Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_harmony]

Did you report these infractions?

marg has done this before, and she continues to moderate in a biased way. I'm not going to spend my time PMing mods about marg's bias. Would you notifiy her of her bias, or just edit the post and say nothing to her? Her bias on that thread needs to be exposed. And those who have been unfairly treated need to know that. Why should I have to keep pointing this out? Do you want me to PM you everytime marg does biased moderation? Maybe this thread will be a wake up call for her to stop being so partisan.

My point is that if you report infractions (using the little ! by the edit/quote functions...PM is not necessary), we can help you. If you don't, you will have a harder time getting quick assistance.

As to your previous comment about Brent... he has open access here just like anyone else. He can argue against the S/R theory, support his own theory, or do neither. I'd love to see his assessment of the Jockers study. Dismissing it out of hand is both cowardly and beneath him. That's something I'd expect of LDS apologists, not Brent.

But saying he's not here because of biased moderation seems like a stretch. And if he really isn't here because of some perceived bias, I'd be both surprised and disappointed. He's got bigger balls and a thicker skin than that. (just my long distance observation... no intimacy implied or meant!)

[_Yoda]

Can we all get along now?

It was a simply process, wasn't it, Liz? As soon as you knew there was an issue, you made sure it was corrected. That's why I'm wondering why Ray didn't report it?

Yes! As soon as I knew where the infraction took place.

Ray---we have a simple reporting feature. All you have to do is click on the report button on the specific post that you are uncomfortable with, and the Mods will be red flagged to review it. ALL of us can read the report, so you don't have to fear bias of one Mod.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a 40+ page thread, things can easily get missed.

The point is, we don't know there is a problem unless it is brought to our attention.

Now that the infractions are fixed, and things are back on an even playing field, what else do you feel needs to be done?

[_Ray A]

They are both on page 45. It wouldn't take long to find them.

Did you report them, Ray? Because if you saw them, and didn't report them... why didn't you report them, if you felt so strongly that they were actionable?

Here are Brent's replies:

And, Jersey Girl, at the risk of sounding uncharitable, there are those of us who have lives that extend far beyond cyber chat, so the thought of petitioning anonymous moderators about much of anything strikes me as asinine.

All the best,

</brent>

In any event, I'm not sure I can muster the energy to post on a thread where simple questions are considered "off topic."

Best regards,

</brent>

Hi Marg,

Not "assum[ing] the worst," just genuinely perplexed by your moderating style.

So Dale can post a remark that you consider "on topic," but asking him to clarify that remark is "off topic"? (Again, your bias is showing.)

Yet a subsequent post that completely lacks substance, but cheers Dale on, doesn't merit your "off topic" relocation program:

Yeah, verily, he has "great faith" in MDB. Brent knew from the start that he would get shafted!

And his fears have been vindicated by marg's biased moderation.

[_marg]

Sorry I haven't followed this thread since I last posted...watched American Idol..and I'm leaving to go to a movie, I'm currently late...will look at this later.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yeah, verily, he has "great faith" in MDB. Brent knew from the start that he would get shafted!

And his fears have been vindicated by marg's biased moderation.

Ray,

Why didn't you include marg's replies to him? Are you reporting half the story?

[_Ray A]

Ray,

Why didn't you include marg's replies to him? Are you reporting half the story?

Dale is in poor health, needs protection, and has been subjected to attacks from a "multi-billion dollar church", of which Brent is an excommunicant!

Do I laugh, or cry?

[_harmony]

Yeah, verily, he has "great faith" in MDB. Brent knew from the start that he would get shafted!

And his fears have been vindicated by marg's biased moderation.

Verily, verily, I say unto you: if he wanted to post, he would. He doesn't. He's using marg as an excuse (and it's a pretty lame one).

We will just have to limp along without him.

[_Yoda]

Here is Marg's reply:

Hi Marg,

Not "assum[ing] the worst," just genuinely perplexed by your moderating style.

So Dale can post a remark that you consider "on topic," but asking him to clarify that remark is "off topic"? (Again, your bias is showing.)

I will delete these posts to the off topic eventually Brent, but will comment to clear things up. I'm leaving to go out in 5 minutes, will look in later or tomorrow.


Your post generated a number of other posts following. Had it only been your post I likely would have left it up to Dale to respond to it or not. At issue was that Dale had received an ad hom post from Mikwut, and his comment you were questioning was a response to that ad hom. Either I delete the ad hom directed at Dale, or I allow Dale to respond. However the ad hom is off topic, meant to spoil the well against Dale. And your question asking him to elaborate follows as off topic. Then others asking or commenting on your post again further follows as off topic. Added to this that Dale should not have had to deal with the ad hom in the first place. So I elected to remove all those posts from yours and the ones following. I note Dale has addressed your post though, so you do have your answer to your question. I also noted when I moved posts I left a comment that if people felt their post on topic they may repost. But I do hope that people will consider whether their post is truly on topic of the main issues or not, before doing so.

Yet a subsequent post that completely lacks substance, but cheers Dale on, doesn't merit your "off topic" relocation program:

It was a superfluous post and I recognized that but I also note it was one post not generating a number of other posts and that while it was supportive of Dale and encouraging him to do further research, there have been many other posts not supportive of him.

You'll understand if I think your words ring hollow.

Ciao,

</brent>

I do understand brent. I probably would feel the same way as you in your shoes. But there are 2 things that I am taking into consideration. The first is the effort and knowledge to this thread Dale offers, and second is that to some extent he needs protection in that he certainly has no support from a multi-billion dollar church and its many members and he is vulnerable to their attacks on message boards. So if I think he's being questioned with superfluous questions, perhaps ad homs, which only serve to wear him down I will remove those questions or ad homs if possible without detracting from the thread, to the off-topic thread, which I did in this case with a link. If I'm wrong and Dale wishes to respond or I made an error it can be corrected. Dale did respond.

I think she explains herself quite well.

Let this one go, Ray.

[_Yoda]

Ray---

Considering the fact that Brent appears to be posting on the Book of Mormon thread again, I would say that your point is rather moot:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8100&p=219892#p219892

[_Ray A]

Verily, verily, I say unto you: if he wanted to post, he would. He doesn't. He's using marg as an excuse (and it's a pretty lame one).

We will just have to limp along without him.

I would have thought that someone banned from MAD would be more sympathetic.

But the real point of this is that MDB is becoming as agenda-ridden as MAD. You may not ban, you only want to censor whole posts because of ONE sentence.

Now what does that smack of?