ludwigm wrote:As a readaholic, during reading in english language, I meet many new words. I don't understand why, the books I read miss this type of words ...
Well ludwigm, these types of words don't appear in books, typically. You must go to an American public high school to learn words like these.
Ray A wrote:You may not agree with me, and that's fine, but consider that we have lost beastie partly for the reasons she outlined above, and I think you'll agree that, like her or not, she was one of the key posters on this board and a significant draw card. She never intended to speak out about this, but came back for one last "blunt" clarification, as she phrased it, because of speculation as to why some were leaving. This isn't so much a free speech issue, it's a harassment issue, and I think you may agree that they aren't the same.
Now it's your turn to have a say. > > >
Here's my say: I think that names need to be named. I think that Moniker, Beastie, and others should come forward and say who was engaging in the "harassing" behavior. Based on my having read the threads, and various comments, and based on some PMs which I, too, have received, I think we can make an educated guess as to who "spoilsport" is. I have assembled a list of suspects and can post it if people are interested.
But, I'm still kind of confused as to what Beastie & et al. considered "harassment." I see that there was a comment about somebody looking good in a T-shirt. I also saw a remark in which a male posted inquired into what Moniker was wearing. Further, there seems to be a lot of feelings related to Moniker's blog, which I never read. Some people seem to think that it was sexual in nature whereas others (Mon included) maintain that it was more about her status as a victim.
I have not been reading this board regularly since I left, and was not able to read the deleted posts before they were deleted. So I may be missing some information.
I’m going to try to clarify again why I have chosen to leave the board. I feel quite certain that some posters will remain convinced that they know why I left better than I do, but for those who remain interested in my own thoughts on the matter, I write this for you. I have had long interactions with several of you and feel you deserve more information. However, I will not name names, as it is not my right to do so.
First, I did not leave because of the interactions on the political threads. That is utter nonsense. I can handle confrontation and disagreement, as my long history on these sort of boards witnesses. As I’ve mentioned previously, I have a long history of posting on Mormon/exmormon boards. Some of these boards were heavily moderated, some were not moderated at all, and most were somewhere in the middle. In my experience, the unmoderated boards eventually become intolerable, like ARM. While this board does not have some moderation, in my opinion it still falls more in the unmoderated category due to the refusal to ban any posters, and due to the tolerance of personal attacks in the most popular forum. It seems to me that when a board is largely unmoderated, and when the administration refuses to ban posters, then the board will inevitably attract posters who would be banned very quickly on other boards. I’m not talking about the heavy-handed MAD type of banning, wherein posters are banned for being on the wrong side. I’m talking about the more normal type of boards, which would not tolerate excessive, repetitive personal attacks by posters. As an example, most boards I’ve participated on would immediately ban any poster who threatened to expose the identity of another poster, or contact “real life” people in that poster’s life to alert them as to their posting here. Of course, that’s just one example of the type of behavior that would ensure banning on other boards. Moniker posted an example in droopy’s frequent, sexual-laced attacks as well. Most boards I’ve participated on would immediately ban a poster for such behavior. When that sort of behavior is tolerated on a board in that the poster will, at most, only suffer the consequence of having his/her posts moved to another forum, than that sort of behavior will continue, because, for whatever reason, there are some people in the world who tend to that sort of behavior unless an external force prohibits it. I consider both these examples – droopy’s post and the threat of exposure – to be a form of cyber bullying. It has been awkward for me, in the past, because I didn’t know which was the most effective way of dealing with such behavior. Ignore it in the hopes that the offensive poster simply wanted attention and would stop if such attention were not given? That doesn’t seem to work with any reliability. But continually having to object to such behavior is tiring, and then one is harassed for being a board nanny. This is why I prefer more moderated boards.
Aside from cyber bullying, there are other problems that I think tend to be more common on Mormon/exmormon boards, and that is a basic immaturity and awkwardness in dealing with sexuality. It’s also quite common to see a seemingly adolescent type of sexual adventuring, which Moniker once referred to as Rumspringa. I didn’t grow up as a Mormon, so I can’t fully relate to the phenomenon of having one’s sexuality so strictly dictated all one’s life and then suddenly realizing that you have to figure that out on your own. Marriages that were once based on mutual belief often are weakened by the loss of faith on one partner, and some emotional and possible sexual “reaching out” to others occurs, or a more active exploration of sexual mores in general may occur. Much of that occurs behind the scenes, and is a significant problem when the advances are not welcome or invited. Mormons and exmormons often have issues with recognizing and respecting personal boundaries, in my opinion. Beyond that, I think that the Madonna/Whore dichotomy exists within Mormonism and its effect can still be seen in exmormons. Mormons grew up with a very particular ideal of womanhood, in particular, and behavior outside that ideal was condemned and even feared in the community. Virginity is highly prized and cherished. I never fully appreciated this aspect of the culture until I left it and was able to have more frank conversations about the culture. I was a convert, and didn’t realize that, in many circles in Mormonism, young men are discouraged from dating female converts due to the high likelihood of past sexual experience. Leaving Mormonism does not automatically erase all this past programming. Of course, Mormonism is not unique in this, although it tends to be more extreme. One particularly disgusting aspect of this cultural phenomenon is the disdaining of sexually experienced peers while simultaneously sexually desiring those same people. Along with that is often the willingness to disrespect, sexually use, or even abuse those same people, as if their “taint” makes them less than human somehow, because they are the “other”, the sinful, the fallen. This is sometimes manifest in the willingness of some to try to take sexual advantage of people who are obviously vulnerable and hurting.
My comments may be interpreted by some as saying “I want this board to ban people and to engage in more aggressive moderation”. That is not what I’m saying. I am saying that different boards suit different people, and unmoderated boards with no banning don’t suit me, due to the “unintended consequence” of attracting a higher number of posters whose personal style would ensure banning on any other board. I’ve known that I prefer moderated boards for many years, since my ARM experience. I stuck it out with this board for a long time due to certain posters I enjoy interacting with. I’m not asking you all to change, and am skeptical about how much could be changed, anyway. We are who we are. Shades wants this board to be a particular way, and it’s his board. I’m just trying to clarify a bit more about my own personal decision. This has been a long time coming. There have been episodes in the past that nearly persuaded me it was time to go, such as Will’s past harassment of Runtu. So this last episode was just the final straw.
I hope that will help some of you concerned folks understand more of where I’m coming from. I have no doubt that posting this will invite personal attacks by some as well. That’s why I have serious reservations about the wisdom of my decision to post again.
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.
I personally have no interest in seeing you attacked over this issue. I am more interested in getting to the bottom of all of this, and in untangling this mess. Perhaps we could start by learning what "spoil sport" posted? (I'm also confused about why "spoilsport" chose this week in particular to post this material, whatever it was....)
beastie wrote:While this board does not have some moderation, in my opinion it still falls more in the unmoderated category due to the refusal to ban any posters, and due to the tolerance of personal attacks in the most popular forum. . . Shades wants this board to be a particular way, and it’s his board.
Hey beastie, have you read the thread in the Terrestrial Forum titled "The Great Moderatorial Experiment, PART ONE: The set-up?" If not, please do so; if harmony gives it the green light, then we'll start moderating things the way you want them to be moderated. Please stick around; the board just might become what you want it to be.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Beastie, I hate to say it, but you are a stark raving hypocrite in the way you treat your adversaries. YOU expose in real life details. YOU make crude sexual references. I am the number one victim.
Beastie, I hate to say it, but you are a stark raving hypocrite in the way you treat your adversaries. YOU expose in real life details. YOU make crude sexual references. I am the number one victim.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that you think the joke I told about you was "revealing real life details" and making a crude sexual reference. I know that you think it constituted stalking. I think that you interpret it in such a manner is frankly bizarre. I even apologized to you afterward for my crude joke told in a moment of anger, and you have nursed your grievance over that silly little thing and used it to make all sorts of false accusations against me ever since. I think you react like a wounded narcissist.
Your threats or hints that you will reveal people's real identities or their posting to their real life families would have gotten you banned on the vast majority of boards I've participated on in the past.
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.
Beastie, I hate to say it, but you are a stark raving hypocrite in the way you treat your adversaries. YOU expose in real life details. YOU make crude sexual references. I am the number one victim.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that you think the joke I told about you was "revealing real life details" and making a crude sexual reference. I know that you think it constituted stalking. I think that you interpret it in such a manner is frankly bizarre. I even apologized to you afterward for my crude joke told in a moment of anger, and you have nursed your grievance over that silly little thing and used it to make all sorts of false accusations against me ever since. I think you react like a wounded narcissist.
Your threats or hints that you will reveal people's real identities or their posting to their real life families would have gotten you banned on the vast majority of boards I've participated on in the past.
I have never once threatened to reveal anybody's real identities. The only person's identity I even have a clue about is GoodK's and his outing did not come at my hands.
And, I don't care that you did bad things in a fit of pique, it doesn't change the fact that you made crude remarks about my in real life family, some of whom are little minors. Here you are complaining about what others have done on this board.
Nor do I ever recall any apology; perhaps you did so publicly while I was not participating, but I would hazard a guess that any apology was coupled with a nasty personal jab.
For you to decry the personal attacks on this board is truly, truly astounding. There has not been a single TBM Mormon on this board with whom you have carried on any sort of dialogue where you haven't savaged him or her with personal, sarcastic or rancorous attacks.
But I still enjoy having you here.
I challenge you to a debate on any Mormon subject of your choosing (other than simply debating about this board or the other one, which is what Scratch did when I challenged him to a debate, and unsuccessfully so I might add). I only ask that the personal jabs be left behind.
rcrocket wrote: I have never once threatened to reveal anybody's real identities. The only person's identity I even have a clue about is GoodK's and his outing did not come at my hands.
That is precisely the identity you threatened to reveal. Nice try, Bob.
I challenge you to a debate on any Mormon subject of your choosing (other than simply debating about this board or the other one, which is what Scratch did when I challenged him to a debate, and unsuccessfully so I might add). I only ask that the personal jabs be left behind.
You lost that debate, Bob. What an embarrassment for you! Also, you chickened out and ran after you were challenged on the issue of FARMS Review's editorial policies.
Nor do I ever recall any apology; perhaps you did so publicly while I was not participating, but I would hazard a guess that any apology was coupled with a nasty personal jab.
For heaven's sake, I apologized on the very same thread on which I originally made the joke.
by the way, I do regret making the comment about bob's wife thinking about England. That was said in a moment of anger. I apologize to bob for that, but not for the rest of my observations about the "Ms. Scratch" incident.