to being an anti-Mormon, the other anti-Mormonism. I like that honesty, to be frank.

But because someone rejects the title "anti-Mormon", doesn't mean they aren't anti-Mormon. I don't recall Ed Decker ever admitting that he's an anti-Mormon. Do you think blind Freddy can see the truth?


Just pointing out an apparent bias. Simmer down pal. And I contend that your theory regarding "two posters" is manifestly false. I am no more Anti-Mormonism or Anti-Mormon than I am Anti-Astrology, Anti-Racism, Anti-Thor...
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

There are two posters here, one admits to being an anti-Mormon, the other anti-Mormonism. I like that honesty, to be frank.



I am anti-Mormonism I suppose, but I am also at times, pro-Mormonism. So to plug me into either cubby-hole wouldn't be fair.

I guess it could be said that I am anti-Mormon, because I argue with Mormons, but I am not arguing with them because they are Mormons. I argue because I genuinely disagree with them.

Anti-Mormon is ambiguous at best, and the apologists know this. But they aren't interested in acknolwedging the problem this poses, nor are they interested in giving critics the benefit of the doubt when they very well might not qualify as such. They are only interested in being "technically" correct by using it ina broad sweeping manner because they know that in so doing, they have won half the battle. Pretty cheap if you ask me. I'd expect it from a politician.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

dartagnan wrote:I am pretty sure he has, though it wouldn't have really bothered me enough to respond to.

I know I have been called anti-Mormon by several at MAD.

They need me to be designated as such because that is half the battle when they are trying to convince people never to listen to me. Because if you listen to an anti-Mormon, Satan might be able to suck you in. The spirit won't protect you because, as a good Mormon, you should have known better than to listen to anti-Mormonism.


Well Kev, I have some information for you. I have had extensive correspondence with Dan, and he has never once called you an anti-Mormon. Of course he felt you were very negative, and unable to dialogue with civility, but he never consigned you to the realms of "Satan".
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Ray A wrote:
dartagnan wrote:I am pretty sure he has, though it wouldn't have really bothered me enough to respond to.

I know I have been called anti-Mormon by several at MAD.

They need me to be designated as such because that is half the battle when they are trying to convince people never to listen to me. Because if you listen to an anti-Mormon, Satan might be able to suck you in. The spirit won't protect you because, as a good Mormon, you should have known better than to listen to anti-Mormonism.


Well Kev, I have some information for you. I have had extensive correspondence with Dan, and he has never once called you an anti-Mormon. Of course he felt you were very negative, and unable to dialogue with civility, but he never consigned you to the realms of "Satan".


And I'm sure Kevin is soothed by the fact that he is the topic of your correspondences with DCP.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

GoodK wrote:And I contend that your theory regarding "two posters" is manifestly false.


Why? Please explain.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Ray A wrote:I have had extensive correspondence with Dan


Queue the cheesy love music...
Post Reply