Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_Ray A]

No, I'm not "saying" it "is equivalent." I'm asking you if it is/was, or if it's reasonable for someone to take issue with it in the same way that you took issue with the Ray thread, which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, had a clear bearing on LDS themes and issues (a point which you have repeatedly ignored.) You can claim your thread was "silllllllly," just as I can argue that the Ray thread has a clear connection with LDS themes and issues. See what I mean? You have been saying all along that you wish my Ray thread had been booted down to the Telestial, or the Off-Topic forum. And yet, now that some of your threads and comments have been put under the microscope, you are squirming about, claiming they were just "sillllllly," etc. You and Liz are both guilty of this. But it's pretty simple: if you don't want to be put in the position of having to defend your dumb / stupid / "sillllllllly" posts, then don't go about picking on other people's posts, especially after those posts have been explained / defended ad nauseum without any real counter. (Still waiting for you to tell me how/and why those three points explaining the LDS-ness of the Ray thread are invalid, by the way.)

Since Scratch is so keen on looking at "historical perspectives" from old threads, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to do a review of a ZLMB thread, started 11th Nov. 2006, titled: "Non-existent war, Gason Jallentine", for some "historical perspective". Microscope and all that.

[_Moniker]

Scratch, you explain to me how this OP (that was edited after I mentioned the derogatory terms such as "fallen women" and such) is shown to correlate to LDS.

I have just received a rather strange tidbit from one of my informants. This one, in contrast to the landslide of ones I've gotten on Skains, has to do with Ray A. As many here are well aware, Ray seems to have a somewhat unusual antipathy towards women, and in particular towards Beastie, whom he hates with a white-hot passion. Why might this be, you may wonder? Freud once posited that all men harbor a "Madonna-Whore" complex, in which they desire to simultaneously worship and defile their love-objects. While this was meant to be mainly theoretical in nature, it turns out that, in Ray's case, this was a literal reality:

Ray Ago wrote:
My ideal woman is difficult to describe, but I think I will know what I want when I see/ hear her.

I don't want a prude, yet I don't want a swinger. I want intelligence, but not a smart ass. I like kindness and sensitivity, but I like bluntness, openness, and something about outrageous women attracts me. I confess, I once lived with a heroin addicted prostitute who was shooting up three times a day, and had this enormous attraction for her (well she was 22 and pretty), and I couldn't explain it. She's the closest I came to a soulmate. But circumstances, and her addiction, stopped all that.

(emphasis added)

Well, now, this is quite interesting! Who knew that, in addition to his violent outbursts, he was also hooking up with a prostitute!

The ZLMB thread in question can be read in its entirety here:

http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =1&stop=20

Another interesting elaboration from the same post:

Ray A wrote:
So I wonder if I'll ever find "the One", or is that just another urban myth? I think I'm too picky, and like my freedom. Relationships get too complicated. The romance and everything is nice, but then you gotta get kicked off your bed occasionally.

Very hard to pinpoint exactly what I want. Not a submissive little miss darling who does everything you ask/tell her, but will occasionally tell you to bugger off, and knows what she wants from life. I have a female friend now who has the attitude that if any male rips her off or treats her badly she'll "rip his bloody arms off" (Aussie saying). Why do I find that so attractive? (psychologist alert!)

Hmmmm. I suppose what we have here is yet another instance of Ray's endless flip-flopping. He claimed to find this type of woman "attractive," and yet doesn't this seem to be a spot-on description of Beastie? How very, very peculiar indeed!

[_Dr. Shades]

There's a lot that can be replied to in here, but for now, I need to address these statements by Moniker:

I know "Liz is a rat fink" stayed in this forum and is STILL in this forum!

A mod never moved it when it was clearly a personal attack -- started with the clear intent of attacking a poster. I would prefer some sort of consistency.

Shades has personally told me that threads started to attack a poster MUST go in telestial. The "Liz is a Rat Fink" was NOT moved down -- I mentioned it (to highlight how rules are not enforced), and also mentioned the Ray A thread.

Moniker:

The "Liz is a rat fink" title was an unfortunate choice of words, and I honestly wish he hadn't chosen it. HOWEVER, the content of the opening post itself had to do with a moderatorial issue--or perhaps only a perceived moderatorial issue, take your pick--involving Liz. Unlike at MA&D, questions and discussions about moderation and/or moderators' actions are FAIR game around here, so (again) the post itself was about a legitimate issue.

So I admit that there was, in my mind, a bit of gray area regarding that thread. What to do about a thread title which is clearly insulting, yet the thread content is focused more on a legitimate issue? I chose to err on the side of caution, a.k.a. no moderatorial meddling.

Perhaps I chose wrong. But those are my reasons for not moving it.

ALSO:

Let's discuss the Ray A thread that Mister Scratch started. I admit that I was a bit nervous about it, and was at a loss as to how to proceed (or if I even needed to proceed at all). At the end of the day, I allowed the thread to stay put in the Terrestrial Forum for two major reasons: First, examining the beliefs vs. the actions of a defender of Mormonism--or a critic of Mormonism, for that matter--are legitimate topics of discussion. Second, the information Mister Scratch posted was originally provided by Ray A himself in a public forum. Third, Ray A himself didn't object.

Again, agree or disagree, those were my reasons. Moderation isn't always a black-and-white, cut-and-dry proposition.

[_Ray A]

ALSO:

Let's discuss the Ray A thread that Mister Scratch started. I admit that I was a bit nervous about it, and was at a loss as to how to proceed (or if I even needed to proceed at all). At the end of the day, I allowed the thread to stay put in the Terrestrial Forum for two major reasons: First, examining the beliefs vs. the actions of a defender of Mormonism--or a critic of Mormonism, for that matter--are legitimate topics of discussion. Second, the information Mister Scratch posted was originally provided by Ray A himself in a public forum. Third, Ray A himself didn't object.

Again, agree or disagree, those were my reasons. Moderation isn't always a black-and-white, cut-and-dry proposition.

That information may have been provided by me, five years ago! It is the slants that Scratch put on it that were offensive. "Pimp daddy", "using prostitutes" (when he knew nothing of the full situation, which I explained), and painting me to be some kind of sexual predator. You mean you didn't see any of this?

[_Moniker]

Again, agree or disagree, those were my reasons. Moderation isn't always a black-and-white, cut-and-dry proposition.

Thank you for the reply.

I wanted to understand why some stay and some go. I still don't understand why there are some in telestial that deal with LDS issues and a poster, and some left in terrestrial --yet, I understand it's difficult to moderate and make calls -- I wouldn't want to do it! I understand there are shades and things aren't so black and white.

The only reason I asked is 'cause I see some inconsistency.

About Ray, he did ask repeatedly (if I recall correctly) for the thread to be moved off-topic. Scratch even asked for my comments to be moved off-topic (and my comments did NOT deal with LDS 'cause the OP did NOT deal with LDS) and I replied that ALL comments that did not deal with LDS be moved as well. It was a mess!

[_Yoda]

Were there some insults tossed back and forth? Sure. But, nonetheless, I'd like to point out that we are indeed still discussing what does/doesn't constitute "worthwhile" posting, or, as you prefer to put it, "common sense" posting, which, apparently, includes posts about "goddess suites" and Sex and the City spanking porn.

No, Scratch. YOU are talking about what constitutes "worthwhile" posting. I have not once said to you that your posts are not worthwhile. You, however, have said that to me now in several posts. All I have indicated was that your posts with Ray on this thread where all you did was insult each other were, and should have been, rightly split off into another isolated topic. And, I'm not sure what you're so hot under the collar about, because the split thread wasn't even moved to Telestial. It's STILL in the Terrestrial Forum.

My Sex and the City story was posted in the Telestial Forum, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here, except for the purpose of being nasty and discrediting me. I also PM'd Shades and cleared it with him before I posted the story at all.

I have already explained my goddess suite posts, so I'm not sure why you are still mentioning them, unless you're just jealous because you were never invited. ;)

[_Ray A]

This is what I wrote in my second post on that thread:

If this is going to be "psycho" time, I really think it should be in Off-Topic. But I'll leave that decision to Shades.

Shades obviously felt it was "appropriate".

Trevor disagreed:

It seems that character assassination never gets old for some people, be they TBMs or exMos.

Jersey Girl also chimed in:

Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid? Two the party line entirely or become a rabid critic of the church?

What the hell?

[_Ray A]

Here is what "DaddyMo" posted about Scratch on ZLMB (an insight into how Scratch slants, and slanders people):

Mr. Scratch is hilarious all right. I looked at his "blog" and was treated to an accusation that I must pawn my kids off on my wife like other TBM men.

Funny, but as I write this I'm watching the youngest of my kids so she can chaperone a trip with the teens that she wanted to attend. I'm about to log off to fix lunch and clean the house with the little ones.

That's the answer to his question about why I changed my moniker by the way... I was tired of childish posters implying things from the size of my family. A charming fellow over on another board told me he hoped I'd never become a Dadof8.

If this kind of gossip, derision and unfounded rumor is what passes for funny among the antimormon intelligencia, I'll pass thank you.

...and if Scratch is taking requests for removal from his list - I'd just assume he takes me off too. I don't need to be the brunt of his childish jokes, even if it is under my pseudonym.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I paricipate here very, very rarely (35 posts would hardly be considered anything at all).

I have, however, participated in the LDS community on the internet for years and years. I was at ZLMB for the longest time. I was involved heavily in the AOL community (which transitioned to FAIR). I participated on the FAIR boards. I still poke my head into MADB once in a while and write a few things.

This forum usually turns me off. It doesn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes of reading for me to decide that I am not really interested in most of the dialogue here. It's not that it isn't moderated (as I recall, ZLMB was fairly heavily moderated), its more the fact that this forum has a consistently negative view towards the LDS church. Wouldn't you all agree? Just a glance through the list of thread starters (and being aware of the individuals and their views on the LDS church) makes me think that I am not going to see much that is of interest to me.

Of course, any more, I skip reading most of the MADB content as well. Rabid pro-Mormons interest me just about as much as the antis. And just about as many of them find reasons to disagree with me as well. When ZLMB died, it died in part because of an influx of non-believers in general. There was a recent thread here on the Apologists and Church Art where Boaz and Lida made this comment:

"Like I said, anytime a critic brings up an issue with early Mormon history, they get out the Bible billy club and attempt to beat the critic into submission. This only works on those who believe the Bible to be divine."

Let's forget for just a moment that most of your garden variety Mormons are going to find Boaz and Lidia's avatar to be patently offensive. Should I really find a need to engage this person in discussion? And of course, from that perspective, is a person reading from a stone in a hat any more strange than claims of a man being resurrected (to the non-believer of course). So do comments like these really create an enviornment where you are going to get your reasonable run-of-the-mill believers to come join in the party?

When ZLMB disintegrated, and most of the believing LDS went elsewhere, this crowd followed them. They wanted the audience. It kind of felt like they relished being abrasive. So what kind of response were they expecting? And the same holds true for people here. I don't think it is enough to talk about being polite, I think that for a community really to be inclusive (and I don't really think that this community is all that inclusive) there has to be an effort by all parties involved to buy into the community and to create a community - and you don't get this when most of the material in your forum is devisive. And clearly, having disagreements doesn't have to make things devisive. After all, I have had long running conversations (spanning years) with many of the participants here. Without rancor (and only the occaisional frustration).

Personally, I think that if you want to foster community, then you work at weeding out those who seem intent on creating division, and aggravating others whom you would like to participate. Because if you don't, you have let them define the community for you. If, on the other hand, this is the kind of community you want, then by all means, it works well. But, you will see people leave who otherwise would be valuable participants in the discussions here (and certainly this happens all over - including at MADB presently, but certainly at ZLMB and some of the other forums I have been a participant at). It seems to me that in the absence of wholesale moderation, many have turned to blogs and the like to find a venue where they can productively air their opinions without the rancor that often these forums generate. This environment normally feels quite hostile to me (and I am one who usually gets decent reveiws here ....).

Ben

[_Ray A]

Some more insight. Again Jersey Girl's post:

Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid? Two the party line entirely or become a rabid critic of the church?

What the hell?

But this is what Scratch was trying to do:

Hey, terrific. I just think there is something wrong with defending someone who defends the system which allows those words/terms to carry their derogatory power. Ray's stance on all of this reminds me of the sort of politician who berates porn, the sex industry, and so forth as things that "undermine values," and yet who sleeps with prostitutes on the side. Know what I mean? Something just doesn't add up there. I vote that Ray keep his friendships with these women, and ditch his defense of Mormonism. That's my position. His defense of the latter would seem to undermine the former, but that's just my .02.

Please note, Scratch has no problem with my behaviour, ONLY that I defend Mormons, and usually always from attacks. Note, he votes that I keep my friendship with "these women", but ditch Mormonism. In other words, this is more blackmail. As if I can just change my feelings overnight to suit him, or other exmos.

The whole thread was an attempt at blackmail.

I might also add that I have never "decried" porn, and never signed petitions for porn shops to be closed. I believe people should make their own decisions about this.