Dr. Shades wrote:Sethbag, I hope you don't think I'm "boot licking" or anything, but between you and cinepro, you easily account for over 90% of the aggregate brainpower at MA&D. Hell, I'd love to borrow, say, 1% of your brain cells for a day just to catch a glimpse of what it's like to be you.
ROFL. In that case, Cinepro would definitely account for 80-90% of that 90%. Tarski, Tchild2, The Dude, and some others are the real braniacs over there, and whenever I read their posts I just shake my head wistfully and wish I'd thought of that. I didn't even come up with the "whom would you grant the power?" question myself. It's an adaptation of the same question Christopher Hitchens asked a group of Canadian university students, regarding freedom of speech and the power of censorship.
I'd like to add Mighty Curelom into that elite group. He is one of my favorites.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Oh! Well, that stinks sethbag was banned! He had some great posts over there. He'll just have to do them here now, I suppose. Although, really, the conversations aren't as interesting here (in my opinion - sorry!) since there aren't as many practicing LDS that post here. Oh, well -- maybe they'll come over here to engage and won't be run off.
He's one of the most intelligent and effective posters over there, and must have been pretty tired of the board in order to say something so blatantly "ban-worthy".
I suspect this banning was a direct result of Juliann missing her shot while playing croquet and yelling, "off with his head". Sethbag just happened to be posting at the time.
MAD exists for promoting the faith first, and a missionary tool second. If anyone thinks for one second that it's anything different he's mistaken. The fact that Mormons routinely circumvent their own rules, while non-Mormons are expelled for minor infractions should cement that notion.
Sethbag wrote:And anyhow, my question stands perfectly well even as a hypothetical. If we could get people to agree that God's Will be enacted into law, as determined by someone elected to be The Decider (sorry Bush), which non-Mormon would the Mormons feel comfortable entrusting with that power?
Why does it have to be one person? Why can't it be an elected group to judge laws as it was for the Nephites?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Chronos: Mike, you do not seem to understand you are a guest here, and you are welcome to leave or stay as you please. However, staying means you follow the rules we set down. Because of the political and often negative fallout that is usually associated with the FLDS sects in the news, then logically you should see why it should be refrained from being used. If you want to talk about the factions that have not made news because they do not practice what is making Warren Jeffs a news story, then I think that would be fine. However, to directly associate or compare them to radical sects that are well beyond the boundaries that were once used by the LDS church, that will not be tolerated. I will give you a day to process this.
I understand that I am a guest here. I've been participating on this forum long before it was ever handed over by FAIR. No need to give me a day. It is obvious that the moderators aren't interested in allowing a level playing field, and so I have made my decision. I am done. And I have no intent in coming back so long as the trigger-happy moderation stays the way it is.
I vote with my feet.
So long everyone! See you elsewhere in Cyberspace!
yea - it sounds like they lost out big time and it's their lost and our gain as we might get more posts then. What is that old saying about their must be opposition in all things - even on the MAD board. History tells a sad story about what happens when there is no balance. Of course you can start with me ;)
Chronos wrote:As I said, he was not contributing in an acceptable fashion as most critics here do. Not only was he speaking ill of a Prophet, and saying the Lord doesn't exist (in a rude manner), he also associated thinking of another poster or the church to the Taliban. That is a clear violation of Godwin's Law. And as Orpheus said in the Warning thread, behave or leave. These rules have been around for long enough for posters like him to know what is acceptable and what isn't. He's had more than enough warning.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Chronos wrote:As I said, he was not contributing in an acceptable fashion as most critics here do. Not only was he speaking ill of a Prophet, and saying the Lord doesn't exist (in a rude manner), he also associated thinking of another poster or the church to the Taliban. That is a clear violation of Godwin's Law. And as Orpheus said in the Warning thread, behave or leave. These rules have been around for long enough for posters like him to know what is acceptable and what isn't. He's had more than enough warning.