Let's take a serious vote between MADd and this one.

[_Alter Idem]

Here's an example of what I have to put up with at MADB--just from this afternoon; From an FLDS thread:

UOTE(jonzlaw @ May 26 2008, 10:06 AM) *
And agree that they are entitled to Due Process. They also have the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. But, all of these rights take a back seat - as a matter of law - to the welfare of the children.

Solarpowered: Call For References. Please show where "it's for the children" Trump's the Constitution of the United States.

Now, before Solarpowered posted his CFR to Jonzlaw, I had already posted a quote from the DesNews that supported his statement--see here:

QUOTE
When children are even perceived to be at risk. Kids first. Due Process second. Look it up.


QUOTE(LeSellers @ May 26 2008, 10:35 AM) *
Be happy to. Where do I find this pronouncement?

It sure as the ever-lovin' blue blazes is not in the Constitution.

Lehi


Alter Idem: From yesterday's DesNews article on Utah and Texas' child protection laws;

QUOTE
Procedurally, both Texas and Utah have the right to take chidren into protective custody if authorities suspect immediate danger to the minor. States don't have to wait to file criminal charges, they just need enough cause to believe that if the chid isn't removed there will be immediate danger. The proof of neglect or abuse, or lack of it, unfolds later in family court under the umbrella of civil law, where the level of proof is lower than a criminal court.

So I responded:

QUOTE(alter idem @ May 26 2008, 10:48 AM) *
Solarpowered, just a couple of posts above yours, I already gave information that supported Jonzlaw's statement--it explains that child protective laws have more leeway.

Some will say they infringe on constitutional rights. Whether this is right or not, whether it's unconstitutional and should be challenged in court--that's a topic for another thread.

Solarpowered: OK, Then CFR to you, too. Please show quote these statutes that allegedly Trump the Constitution of the United States, and explain how it is that they can in fact Trump the Constitution of the United States.

So, I get a CFR for something I hadn't even said--and Solarpowered demands that I spend my time looking up statutes to prove something I'd already given a reference for...now, he wants me to provide actual statutes. And why should I? I didn't make the statement in the first place! To me, this is a tactic to intimidate the opposition into not challenging the prevailing position of the board--that held by the regulars, the protected board posters.

I didn't see this last post until the thread was closed and since it was closed I didn't have to answer the CFR Solarpowered demanded--but I also wasn't able to point out that it was inappropriate for him to request it of me.

This is one of the things that has made MADB an unpleasant place lately. I think the Mods need to do something about these ridiculous CFR's. I'm wondering if I should bring this up on the other board, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea--they hate complaints about the board. I could PM the mods, not sure if it does any good...but maybe it's better than doing nothing.

[_moksha]

This is one of the things that has made MADB an unpleasant place lately. I think the Mods need to do something about these ridiculous CFR's. I'm wondering if I should bring this up on the other board, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea--they hate complaints about the board. I could PM the mods, not sure if it does any good...but maybe it's better than doing nothing.

You are right about worrying whether to call this to their attention. There is no way of predicting how they will react.

[_Alter Idem]

This is one of the things that has made MADB an unpleasant place lately. I think the Mods need to do something about these ridiculous CFR's. I'm wondering if I should bring this up on the other board, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea--they hate complaints about the board. I could PM the mods, not sure if it does any good...but maybe it's better than doing nothing.

You are right about worrying whether to call this to their attention. There is no way of predicting how they will react.

They can be unpredictable. I doubt I need to bring it up anyway, since I assume the mods monitor this board for any threads about MADB--so they've read my complaints.

[_moksha]

This is one of the things that has made MADB an unpleasant place lately. I think the Mods need to do something about these ridiculous CFR's. I'm wondering if I should bring this up on the other board, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea--they hate complaints about the board. I could PM the mods, not sure if it does any good...but maybe it's better than doing nothing.

You are right about worrying whether to call this to their attention. There is no way of predicting how they will react.

They can be unpredictable. I doubt I need to bring it up anyway, since I assume the mods monitor this board for any threads about MADB--so they've read my complaints.

That is a smart way to do it. Now, assuming they have the ability to be introspective, perhaps they could discuss this thread on their moderator's forum. Good feedback is hard to come by and yet you have provided it.

[_solomarineris]

there is little or no such honesty among antiMormons and political liberals.

Because you Mormons have a monopoly on honesty, right? Only Mormons can be intellectually, spiritually and morally full. Oh, not to mention that only Mormons can have "higher standards".
BCSpace, you're an arrogant, stuck up Mormon. Maybe you should pull that Quad out of your ass.

May I remind you that when i was converted (in1976) i was told LSD was the only true church on the face of Earth.
Which reminds me of Data's famous response in one of those Trek series; "But Sharon, I am incapable of lying".
Thus if we believe in Data why shouldn't we believe in LDS Church?

[_beastie]

Now, assuming they have the ability to be introspective, perhaps they could discuss this thread on their moderator's forum

moksha made a funny

Actually, as valid as A.I.'s point is, since she aired her grievances on the enemy board (in their eyes) and agreed that some notable LDS posters (like Juliann) engage in this seemingly deliberate derailing behavior.... methinks she's SOL.

[_moksha]

Now, assuming they have the ability to be introspective, perhaps they could discuss this thread on their moderator's forum

moksha made a funny

Actually, as valid as A.I.'s point is, since she aired her grievances on the enemy board (in their eyes) and agreed that some notable LDS posters (like Juliann) engage in this seemingly deliberate derailing behavior.... methinks she's SOL.

So you're saying that Juliann already has a doll of A.I. made up and is just bidding her time to stick pins in it? How do we know that cooler heads among their moderators will not prevail?

[_beastie]

So you're saying that Juliann already has a doll of A.I. made up and is just bidding her time to stick pins in it? How do we know that cooler heads among their moderators will not prevail?

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.