Two Logical Follow-Ups to the New MD Rule

[_The Dude]

The new rule is begging to be abused and made fun of. Now any thread in the Celestial forum can be set up as it's own mini-universe with customized laws of reality nobody is allowed to challenge. Have fun with it, I say. Anyone who posts in my thread must patronize me with compliments before and after posting his own words, or else he's broken the rules and shall be banished. I am the god of my own thread. My word is law. Respect the arbitrary dictates of my faith-for-a-day or else get your butt out'a here.

Snort.

Hiccup!

[_skippy the dead]

The new rule is begging to be abused and made fun of. Now any thread in the Celestial forum can be set up as it's own mini-universe with customized laws of reality nobody is allowed to challenge. Have fun with it, I say. Anyone who posts in my thread must patronize me with compliments before and after posting his own words, or else he's broken the rules and shall be banished. I am the god of my own thread. My word is law. Respect the arbitrary dictates of my faith-for-a-day or else get your butt out'a here.

Snort.

Hiccup!

And this is why I worship at the altar of the Dude.

[_Moniker]

I'd like to have a thread where beliefs are discussed where I don't have to tell a nincompoop 50+ times on this board that I do NOT believe in God. If I ever set one up I'll just title it as so "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD" -- then I will wait for someone to pop in and still tell me that God claims are unreliable. At that point, I'll smirk, or spaz and then do my "umhum -- I already got that" reply.... Fun!

[_Bond...James Bond]

The new rule is begging to be abused and made fun of. Now any thread in the Celestial forum can be set up as it's own mini-universe with customized laws of reality nobody is allowed to challenge. Have fun with it, I say. Anyone who posts in my thread must patronize me with compliments before and after posting his own words, or else he's broken the rules and shall be banished. I am the god of my own thread. My word is law. Respect the arbitrary dictates of my faith-for-a-day or else get your butt out'a here.

Snort.

Hiccup!

Quite. I think I'll start a thread tomorrow where I'll lay down the general ground rules as:

1) I'm right

2) You're wrong


Now...who want's to dialogue?

[_asbestosman]

Anyone who posts in my thread must patronize me with compliments before and after posting his own words, or else he's broken the rules and shall be banished. I am the god of my own thread. My word is law. Respect the arbitrary dictates of my faith-for-a-day or else get your butt out'a here.

Well, ya better hurry up. So far the best spoof is SilentKid's. I haven't voted yet, but I might vote for yours if you make one along the lines of what you say.

Snort.

Hiccup!

Belch.

Cough!

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm not quite sure why people are making a big deal out of this. I figure that if somebody actually tries to start a faith-based thread, it won't last long. The rule will die of neglect. And if any of them actually do survive, then let them. If somebody doesn't want the Jesus-never-existed peanut gallery hijacking their thread on Christology or something, that doesn't hurt you or me. If you really don't like the new rule, don't start faith-based threads and don't participate in them when they crop up. Life will undoubtedly continue as normal. Boaz will continue to "out" temple rituals, and the sun will continue to rise every morning.

[_Tal Bachman]

The new rule is begging to be abused and made fun of. Now any thread in the Celestial forum can be set up as it's own mini-universe with customized laws of reality nobody is allowed to challenge.

---I know, man. It seems totally bizarre, so obviously lame. I don't get it.

But thinking over CaliforniaKid's comment, maybe one (unintended) benefit will be that some of the less, shall we say, empirically-grounded posters will start spending a lot more time talking about what wonderful, divine men Daniel Peterson, Joseph Smith, and George Wallace (E.T. Benson's near running mate in 1968) are in a completely different place, away from more serious discussions (which they'll derail decreasingly with inanities). Maybe this is a veiled attempt by the mods at lowering the silliness component of more substantive discussions, by creating a situation in which amateur church defenders spend more time somewhere else, all the while thinking it was their idea. Kinda doubt it though!

[_Blixa]

[size=14]Now that MD powers-that-be have decided to allow Mormon Jonestowners like my former self the right to prohibit challenges on special "faith-promoting threads", to be consistent - that is, to be unlike the unfair folks running MADness - those same MAD powers-that-be must now give NON Mormon posters the right to prohibit challenges from Mormons.

This is probably one of the most confusing sentence I've ever read!! Tal, you know it's ok to break a complex concept into 2 or even three sentences, right? Try it sometime!

Goodness, Scottie! You must never read my posts! I'm a big fan of compound-complex sentence structure, dependent clauses, the semi-colon and the dash.

Tal's parenthetical---separated by dashes like I'm doing here right now---is a gloss on alleged MD "consistency." Perhaps the hyphenates visually confused you?

Its ok to use complex sentence construction to express complex ideas! Try it sometime!

[_Blixa]

For example, when I posted regularly a year or so ago, it seemed that numerous threads (including some of my own) were totally derailed by the presence of one particular Mormon defender, who seems as earnest as he is incapable of coherence. Instead of the thread being about what it was supposed to be, otherwise sensible non-Mormons would end up spending most of their time talking about how "stupid" this particular person's posts were (as if this was news). Start out with DNA, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out with nailing Fanny Alger in a hayloft, end up talking about how stupid X is. Start out talking about anything, and end up talking about how stupid X is. X ends up the main topic of every thread simply because - I presume - his inability to reason is so distracting and horrifically fascinating. Why that should that happen? Certainly, the step from banning "ideas" to banning "people" is minute...so now, why wouldn't the mods take it, too?

This kind of behavior isn't allowed in the CK. It is a place to debate ideas, not posters.

The CK was never "heavily" moderated. Charity often speculated on the deaths of her "opponents" and the enlightenment that would then ensue for them. That's much more insane than any of the Coggins ad hominem log jams in Terrestrial. Not to mention the lack of "scholarly-ness," even broadly construed, found in such threads. I gave up when charity "rebutted" truthdancer's point that scholars on the whole have not taken claims of the Book of Mormon-as-ancient document seriously with a chunk of prose lifted from Terryl Givens's "By the Hand of Mormon," that merely contained a very short list of humanities scholars (cultural anthropologists (one mis-labeled by Given's as a literary theorist), historians and theologians) who have (briefly) commented on everything BUT its alleged ancient status. The "discussion" ended with this gem from charity to TD, "I am glad to know you are uneducated, rather than deceitful."

[_Tal Bachman]

The "discussion" ended with this gem from charity to TD, "I am glad to know you are uneducated, rather than deceitful."

---Blixa - all the more reason for the MD "PTB" to continue on with their plan to bequeath, in effect, moderating privileges to certain posters, by allowing thread starters to ban particular people from posting on those threads. That way, MD can become a "multiverseplex". It'll be like the board's being moderated by Lisa Randall on acid.

I don't get it...!