Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_Moniker]

But, for heaven's sake, I don't appreciate lectures from someone who so frequently---and egregiously---derails threads with posts of that nature.

Hear hear! For the most part we're all a bunch of whiny hypocrites. We like to derail when we're doing it!

Am I annoying anyone yet? Hope so!

[_skippy the dead]

Am I annoying anyone yet? Hope so!

Not yet. You'll have to try harder. (insert winking smilie here)

[_Mister Scratch]

Is Ray A -- Mormon Pimp Daddy (or whatever it was called) still in this forum?

Again: Was that thread a genuine "attack thread," or do you dislike it simply because it offended you personally? If it is the latter, then I would say: Tough. There's no reason why the board should conform to your personal whims. As Dr. Shades has noted, threads which involve BOTH personalities AND Mormon-related issues deserve to have a full treatment in this forum. I say this as the person who has enjoyed perhaps more personal "attack threads" than anyone else here. Personalized threads on me have been fired up by Wade, rcrocket, Ray, and Coggins (and I may be forgetting some; Coggins, by the way, mentions me in practically every single one of his stupid "songs").

While the "Ray A--A Mormon John?" thread did examine some of Ray's past activities, it did so within the context of his status as a Mormon apologist, and his professed love for the BoM---a love which stands in rather stark contrast to some of his personal activities. I tried repeatedly to point this out to you, and to explain why it had a bearing on Mormon-related issues, but you continuously said that you either didn't understand, or didn't care.

Some threads *are* very obviously pure "attack threads." Others, though, have a pretty clear relationship to some aspect of Mormonism. To my mind, it is better to err on this side of caution and restraint when it comes to censoring and/or banishing threads.

[_Moniker]

Is Ray A -- Mormon Pimp Daddy (or whatever it was called) still in this forum?

Again: Was that thread a genuine "attack thread," or do you dislike it simply because it offended you personally? If it is the latter, then I would say: Tough. There's no reason why the board should conform to your personal whims. As Dr. Shades has noted, threads which involve BOTH personalities AND Mormon-related issues deserve to have a full treatment in this forum. I say this as the person who has enjoyed perhaps more personal "attack threads" than anyone else here. Personalized threads on me have been fired up by Wade, rcrocket, Ray, and Coggins (and I may be forgetting some; Coggins, by the way, mentions me in practically every single one of his stupid "songs").

While the "Ray A--A Mormon John?" thread did examine some of Ray's past activities, it did so within the context of his status as a Mormon apologist, and his professed love for the BoM---a love which stands in rather stark contrast to some of his personal activities. I tried repeatedly to point this out to you, and to explain why it had a bearing on Mormon-related issues, but you continuously said that you either didn't understand, or didn't care.

Some threads *are* very obviously pure "attack threads." Others, though, have a pretty clear relationship to some aspect of Mormonism. To my mind, it is better to err on this side of caution and restraint when it comes to censoring and/or banishing threads.

That thread was a personal attack -- but that's not why I participated in it. You know why I participated in it -- as I stated repeatedly in the thread and then later to you outside of the thread. Bringing in someones activities as it relates to sexual matters does not strike me as having ANYTHING to do with the Church. Should we start asking all the ex-Mos on this board who humps prostitutes? Who had an affair when they were in the Church? Why not? 'Cause it is a PERSONAL matter and bringing in material to embarrass and shame someone with NO clear connection to LDS is a personal attack. Ray is a poster -- not a big name apologist. That thread was about HIM -- not about the Church.

I don't think they should be censored or banished. They should be put in the appropriate forums.

~Editing~
The Church takes on sexual matters -- and asking posters to weigh in on how they dealt with it would seem appropriate. Singling one poster out for his behavior is a personal attack.

[_Mister Scratch]

That thread was a personal attack -- but that's not why I participated in it. You know why I participated in it -- as I stated repeatedly in the thread and then later to you outside of the thread. Bringing in someones activities as it relates to sexual matters does not strike me as having ANYTHING to do with the Church.

I know it strikes you as being that way. But Gad and others clearly saw how it had a bearing on Church-related topics.

Should we start asking all the ex-Mos on this board who humps prostitutes? Who had an affair when they were in the Church? Why not?

Feel free to ask, if you'd like. I don't really care. Ray freely offered up his stories about all of this stuff; he wasn't even asked in the first place.

'Cause it is a PERSONAL matter

If it so "personal" as to preclude LDS-related discussion about it, then I daresay Ray shouldn't have ever mentioned it to begin with.

and bringing in material to embarrass and shame someone with NO clear connection to LDS is a personal attack.
Ray is a poster -- not a big name apologist. That thread was about HIM -- not about the Church.

A couple of things:
1) Ray *is* an apologist, and quite an important and prominent one on account of the fact that he has been around for so long, and the fact that he underwent such a colossal change of heart (i.e., from "YOUR F***ING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD!!!", to "An LDS holocaust is on the way!") Further, he is "big name" enough that DCP took time out of his trip to Australia in order to visit Ray in his home.
2) You have professed many times that you are somewhat "ignorant" on Church-related subjects, so what makes you think that you are knowledgeable enough to determine whether or not the thread had anything to do with the Church?
3) The BoM---which Ray claims he loves enough to defend until he dies---has some very, very clear things to say on the subject of prostitution. It is worth examining how and why such views might figure into the larger framework of Mopologetics.
4) How many of your "let's explore emotions" threads have had a clear and direct bearing on Church themes? Many of them, so far as I can tell, have had little or nothing to do with Mormonism. Does this therefore mean that they should get consigned to the off-topic forum? I don't really think so.

I don't think they should be censored or banished. They should be put in the appropriate forums.

In the context of this MB, what, at heart, is the difference?

[Guest]

That thread was a personal attack -- but that's not why I participated in it. You know why I participated in it -- as I stated repeatedly in the thread and then later to you outside of the thread. Bringing in someones activities as it relates to sexual matters does not strike me as having ANYTHING to do with the Church.

I know it strikes you as being that way. But Gad and others clearly saw how it had a bearing on Church-related topics.

Actually the first responses by Gad and Beastie said NOTHING about the Church! Nothing! And I pointed it out and asked that they be moved off-topic. THEN Gad came back in trying to tie it into LDS. Beastie later came back in and the thread devolved into how awful and gross men are that deal with prostitutes and sex industry workers -- which was what the intent was (I assume) to call the women by vulgar names as well as calling Ray a "pimp". How about this? If it's not an "attack" start the OP with a clear purpose -- say, how can someone that says they respect, worship, whatever the Book of Mormon have relations with "fallen women" and this is not a conflict of interest. That would not be singling out one poster and all participants could weigh in as to how the Church indoctrination and sexual matters deal with men that go outside their marital home for sexual release. Seems easy to me

2) You have professed many times that you are somewhat "ignorant" on Church-related subjects, so what makes you think that you are knowledgeable enough to determine whether or not the thread had anything to do with the Church?

'Cause I READ the OP! In which Ray was called a 'Pimp daddy' and the women that he hung about with were called deragotary names. There was a clear intent to call Ray out for behavior and in a nasty fashion. Listen, I don't like it -- but if I don't like it I'm going to say something about it. There are instances when you mention DCP and it CLEARLY has something to do with the Church -- that is different than attacking someone (on personal matters) that has no CLEAR connection to Latter Day Saints. Ray is one human being -- Ray does not even go to the Church -- he is not active! If you wanted to know how he reconciled going to see a prostitute with his beliefs in the Book of Mormon there are ways to do that without being insulting -- of course you know this, right?

4) How many of your "let's explore emotions" threads have had a clear and direct bearing on Church themes? Many of them, so far as I can tell, have had little or nothing to do with Mormonism. Does this therefore mean that they should get consigned to the off-topic forum? I don't really think so.

Explore emotions? Ha! Cog dis? I started the OP -- and responded maybe 3 times and let the board take over. My sexuality thread I was in 'cause I am skeeved out about the CHURCH (and some posters but won't make a thread about them specifically to embarrass them) and it was CLEARLY related to the Church. The gossip thread -- this is a HUGE issue in the Church, as I've been made aware and it is created by the community! The Golden Rule thread was one that interested me since I had a dawning realization that some LDS (on this board and MAD) are decidedly lacking in empathy and I was VERY curious to see if this is something stressed in the Church -- guess what? It's not. The threads I started on evolution deals with the Church theology. The thread I started on tithings that are directly correlated to extrensic rewards was done because I'm VERY interested in how religion does not really further the goal of intrinsic rewards for the most part. How 'bout my thread on Life Meaning for Atheists and Theists -- this is seen on MAD all the time and I thought it would be interesting to get participants on both sides to discuss the issue.

Please do tell me how these don't relate to the Church.

[_Mister Scratch]

~Editing~
The Church takes on sexual matters -- and asking posters to weigh in on how they dealt with it would seem appropriate. Singling one poster out for his behavior is a personal attack.

But that's not what my post was about, Moniker, and you know that. It would have been completely beside the point to say, "Hey, what do you all think of prostitution, and what are your experiences with it? Further, what do you all think about having sex with heroin-addicted young girls?" Rather, I was interested in exploring the moral and ethical ramifications behind a Mopologist who both defends the Book of Mormon, and yet you engages in BoM-contrary activities. While I guess I can see your point about keeping things very general, I think it's far better to explore things via a good, concrete, illustrative example.

[_Yoda]

I re-post this only to point something out to you, Liz. You are complaining about a "verbal pissing contest," but how many times have you seen me complain about your "Come to my goddess suite!" derailments? And let's face it: your endless postings about "goddess suites," spanking, or whatever else, can get pretty tiresome, and they seem like much greater "derailments" (when have those posts EVER had anything to do with the topic?) than mine and Ray's back-and-forth here.

At base, I don't really care if you feel the need to get your jollies off with those flirty kinds of posts, or if you and your various "boys" derail the threads in the process. But, for heaven's sake, I don't appreciate lectures from someone who so frequently---and egregiously---derails threads with posts of that nature.

I think we're all guilty of occasional one-liners. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. CFR. Show me where I have derailed a thread with two pages worth of material the way you and Ray did.

Very rarely have I posted anything regarding the "Goddess suite" on a serious thread. Most of the time, I have posted something like "party in the Goddess suite" when someone reaches God status. Those threads are usually just kind of "fun" threads, anyway.

Also, if I have participated in a few back and forths that were off-topic(and, by this, I don't mean two pages, I mean one or two posts), I have made an attempt to redirect back to the topic at hand.

All I'm talking about is simply trying to use some common sense and respect for other posters, Scratch. And, when I see a case like yours and Ray's, like it or not, I will call you on it.

[_Moniker]

Scratch, so we don't derail this thread further I'm going to attempt to make myself clear with one final post.

I think there are rules on this board - the board rules say that threads started to attack a poster should be in telestial. This is apparently subjective -- there is NO consistency. If there was NO rule I would not say a word. Either the rules need to be enforced or they need to be scrapped.

[_Mister Scratch]

'Cause I READ the OP! In which Ray was called a 'Pimp daddy' and the women that he hung about with were called deragotary names. There was a clear intent to call Ray out for behavior and in a nasty fashion. Listen, I don't like it -- but if I don't like it I'm going to say something about it.

Right. Precisely what I was trying to illustrate as being different between you and me. As I've noted, there are plenty of threads by plenty of people on this board which hold absolutely zero interest for me. The threads strike me as being stupid, pointless, or boring. But am I butting my head in to complain and ask that they be consigned to the "lower forums"? No, not really. I very rarely do that. I'm sure I could count the total number of times on one hand.

by the way: it seems that starting personalized posts directed at "attacking" people is something which is not totally foreign to you:

I Had A Dream About Mr. Scratch
So, I dreamt I logged on here and there was a thread with "Moniker -- the blink behind the froth" started by Mr. Scratch.

There were no replies. I didn't bother in my dream to see how many looks there were.

Apparently he had hunted down proof that I boycotted and picketed various cosmetic companies as a teen (animal testing) and I didn't stay true to my principles and am now a blatant hypocrite because I wear said products.

Something to do with me wearing fur and again I'm a hypocrite. I, for some reason, in my dream, thought I could let Scratch see a video of me, or a picture, and this would convince him that I wasn't a fur wearer. My logic is even sound in dreams! Apparently the fur issue dealt with Blixa and I'm not certain how or why.

Something about a male poster (not sure what it was... apparently me being a googly fool or something) -- this too pertained to Blixa.

I dreamt that I replied with an :eyeroll:

Then I woke.

What was interesting about the dream, for me, (other than the frightening fact that this is my 2nd MDB dream this week) is that I replied as such --> :eyeroll:

I would usually reply outside of dreams with *eyeroll*

I'm thrilled I've been dreaming lately. Lots of frantic passionate ones, aliens, a lover warding off a troll that was attacking (this one somehow became erotic in nature), a jot through a surreal jungle the other night with an ever changing plot line and guide. I'd rather, though, that Scratch stayed out of my dreams. It woke me and I had to come check that there were no threads.

In fact, as I recall, this isn't the only time you've singled me out for "derogatory" comments, such as calling me "scary," or saying that I wear "S&M gear", or whatever else. Perhaps I should have jumped down your throat over those remarks, eh, Moniker?