Good Lord

[_Runtu]

I don't hate Wade. I perceived his post as an insult, as I am quite sure it was intended to be. Saying so doesn't mean I hate Wade.

[_wenglund]

[And so it begins. The difficulty of true moderation. I perceived it as an attack, and apparently so did John. If I were to say, "I wonder why you're such a pea brained imbecile, barely capable of forming a coherent thought", would I have an argument that I was simply "assessing" your mental capacity? Or would that be an attack? (I'm NOT saying that, by the way... simply illustrating a point.)

You attacked (or assessed) the POSTER, not THE ARGUMENT.]

I suppose "true moderation" can be difficult if the moderators can't tell the difference between attacking someone's argument/judgements (which is what I did) vs. attacking the person's intellectual capacity, or attacking what someone said (which is what I did) vs. who someone is.

It will be even more difficult if the moderator considers attacks on a person's argument/judgement to be a "personal attack" while not giving a passing mention to things like impugning the motives of deceased prophets or calling someone "condescending and bigotted".

But, I am okay with however you may wish to censor me. Like I said, "your board, your rules".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I don't hate Wade. I perceived his post as an insult, as I am quite sure it was intended to be. Saying so doesn't mean I hate Wade.

For the record, contrary to the mind-reading of my motives above, I didn't intend to insult Runtu nor do I believe my assessment of Runtu's impugning of GBH's motives to have been insulting--though, ironically, I did consider Runtu's impugning of GBH's motives to be insulting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

I would offer an assessment of your judement of me, but it appears that in doing so the mods may consider it a "personal attack" (while ironically your highly personal judgements of me continue to go unchecked), and I don't wish to run afoul of the new board policy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Apparently you missed it, but Scratch got dinged for his comments too.]

[_The Nehor]

This new moderation is great.

Oh, and you're all idiots. (Wouldn't want a post without red in it)

[KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, NEHOR!!!!!!!! :)]

(I aims to please)

[_Mister Scratch]

[And so it begins. The difficulty of true moderation. I perceived it as an attack, and apparently so did John. If I were to say, "I wonder why you're such a pea brained imbecile, barely capable of forming a coherent thought", would I have an argument that I was simply "assessing" your mental capacity? Or would that be an attack? (I'm NOT saying that, by the way... simply illustrating a point.)

You attacked (or assessed) the POSTER, not THE ARGUMENT.]

I suppose "true moderation" can be difficult if the moderators can't tell the difference between attacking someone's argument/judgements (which is what I did) vs. attacking the person's intellectual capacity, or attacking what someone said (which is what I did) vs. who someone is.

Come on, Wade. You yourself have insisted many times that criticism of the Church is the same as criticism against you. So, for you to claim that your attack on Runtu's "arguments/judgments" is somehow detached and different from attacking his "intellectual capacity" seems rather hypocritical.

It will be even more difficult if the moderator considers attacks on a person's argument/judgement to be a "personal attack" while not giving a passing mention to things like impugning the motives of deceased prophets or calling someone "condescending and bigotted".

by the way: I am curious to know how the film deals with GBH's dishonesty and finagling during the Mark Hofmann episode, or what it says about his "puppet presidency" during the later ETB years, or the alleged sexual liaison he had with a young man....

[_The Nehor]

the alleged sexual liaison he had with a young man....

You mean the one reported with a Gordon Hinckley and whom the original source of the report said himself that it was not that Hinckley.

Oh, and in the spirit of the thread you're a pedophile and a bed-wetter.

[See here, Nehor.]

[2. No personal attacks allowed.]

[_Mister Scratch]

the alleged sexual liaison he had with a young man....

You mean the one reported with a Gordon Hinckley and whom the original source of the report said himself that it was not that Hinckley.

Provide a source and we can discuss it.

[_wenglund]

Come on, Wade. You yourself have insisted many times that criticism of the Church is the same as criticism against you. So, for you to claim that your attack on Runtu's "arguments/judgments" is somehow detached and different from attacking his "intellectual capacity" seems rather hypocritical.

I suppose that to those, such as yourself, who don't understand, among several things, the important distinction between "criticism" and "attack" as well as the difference between valid criticism of an "argument/judgement" and personally attacking someone's "intellectual capacity", then I can see how you may view my comments as hypocritical.

But, I wonder if my pointing out your misunderstandings may be deemed by some (you included?) to be a "personal attack"--though I don't see it that way.

However, given your stunning "reasoning" above (which I don't agree with), and in light of your considering my comments to be "rather hypocritical", then you must conclude that your attack on my comments is attached and not different from attacking my "intellectual capacity", and thus you were personally attacking me. Will you be self-censoring?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

However, given your stunning "reasoning" above (which I don't agree with), and in light of your considering my comments to be "rather hypocritical", then you must conclude that your attack on my comments is attached and not different from attacking my "intellectual capacity", and thus you were personally attacking me. Will you be self-censoring?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I am not the one who floated the ridiculous argument that criticizing the Church is the same as criticizing you, or President Hinckley, or any other TBM. I think it is perfectly fine and valid to criticize the Church and/or its leaders, and I don't think that necessarily reflects on the individual members. It is *you* who (apparently) supports that view.