Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

Post by **_msnobody** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:03 am

I'd post more in the CK, but the mission boys told me I'd be accountable to God for refusing Mormonism. I've been deceived by the craftiness of men and just don't have enough light to post in the CK.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:52 am

msnobody wrote:I'd post more in the CK, but the mission boys told me I'd be accountable to God for refusing Mormonism. I've been deceived by the craftiness of men and just don't have enough light to post in the CK.

I know you know more than you say you know.

Posting in the Ck does not neccesarily mean it has to be on a Mormon topic. Post a general discussion on a topic in Christianity that interests you !

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:16 am

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: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.

The Z thread you refer to here was started by me. Tell me what the relevance of reposting it here might be? I wouldn't mind at all if you reposted it here, Ray. I'm just curious as to why you reference that particular thread.

Jersey Girl

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:37 am

Moniker and Scratch....

Scratch

You mean when you went over to MAD and used the "Search" feature for Jersey Girl? I noted, via a PM to Tarski, that I thought it was awfully peculiar that you were pulling up all the information she was citing so quickly. Later, in chat, you said that you thought the whole episode was "funny." Are you changing your mind now? Nowhere (to my knowledge) did I ever say you were "trying to get information on people." Please feel free to refresh my memory if I'm wrong

Scratch,

What you are referring to here as "all the information" were simply single words. I gave Moniker a word to search on. I did so perhaps 3-4 times. Why would you think it peculiar that a person could search on a single word, perhaps 3-4 times, quickly?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:17 am

Ray:

That thread made me quite uncomfortable, but in my limited understanding I didn't quite know how to proceed. Although I most certainly consider you to be a friend (as I hope you know), I was afraid of showing favoritism by compromising the modus operandii of the board for your sake only, since I believe that Mister Scratch's post was within the letter of the law (although it pushed the spirit to the very edge, in my opinion).

Although it didn't occur to me then, would it have been better if I'd edited out your name, deleted the links to the ZLMB post, and otherwise squashed any identifying information? That way, the topic could be discussed, but you yourself could've been left out of the picture. Or was the cat already out of the bag, as we say in America?

I admit I'm not perfect and have come up against situations that befuddled me quite thoroughly. That thread was one of them. If you'd like me to apologize for not having done something about it, then I'll publicly do so right here.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:24 am

Dr. Shades wrote:Ray:

That thread made me quite uncomfortable, but in my limited understanding I didn't quite know how to proceed. Although I most certainly consider you to be a friend (as I hope you know), I was afraid of showing favoritism by compromising the modus operandii of the board for your sake only, since I believe that Mister Scratch's post was within the letter of the law (although it pushed the spirit to the very edge, in my opinion).

Although it didn't occur to me then, would it have been better if I'd edited out your name, deleted the links to the ZLMB post, and otherwise squashed any identifying information? That way, the topic could be discussed, but you yourself could've been left out of the picture. Or was the cat already out of the bag, as we say in America?

I admit I'm not perfect and have come up against situations that befuddled me quite thoroughly. That thread was one of them. If you'd like me to apologize for not having done something about it, then I'll publicly do so right here.

Too late for your crocodile tears. You used and abused me.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:33 am

Ray A wrote:Too late for your crocodile tears. You used and abused me.

I did? I don't remember ever posting any such information about you. Recall the extent of your complaint to me:

"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."

You left the decision to me, and I simply went hands-off. If it was a mistake, I apologize.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:51 am

Jersey Girl wrote:The Z thread you refer to here was started by me. Tell me what the relevance of reposting it here might be? I wouldn't mind at all if you reposted it here, Ray. I'm just curious as to why you reference that particular thread.

Jersey Girl

Because it gives all of us an insight into the mind of this board, and the reason for its creation. It was not created to determine "truth", but to push an anti-Mormon agenda. If you don't realise that, Jersey Girl, let's see how long you last with the anti-Mormon bigots who are already questioning your moderating powers. They don't want neutrality, they want someone biased against Mormonism. Your well-wishers will soon melt to dust. You know what they say about politics? An honest person should avoid politics. And you know what this board is at the moment? It's a pig-sty of anti-Mormonism.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:06 am

Ray A wrote:If you don't realise that, Jersey Girl, let's see how long you last with the anti-Mormon bigots who are already questioning your moderating powers. They don't want neutrality, they want someone biased against Mormonism.

If one of the LDS participants feels unfairly moderated against by Jersey Girl, he or she need merely bring it to my attention and it'll be resolved to his or her satisfaction. As I said, she's here on a trial basis.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:10 am

Dr. Shades wrote:If one of the LDS participants feels unfairly moderated against by Jersey Girl, he or she need merely bring it to my attention and it'll be resolved to his or her satisfaction. As I said, she's here on a trial basis.

In the spirit of free inquiry, Shades, what were the questions you asked her? What made her "pass the test"? Or any mod?
That you could do what the living hell what you and keene wanted?