Bond...James Bond wrote:They usually blame the sexy people first. (notice the bannings of liz, beastie, and moksha for evidence).
What do they blame them for???
I mean ban.
Ah! Well, beastie is quite lovely...
Why aren't you banned, Bond? ;)
I wonder why I haven't been banned? Do people really just get banned for posting here?
You don't have to rub it in that I'm unsexy.
You??? I guess they haven't gotten around to it. I'd ban you in a heartbeat if we were banning on the basic of sexiness. Ban! BAN! BANNN!
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
mms wrote:I posted CHAP's post from the thread entitled "A Book of Mormon Evidence Implodes . . ." at MAD and stated, respectfully, that I was posting it because I thought it was fair to allow DCP a chance to respond without coming over to MDB, where he is not treated very well (I used those words). I then pasted the full post in a quote box. That was it. In short order, the thread was closed, then entirely deleted from the board and now when I try to log in to MADB, I read "you do not have permission to view this board." What gives? Can somebody tell me? Is there some rule I violated or something? I have been suspended for arguing with the mods favorites over there, but on those occasions, when I logged in, it just said I was suspended. So I am pretty sure I am done there. EDIT: I AM SURE I AM DONE THERE, AS BRACKITE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO CHECK AND MY MEMBERSHIP STATUS IS "BANNED".
The silver lining is that my wife will be thrilled that I can no longer join in the discussions over there. As an active church member who sees the obvious ("suppression" of Church history), she has little tolerance for those who disengenuously argue that we all "should have known" about polyandry, etc. and she cannot stand a handful of the most active posters over there.
They probably thought you were Scratch's, Infymus, Chap, or maybe even my sock puppet...
I found this Post from the 'Self-righteous' Moderator named 'Orpheus' to You there:
QUOTE(mms @ Mar 25 2008, 05:18 PM)
This is a really good example of how apologists refuse to give on even the most obvious points. No one here really believes that it is honest to suggest that 12 million members were united in that particular single purpose. It was a false statement made to make the Church look like a more significant force than it is in the eyes of the press. Bad judgment one day. You ought to be able to admit it and move on, but you can't because somehow admitting this simply obvious point causes you great insecurity.
Edit: Now it looks like we may have to discuss the difference between "dishonesty" and "out-and-out dishonesty." lol again.
Stay out of the thread, if you keep this up you will be banned. We have too much traffic to put up with bomb throwers anymore.
I hope all this helps. Again, I think and believe that the main reason why you got ban on the MA&D Message Board, is because You are not part of the 'elite' over there. I got banned on the "FAIR"/MA&D Message Board twice there.
Last edited by MSNbot Media on Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
I don't believe they can honestly say it happened because of cross-posting. Such rules aren't consistently enforced these days.
Banning seems a little harsh for what you did, but if they saw you as a zero-charisma nobody and you picked a fight with DCP or Hamblin, that would do it. You've gotta watch out with those two. I've been suspended twice, once for each of them.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Interesting, Brackite, I must have missed that one. Not sure how I threw a bomb. Scott Lloyd had asked for an example fo dishonesty by the church -- any example. So I gave him the title of a 2005 press release from the church talking about the 175th General Conference. The title was "12 million worldwide united in a single purpose". That was dishonest to me because we know for certain that there is no where even near 12 million who even know its general conference weekend, let alone are united in a single purpose at that time. Then, when no "defender" of the faith could admit that this was dishonest, I said what I said above. Missed the warning, though.
"We invoke the rule to act capriciously at all times. Further, if you irritate Dr. Peterson, I Juliann will also invoke the sudden death penalty without warning"