Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_JAK]

JAK,

Thank you for the demonstration that there are posts not worth reading. I shall forthwith not bother with yours. As to my own participation, see mine other thread.

And the idea that I should set up my own board to waste more of my time moderating dingbats like you is worse than absurd.

Oh, this is not smart, Don Bradley. The man posted a series of thoughtful comments and posed questions, both of his posts to you were civilized and in response, you resort to name calling.

Not well received on this end, Don.

For as long as I've communicated with JAK (which can be numbered in years) he has never once been in need of moderating. Not once, not ever.

Jersey

Hi Jersey Girl,

Thank you for the comment and kind word. As you observed, I was asking questions of Don and making a suggestion that he might start his own bb and construct it in a way which he liked better.

Although he didn’t answer questions, I think there is no way a bb such as this can operate 24/7 with someone policing every post. To be sure there will be layers and layers of nonsense… (Mark Twain) embedded in the many posts to a bb such as this. I’m skeptical that Don or anyone could prevent that single-handedly.

There is opportunity on a forum such as this for academic discussion. At the same time, there is the opening for the trite, trivial, and personal attack.

Since I read but a fraction of the posts on this entire forum, I wanted you to know that I saw the above post of yours (Feb 09, 2008 6:01 pm).

It’s unfortunate than I cannot post this directly under your post with a graphic link straight to the post. But, not all forums are set up the same way. (Flexible freedom in bb setup)

JAK

[_Blixa]

I've long wished that I could find the kind of discussions of Mormon history I would like to participate in here.

I agree whole heartedly. I have been on these boards for about 5 years now. There has yet to be a board where people regularly have the kind of discussion of Mormonism that I am interested in.

John

“Mormonism” is but one of more than a thousand groups or organized denominations purporting to spread Christianity.

My question, John and others who express what you do, is just why the fixation on merely one of these many groups which have differing interpretations and doctrines on the same religion?

Such a view would seem to obscure the larger perspective of various Christian doctrines and dogmas which are all a part of the evolution of Christianity.

Why, then, such an exclusive focus on a group which has such a short history in Christianity?

There was no such thing as “Mormonism” prior to the mid 1800s. It’s a new-comer in the various splits, divisions, and start-ups which operate under the larger umbrella of Christianity.

I understand the title of this board appears to be focused on a single denomination. However, from the individual contributions to discussion, it also appears that there is a considerably wider perspective in the total of those who have participated.

JAK

Because talking about christianity as a whole doesn't interest me. I'm not interested in religious studies. Yes, I know that much of the logical criticisms of Mormon belief apply to christianity itself---that's why I'm not a believer (well, it partly is). But I'm not interested in arguing against or defending belief.

I am interested in Mormonism for several reasons and one is its relative "newness" makes its history more transparent. I'm interested in the history of its development and changes. I'm interested in the way they both reproduce and run counter to larger american cultural traditions. I'm also interested in the history of the american west and Mormonism has played a very interesting role in that.

Because I grew up in Utah, I grew up within Mormonism whether I ever participated or believed to the fullest degree. It played a significant role in my development---often as a negative---and thus made me aware at an early age of issues of gender, race, hegemonic politics and authoritarianism. I've been away from Utah, away from thinking about Mormonism, away from even noticing religion for a long time and in "returning" to study it recently I find it fascinating in part for unabashedly autobiographical reasons. Had I grown up where I was born perhaps I would feel the same way about Islam.

But you are right about Mormonism's relative "smallness," JAK. I don't know how much of a case I could make about its significance or urgency as a topic of scholarly study. It's by no means central to the subjects that really interest me: critical cultural theory, art, philosophy and literature. I'm currently working on a few projects that relate to Mormon history and the connection with my other areas of interest and expertise is in the question of "history." Mormonism has not only an interesting and unique history, it also has an interesting history of that history---a veritable tradition of historical spin to put it bluntly. That makes it more than just interesting on purely personal grounds.

Once I finish my work, I don't know if I will continue to be interested at the level I am now. I don't know. Certainly, as with any research project, one turns up more material as one goes along than one knew existed previously. At this point it would be quite easy to begin to retool myself as some kind of Mormon studies specialist or a western americana scholar, but I'm not so inclined because I've always avoided placing myself in the narrow scholarly niches of conventional academics. I prefer the trans-disciplinary and the level of theory because I think that kind of knowledge is ultimately more useful to humanity, however, that is not to say that the level of empirical research is without value. In fact my current work has led me to not only appreciate archival research but to revel in it. So despite what is on the one hand the "triviality" of Mormonism, my current interest in it has already paid unexpected, and unexpectedly large, dividends.

[_harmony]

I think a pinned thread in Celestial would fill the needs of Blixa/Don/John. The Spalding thread is an excellent example of the type of discussion that is wanted. So... start a thread in Celestial and the rest of us, who know too little about the subject to be able to participate, will find different threads to post on, and only read that one.

Sound like a deal?

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm saying this one last time, the Celestial Forum is there to be used by anyone who wishes to use it. Complaining that it isn't used enough when one isn't using it themselves doesn't make sense to me at all. As I wrote earlier, I looked at the views count in the Celestial and they are comparable to here in the Terrestrial. What that says to me is that people are reading there. Perhaps the lurkers would like to join in on a variety of topics ? I have no real way of knowing.

I want to say too, that for the first time ever, I was disappointed by Don's OP here. I understand wanting a higher level of discourse however, the key to making it happen...is to make it happen.

Criticizing the nature of postings here in the Terrestrial (where most posters have settled in) is not the way to raise the quality of discussions. This is a community. Some folks are here to learn, to teach, to think and to play. That is the nature of boards like this and probably always will be.

The only way to raise the quality of discussions is for people who wish to do so, to begin those types of discussions and see them through.

Ignore the posters whom you feel are less equipped and go on about your way. I regularly ignore posts by certain posters quite simply because I don't wish to get sucked into the vortex of opposing them, though I do it sometimes.

If you view your time here as a waste of your resources, then limit your time here.

Don Bradley, you know how much I like you and always have, but I have to say that your criticizing the community or the style of moderation instead of limiting your own time here really bugs the living hell out of me. If you see this as a non-worthwhile expenditure of your time, then the simple answer is to do something else that you feel is more worthy and productive.

Your OP and some of your comments were an insult to the community that welcomes you.

What you fail to recognize is that you post here with us and while you perhaps feel disgusted with yourself for the amount of time you put in here, it's not okay to lay that disgust on the community at large.

Not received well on this side of the screen and I'm sorry that is so. I hope this post is enough to get this out of my gut.

Jersey

[_DonBradley]

JAK,

Thank you for the demonstration that there are posts not worth reading. I shall forthwith not bother with yours. As to my own participation, see mine other thread.

And the idea that I should set up my own board to waste more of my time moderating dingbats like you is worse than absurd.

Oh, this is not smart, Don Bradley. The man posted a series of thoughtful comments and posed questions, both of his posts to you were civilized and in response, you resort to name calling.

Not well received on this end, Don.

For as long as I've communicated with JAK (which can be numbered in years) he has never once been in need of moderating. Not once, not ever.

Jersey

Jersey,

His comments either intentionally or unintentionally distorted mine, and, at this point in my exit from the board, I really don't have the interest to engage such misrepresentations, however motivated.

I've served as a moderator of Internet lists, one private list of c. 200 members for the last eight years. I'm not unaware of the issues involved in moderation, nor in the effort that must be invested.

There are frequent participants on this forum whose comments consistently belong elsewhere, and their inane, vacuous comments act as one of the principal stimuli for discussion on the forum. The result? Much discussion about worse than nothing. A bunch of fool carping. All of which could be prevented, at least to a great extent, by tightening and enforcing the rules for the Terrestrial Forum, and banning consistent and flagrant violators, at least for a given term, to the lower "kingdoms." JAK, et al. can whine about how impossible this would be, and represent me as ignorant for suggesting it. But, in fact, there's nothing that difficult about either identifying or disciplining flagrant rule violators; and it really would improve the quality of discourse.

What's more JAK's response was to charge in, bull-headedly, to demean me and my desire for better discussion without any attempt at understanding. That he got a dismissive response in return should not surprise him.

I consider myself fortunate to be extricating myself from the need to deal with such obtuseness, and look forward to investing my time more productively. I can only hope that continuing participants in MDB will invest their time on the board more productively, and not blow a spark plug if it's suggested--accurately--that the discussion could be much more intelligent, rewarding, and enjoyable.

Don

[_antishock8]

Dude. Stop being a pussy. !

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Thank you for the demonstration that there are posts not worth reading. I shall forthwith not bother with yours. As to my own participation, see mine other thread.

And the idea that I should set up my own board to waste more of my time moderating dingbats like you is worse than absurd.

Oh, this is not smart, Don Bradley. The man posted a series of thoughtful comments and posed questions, both of his posts to you were civilized and in response, you resort to name calling.

Not well received on this end, Don.

For as long as I've communicated with JAK (which can be numbered in years) he has never once been in need of moderating. Not once, not ever.

Jersey

Jersey,

His comments either intentionally or unintentionally distorted mine, and, at this point in my exit from the board, I really don't have the interest to engage such misrepresentations, however motivated.

I've served as a moderator of Internet lists, one private list of c. 200 members for the last eight years. I'm not unaware of the issues involved in moderation, nor in the effort that must be invested.

There are frequent participants on this forum whose comments consistently belong elsewhere, and their inane, vacuous comments act as one of the principal stimuli for discussion on the forum. The result? Much discussion about worse than nothing. A bunch of fool carping. All of which could be prevented, at least to a great extent, by tightening and enforcing the rules for the Terrestrial Forum, and banning consistent and flagrant violators, at least for a given term, to the lower "kingdoms." JAK, et al. can whine about how impossible this would be, and represent me as ignorant for suggesting it. But, in fact, there's nothing that difficult about either identifying or disciplining flagrant rule violators; and it really would improve the quality of discourse.

What's more JAK's response was to charge in, bull-headedly, to demean me and my desire for better discussion without any attempt at understanding. That he got a dismissive response in return should not surprise him.

I consider myself fortunate to be extricating myself from the need to deal with such obtuseness, and look forward to investing my time more productively. I can only hope that continuing participants in MDB will invest their time on the board more productively, and not blow a spark plug if it's suggested--accurately--that the discussion could be much more intelligent, rewarding, and enjoyable.

Don

I disagree with you and while I may choose to respond at length later in the day, I will tell you this much. I think your reaction to JAK was over the top. In no way did he "charge in" or attempt to demean you. I know something about JAK's academic background and experience online. I have been on the receiving end of him more times than either of us can count. I wholly object to your characterizing him as a "dingbat" and I say this about my long time adversary in discussion and debate. The man has given me more knots in my stomach than any 10 posters online however, I have learned more from him than I ever had a right to expect.

If you need to do something more productive with your time, then do that, Don.

I'm going to be perfectly honest here as I tried to be in my above response to you. You are complaining about the amount of time you invest here and yet you invest it. No one here is forcing you to do that. You admit that you have an online addiction and I think there are so many here who would agree with that on their own part. There is nothing inherently wrong with that in my eyes.

You simply cannot criticize the community at large as being a waste of your time, when only you have the ability to control your time here. When you figure out that you are voluntarily spending too much time here, you lash out at the board and level of posters instead of looking inward to where the problem appears to originate.

If you want higher level discussions....start them and participate in them.

I want you to know that your OP and some of your comments on this thread come off as smug and I don't like the way it makes me feel. Not that you're here to make me feel any particular way. It looks like you are frustrated with yourself and spitting on everyone around you.

Only a friend would tell you that...like it or not.

Jersey

[_skippy the dead]

The only way to raise the quality of discussions is for people who wish to do so, to begin those types of discussions and see them through.

Ignore the posters whom you feel are less equipped and go on about your way. I regularly ignore posts by certain posters quite simply because I don't wish to get sucked into the vortex of opposing them, though I do it sometimes.

Ideally you are correct. The problem I've seen (and it seems particularly pronounced as of late) is that an otherwise interesting thread degenerates rapidly into a mud flinging contest after a few "choice" comments, never to return back on track. After a thread devolves in such a way, recovery tends to be impossible. Ignoring posters doesn't do the trick - the thread can be destroyed easily by just a few.

[_Jersey Girl]

The only way to raise the quality of discussions is for people who wish to do so, to begin those types of discussions and see them through.

Ignore the posters whom you feel are less equipped and go on about your way. I regularly ignore posts by certain posters quite simply because I don't wish to get sucked into the vortex of opposing them, though I do it sometimes.

Ideally you are correct. The problem I've seen (and it seems particularly pronounced as of late) is that an otherwise interesting thread degenerates rapidly into a mud flinging contest after a few "choice" comments, never to return back on track. After a thread devolves in such a way, recovery tends to be impossible. Ignoring posters doesn't do the trick - the thread can be destroyed easily by just a few.

Not in the Celestial Forum, skippy.

[_Jersey Girl]

And also, skippy, I think that a threaded view option would take care of some of the problems we have wading knee deep through junk on the threads. Just my thought.