That seemed rather friendly but it seems I am banned from responding to that specific thread/ This is a new one for me. What does it mean?
For what it's worth, I don't see anything offensive posted by you on that thread. I don't see that you are banned either. Is there a message that comes up when you try to reply? Is the Add Reply button visible?
Yes, a message comes up if I try to post that says "Sorry, you have been banned from viewing and/or replying to this topic" (or something like that).
Geez louise. If they are going to do this, then they may as well just come up with a list of topics which cannot ever be debated under any circumstances whatsoever. If they are up for it, they can formulate a special list specifically catered to DCP as well.
It's a wonderful question that you ask and I have the answer. It is, actions speak louder than words! It is true that Dr. Peterson expresses the opinion that he doesn't want mod protection. But given the frequency in which he's become upset on message boards, denounced the landscape, and then left for time and all eternity, or perhaps just for the next month or afternoon, he demonstrates that unless the mods can clean house of his opponents as needed, then they won't be able to retain his services.
Also, it's no shock he doesn't discuss anything with you, you're too smart. For all the complaining about the lowest common denominator, his actions prove that his real interest is long battles over whether or not Mormons are Christians and over his character. Those are the two things he likes to discuss, even though I'm sure he knows a whole lot about many other things. Again, dispite his protests, his actions tell us what he really wants.
There are a number of apologists who, funny enough, don't have their character called into question and derive little enjoyment from locking horns over inane topics and gossip. Apologists on FAIR/MAD like to present the situation as one they're helpless to control, that the drama and low-level of discourse they participate in is a matter of force due to the presence of evil anti-Mormons. But quite simply, the existence of the blog known as "Times and Seasons", which is able to maintain the interest of highly educated Mormons, discuss difficult topics, and all without character assasinations and long drawn out personal battles and petty fights prove that those who participate on FAIR/MAD are where they want to be. In a mud-slinging contest with critics. They have a clear choice, and that's what their actions have chosen.
Tarski wrote:"OK, I hope you get around to expressing your ideas about some of the things I have put on the table. Cheers"
That seemed rather friendly...
Hey, it sure did seem friendly. I saw your post this afternoon and thought, "Man, Tarski is really going out of his way to be a gentleman." Apparently they read the worst motives into it. Bummer.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
So is someone at least going to add a reply to that thread to let them know that Tarski can't post on it anymore? Seems like if the mods can prevent someone from posting on a thread (not a bad idea in some cases), the only fair thing to do would be to have some notation in the thread saying that so-and-so cannot post there. Otherwise some may assume the banned poster has ceded points that were not intended to be ceded.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:So is someone at least going to add a reply to that thread to let them know that Tarski can't post on it anymore? Seems like if the mods can prevent someone from posting on a thread (not a bad idea in some cases), the only fair thing to do would be to have some notation in the thread saying that so-and-so cannot post there. Otherwise some may assume the banned poster has ceded points that were not intended to be ceded.
Somehow ... I rather think that may be the impression that the MAD Moderators wish to convey to their LDS readers.
If DCP wanted Tarski unbanned, he could certainly arrange it. He could at least mention that fact on the thread.
But no. That is the kind of intellectual coward he is.
I think that religionists are so used to having ready made (made up) answers to the destiny of the universe and other grand things they feel entitled to insist that atheists or agnostics present their version as to what will happen and what it all means. I suppose when pushed, many atheists will turn to the latest views about cosmology to give tentative answers. But cosmology changes a lot and parts of it at the edge are highly speculative. Having given some possible answers based on current thinking, most atheists are quite ready to go where the evidence leads but the religionist now thinks the atheist is pinned down. But this is not so. The scientifically based skeptical mind just isn't playing with the same expectations. We learn what we can learn and try to get a sense of which parts of science are virtually certain and which parts are liable to change or are even speculative. But we (the skeptical scientific types) stop short of filling in the remainder with allegedly revealed answers. To some religionists, this is just intolerable. They feel one must stake out permanent answers to all the big questions and stick to it religiously. It's as though the atheist is continually asked, in effect, "well then what is your religion?". The answer is "none!" but the religionists (or many of them) will have none of it.
It reminds me of when religionists insist that critics come up with THE ONE TRUE explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be. The truth is I don't know how the Book of Mormon came to be - I don't know who authored it and how. But as long as reasonable speculations/possibilities exist, why would I feel constrained to accept a supernatural explanation that, by its very nature, multiplies the complexities geometrically?
But as long as critics don't have THE ONE TRUE explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be, many apologists will view that as some sort of victory.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.