I haven't read through the thread but I did respond to your email requesting I not mod the
Spalding thread and I said "sure no problem". I'll still address your post though.
Dr. Shades wrote:For the sake of not wanting to undermine my own moderator, I really would've rather taken this post up via PM, but I think the issue is important enough that needs to be seen by the public here.
marg wrote:Yes, the answer is Dale, enjoys preferential treatment due to poor health, along with his expertise which is of value to the issues presented in the thread.
Marg, with all due respect to you, I'm afraid that that is simply NOT TRUE.
NOBODY gets, expects, or enjoys preferential treatment here. NO ONE.
Threads may get special or preferential treatment, usually due to the original author's request, but that "special treatment" only amounts to increased vigilance in splitting off off-topic posts or potential derailments. Human beings themselves NEVER get such treatment.
(There is a precedent for this: Dan Vogel, an opponent of the Spalding/Rigdon claims, got precisely the same preferential treatment (or, more accurately, his
thread did) when he was participating in his own Spalding/Ridgon thread.
Well I probably shouldn't have described it as preferential treatment. No one gets a note from me on the thread who is moving the discussion forward on topic and who is not using ad hominems. I want both critics and non to participate. So the Spalding theory doesn't get special treatment.
The problem is that if every ad hominem is to be addressed that would be disruptive to progression of the discussion. So if occasionally a person receives an ad hom, I chose not to say anything in most cases.
In the case with Mikwut and Dale, Mikwut had already noted previously in a post his personal attack of Dale. So he's been aware of it. This was another. While I never addressed his first personal attack, I made comments about it when Brent had asked Dale a question relating to it. Had I said something to Mikwut the first time, the issue with Brent would likely have not developed.
This current personal attack by Mikwut was unwarranted. He wrote : "Not only is UD flippant dismissal simplistic and ridiculous the reply he does give us fails miserably."
I had asked Dale to give a condensed version of critic's arguments and in response Dale prefaced his post that he was giving a condensed version so of course it was meant to be short & concise. It was up to the reader to decide if it was flippant, dismissive, simplistic and ridiculous. Mikwut doesn't need to poisen the well, nor waste Dale's time in having to address his attacks.
Because Dale is posting much more than most people he is open to more ad hominems, just by the law of averages. An occasional ad hominem inflicted on people who aren't posting much isn't too disruptive and obviously won't get out of hand if they don't post much. So it is a combination of factors, why I ignore some ad hominems but have commented on 2 relating to Dale. I wish to prevent personal attacks, unwarranted comments on Dale, who I also know is of poor health and shouldn't be required to fend off unwarranted attacks.
I do not want him wasting time replying to unwarranted cheap shots thrown his way.
I don't either, but I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to "protect" someone via moderatorial fiat. Now, considering Uncle Dale's physiological limitations, there's nothing wrong with politely requesting that people refrain from pulling the MA&D trick of sending him on wild goose chases, since him typing one page is equivalent to any of us typing ten pages. But beyond that, no, he doesn't have any more moderatorial "protection" than anyone else.
I didin't move anything I asked Mikwut to refrain from ad hominems. And I said I might delete them in the future, only if it got out of hand would I move the posts.
My goal is to allow the discussion to progress with as little disruption vis moderation or from posters as possible, and without unwarranted attacks on individuals with Dale getting preferential treatment to an extent due to special circumstances noted above.
If any moderators are reading this, I respectfully request that they immediately cease operating under the parameters of the bolded phrase, above.
Look Shades you know quite well, I wasn't protecting the Spalding theory, harassing critics, disrupting the thread etc. Ray wrote a post in this thread, in which he used the words "preferential treatment" and I responded with yes, but in actual fact, I've asked only once for Mikwut to refrain from ad homs, and once I moved some posts because they related to an ad hom against Dale which was off topic. In a long thread such as that, currently 48 pages, that's not exactly excessive moderating.
If any of Dale's critics are reading this, I respectfully request that you stick to the Jockers study and/or the Spalding/Rigdon claims and completely ignore the life, character, or person of Dale Broadhurst (although his opinions on Jockers, Spalding/Rigdon, etc. are of course FAIR game).
Anyhow I won't touch the Spalding thread.
