TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

[_marg]

Perhaps I couldn't have said it better.

Yes but DCP is still a nut-case :)

[_bcspace]

This place is far from level.

I disagree. Where this place is not level simply seems to be in the fact that a larger number of anti/counter/exmo's post here than TBMs.

There is nothing that I know of so far preventing other MADB/FAIR/ZLMB posters from comming here and posting as they like, civil or uncivil. There could even be a higher discourse thread in the Celestial forum as well as lower ones made to fit the heart's desire.

Like the anti/counter/exmo's not availing themselves of the LDS Church's own statements on doctrine to pin us down, so also do some apologists not avail themselves of the character building experience of swimming without protection to see if their theories and ideas can take the heat.

I found that my evolution reconciliation theory can take the heat. What about your pet theory on the Tal/Keyes issue (personally, I think Tal is too cowardly to make good on his threat)? Obviously, there will be a peanut gallery and those that turn again and rend, but one can simply ignore them.

[_Chap]

So far as I can see, the reasons that Marg and LOAP give for saying this board is not 'level' are that people are sometimes rude to them, or divert the discussion into what they feel are irrelevant issues.

I do not think that amounts to any kind of systematic unfairness to a particular point of view, which is what I would understand by a claim that a discussion board was not 'level', in the way that (for instance) MAD is quite openly and deliberately 'not level' as between believing members of the CoJCoLDS and their critics.

I do however think it is legitimate to complain to the moderators if, for instance, the rules distinguishing acceptable Celestial posts from Terrestrial ones are not properly enforced. Mods - has Marg complained to you about this recently? Did you think her complaints were justified? And if so, what did you do about it?

[_Chap]

I found that my evolution reconciliation theory can take the heat.

I admire your fortitude in continuing to post on a board that is largely hostile to your point of view.

However I suspect that there were not many other readers of the exchange on your 'evolution reconciliation theory' besides yourself who felt that it 'took the heat' in the sense of retaining credibility in the face of the criticism levelled against it.

It seemed to me a to be a good example of what Jonathan Swift is said to have said (though I cannot trace the source): "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." And I feel it is one of the damaging features of certain types of religious commitment that one risks ending up desensitized to arguments that would probably seem cogent to you if they were not directed against positions to which you are more or less existentially committed. But hey, that's up to you, and kudos for not complaining when people give it back to you as good as they got it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps I couldn't have said it better.

Yes but DCP is still a nut-case :)

That's no secret.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This place is far from level.

I disagree. Where this place is not level simply seems to be in the fact that a larger number of anti/counter/exmo's post here than TBMs.

There is nothing that I know of so far preventing other MADB/FAIR/ZLMB posters from comming here and posting as they like, civil or uncivil. There could even be a higher discourse thread in the Celestial forum as well as lower ones made to fit the heart's desire.

Like the anti/counter/exmo's not availing themselves of the LDS Church's own statements on doctrine to pin us down, so also do some apologists not avail themselves of the character building experience of swimming without protection to see if their theories and ideas can take the heat.

I found that my evolution reconciliation theory can take the heat. What about your pet theory on the Tal/Keyes issue (personally, I think Tal is too cowardly to make good on his threat)? Obviously, there will be a peanut gallery and those that turn again and rend, but one can simply ignore them.

I don't view "lack of censorship" as making all things equal in a social sense.

[_Yoda]

This place is far from level.

I disagree. Where this place is not level simply seems to be in the fact that a larger number of anti/counter/exmo's post here than TBMs.

There is nothing that I know of so far preventing other MADB/FAIR/ZLMB posters from comming here and posting as they like, civil or uncivil. There could even be a higher discourse thread in the Celestial forum as well as lower ones made to fit the heart's desire.

Like the anti/counter/exmo's not availing themselves of the LDS Church's own statements on doctrine to pin us down, so also do some apologists not avail themselves of the character building experience of swimming without protection to see if their theories and ideas can take the heat.

I found that my evolution reconciliation theory can take the heat. What about your pet theory on the Tal/Keyes issue (personally, I think Tal is too cowardly to make good on his threat)? Obviously, there will be a peanut gallery and those that turn again and rend, but one can simply ignore them.

Love ya, BC! ;)

[_Chap]

This place is far from level.

I disagree. Where this place is not level simply seems to be in the fact that a larger number of anti/counter/exmo's post here than TBMs.

There is nothing that I know of so far preventing other MADB/FAIR/ZLMB posters from comming here and posting as they like, civil or uncivil. There could even be a higher discourse thread in the Celestial forum as well as lower ones made to fit the heart's desire.

Like the anti/counter/exmo's not availing themselves of the LDS Church's own statements on doctrine to pin us down, so also do some apologists not avail themselves of the character building experience of swimming without protection to see if their theories and ideas can take the heat.

I found that my evolution reconciliation theory can take the heat. What about your pet theory on the Tal/Keyes issue (personally, I think Tal is too cowardly to make good on his threat)? Obviously, there will be a peanut gallery and those that turn again and rend, but one can simply ignore them.

I don't view "lack of censorship" as making all things equal in a social sense.

Why the quotes round "lack of censorship"? This board, as a whole, is not censored. There are places where you can say anything you like, though there are also places where you have to obey certain rules if you want to stay there. However, even if you break those rules all that happens is that your thread drops down to a lower forum. It is not deleted, and you don't get banned - and yet the world has not come to an end, and you still appear to be in possession of both your sanity and your religious faith.

Your reference to "making all things equal in a social sense" puzzles me. I can't work out what you might mean by such an expression. To help clarify, please tell me:

1. what actions the mods would have to take to ensure that things were "equal in a social sense"

2. why it is desirable that things should be "equal in a social sense".

[_marg]

So far as I can see, the reasons that Marg and LOAP give for saying this board is not 'level' are that people are sometimes rude to them, or divert the discussion into what they feel are irrelevant issues.

Shades wrote for Midgley ..to come to MDB and he said “Let's see how well he fares on a level playing-field.” In other words what Shades is saying is that here he will be able to carry on a critical discussion.

Well of course ad hominems can prevent or hinder a critical discussion. Kevin brought up the same complaint in the thread regarding evolution in the Terrestial, which is that by attacking individuals in that case himself the focus shifted to him and prevented it moving further on topic. It becomes very time consuming to counter attacks as well. The essence of the problem is not solely abuse, it is more importantly prevention of critical discussion moving forward, with abuse being one way of preventing it.

I do not think that amounts to any kind of systematic unfairness to a particular point of view, which is what I would understand by a claim that a discussion board was not 'level', in the way that (for instance) MAD is quite openly and deliberately 'not level' as between believing members of the CoJCoLDS and their critics.

A challenge was made to a Midgley to come here with the implication he will be treated fairly and will be unhindered from expressing himself. If he is harrassed which this board makes no guarantees to deterring as it has no clear cut rules against ad hominems in the Celestial he will be prevented from expressing himself unhindered.

Why are ad hominems talked about I do however think it is legitimate to complain to the moderators if, for instance, the rules distinguishing acceptable Celestial posts from Terrestrial ones are not properly enforced. Mods - has Marg complained to you about this recently? Did you think her complaints were justified? And if so, what did you do about it?

Shades has no clear cut rules for the Celestial the most heavily moderated area. When as a for instance Kevin wrote an entire post filled with ad hominems and I pointed them out Shades commented they weren’t ad hominems to him, they were Kevin’s observations. Geez anyone can write a personal attack and say they are their observations!. A personal opinion doesn’t preclude it from being an ad hominem. And Shades concluded that the Celestial can handle those sorts of personal observations/opinions. So in effect Shades has no clear cut consistent rule to curtail ad hominems. And what this boils down to is that it is disingenuous to challenge someone from MAD to come here as if they can express themselves unhindered.

[_Yoda]

And what this boils down to is that it is disingenuous to challenge someone from MAD to come here as if they can express themselves unhindered.

Ad hom's exist at MAD, too. The difference between MDB and MAD is that ad hom's fly every which way here. That's kind of the beauty of it. ;)

At MAD, those who throw ad hom's toward the critics are protected. The critics, however, are banned for similar behavior.