UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_marg]

And what do you define as "poor character"?

Doing something for selfish purposes at the negative expense of another.

[_marg]

I am by no means Robinson Crusoe. And as they say, learning from the past is what's important, and not repeating it again.

Well you are repeating again you just don't realize it.

You don't have any appreciation where your thinking goes wrong, why your approach and attitude doesn't help you.

[_Ray A]

And what do you define as "poor character"?

Doing something for selfish purposes at the negative expense of another.

I'm sure Brent Metcalfe would agree with that. (and mikwut)

[_marg]

Doing something for selfish purposes at the negative expense of another.

I'm sure Brent Metcalfe would agree with that. (and mikwut)

Really ..the prime consideration for that thread should be to keep posts on topic and posters from derailing or trying to sabotage. Brent's post was off topic, Mikwut's post was egregious insulting, hence a potential derailment if it was pursued further, by him or others.

But you certainly fit nicely within that parameter.

[_marg]

Marg and ray carry on discussion on board, ray feels marg is insulting ray's intelligence by not agreeing with him, and rejecting NDE's and he even openly expresses that.

Not at all. It was your ignorance of NDE studies in general, and your "science has explained it all" approach. I can respect someone who's really done their homework. Not someone who reads a couple of studies then declares it all "a waste of time".

Your ignorance of science is your problem. Science in this case does have physiological, psychological explanations for the various core experiences. That they may be wrong is not relevant. What don’t they have an explanation for Ray? You aren’t able to sort through what is crap and what isn’t. You make things more complicated than they should be. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Keep reading those NDE experiences. You said you read over 1,000? That’s not enough Ray when you get to 10,000 maybe then you’ll have the expertise to say something on them.

Regarding you’re not concerned that I’m challenging your intelligence let’s look at our exchange in the Interesting talk with Lady thread:

Ray: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:32 am
I understand. Calling someone a "liar" is "no big deal". That's also indirectly aimed at me, your "gullible one". You have made a "big deal" about it. And you still have no idea how you're insulting my intelligence.

Marg: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:33 am
There you go again, not allowing that others have a different opinion than you without it being a major insult to you. Your entire intelligence does not rest solely on your decision making on this one event. Isn't it possible you are wrong. I thought you were an open minded individual, or so you've told me in this thread.



To Sethbag you wrote: " I don’t mind reading your critical comment, Seth, But I’d rather not be called gullible, if I have a different view. There’s nothing iron-clad or fixed about this, as far as I’m concerned, and I’d welcome your usual incisive criticisms.”

So don't lie Ray, the evidence is that you didn't like your intelligence being insulted and that I thought you were gullible.

He's not getting respect and admiration, he's getting disagreement of views. He thinks she thinks he's gullible and he expresses that..

I said you were uninformed.

You also thought I thought you were gullible and it seemed to bother you. Here is just some of what you said:

Ray: Dec 30, 2008 6:04 pm
5) You shouldn't be discussing any of this because it's only for gullible believers. I await your next post marg, on a subject you shouldn't be discussing.


Ray Dec 30 6:41
And do you accept that I accept they are not liars? Without referring to me as a "guillible believer"?

Ray: Dec 30, 2008 7:17 pm
So now we get to the crux of the matter, "do I really believe???" (gullible believer again).

Ray can't think of good ways to argue for the issue he wishes to defend, and he find it a personal afront and deep down is concerned he's probably wrong and he'll be exposed.

I've been debating about NDEs on Mormon-related boards since 2000. I have never been afraid of being "exposed" for views I've purposely posted on those boards.

You show your fear when you shut out or down the other interlocutor by resorting to attacks in response.

He attacks her personally again and again instead saying she's biased and closed minded and hasn't spent nearly the time he has in reading books on the subject of NDE's. Ray doesn't like being challenged or his intelligence insulted especially by a female.

Then perhaps you'd better talk to some males who've crossed paths with me in the past. Begin with Daniel C. Peterson on ZLMB in 2003.

Daniel is not Danielle.

He is angry at that. He is tired of being made to feel inferior by others..but by a woman...it's even worse.

And just remember that you're the one bringing sexism into this. I didn't. Maybe someone like Moniker can confirm with you that I'm an awfully sexist, male chauvinistic pig.

I have never seen Moniker challenge you in discussion on something related to your paranormal, supernatural beliefs. Maybe if she did she’d have my
perspective on you.

[_Dr. Shades]

The great moderatorial experiment is separate to the current issue. My posts are really with the best interests of the board, . . .

As are mine.

. . . though you may not appreciate that.

I totally appreciate that.

I always think on the whole in most situations unless one is trying to protect someone that honesty is the best policy.

As do I.

Shades so far ..I've acknowledged my error in my post. I've expanded further on it.

Yet you continue to repeat it.

Now you are saying that I moderated with bias. So now it's not just Ray but ou. Your example "Danny Boy----> Mr "was never an issue. Ray wasn't even aware of it, nor was anyone else. So let's be honest ..what else have you got in your mind, that warrants your now accusation of my moderational bias against critics?

Your use of the two unforgivable words.

Had you attached your name to it at first, or hadn't you?

Yes I had, not only that, I had contacted Bryon to make the change himself but he doesn't open up pm;s apparently because he didn't open mine.

So you had dropped a note indicating that the post had been edited by you?

On the contrary, that which is noticed is the only thing that does matter.

The charge against me Shades is bias...changing Danny boy to Daniel can not be construed as bias against critics.

It can be construed as moderation inconsistent with the Terrestrial Forum.

For you to keep harping on this indicates you really have nothing against, you're now resorting to minutia in order to have at least something, anything..just so that you can say you have something.

The Danny Boy--->Mr. Peterson thing is only ancillary. The remaining 99% was your use of the two unforgivable words.

Even though that something is no indication of the actual charge against me, it shows the opposite.

It does not show the opposite.

And frankly there is nothing wrong with changing Danny Boy..it's a slur against him. I don't care if you don't think it is, I do. and if I do, I'm sure others do.

Of course it's a slur against him. But this is the Terrestrial Forum.

What you are not getting is that the charge against me is bias, not changing one name to avoid a slur. Bias Shades,...bias that's the issue.

Indeed it is.

Well when I said locking onto something, I mean once you form an opinion and I'm sure you do this in your life off the board, I doubt it's different than on here, that you become set.

I only become set when I discover the proper way.

I do think eventually locking and executing the plans is a good thing. You seem to rush to lock without gathering much information and then that's it, you dig your heels in.

When I read, to my horror, that you had uttered the two unforgivable words, I didn't need to gather any more information. They were sitting there in stark black-and-white. They were the information.

You aren't interested in being principled, so much as interested in having rigid rules and plans to execute.

I am rigid in my principles. My rules are principled. And my plans are to execute my principles.

[_skippy the dead]

But Shades it was one insignificant event. And the complainers were complainers who knew nothing of the events. Doesn't it occur to you that some people like to post complaints just for the sake of it. Wasn't it skippy who said that what she found wrong about it was that I hadn't put my name to it, then later Liz asked me and went back and my name Washington attached. So skippy didn't even know what the heck she was complaining about and yet you are relying on her complaint.

I did retract the statement about the edit being done without acknowledgment, but I also found the change to be wrong on its face. I did not change my opinion on that. So I did know what the heck I was complaining about.

skippy the dead didn't have a clue what was going on, and just posts to be heard for the sake of being heard

You seem to think that it is required that one invest hours into a particular thread before one can form an opinion about a particular action. This is not simply not true. I can see an action (changing a derisive address to a respectful one, thus altering a poster's complete tone and intent) and form an opinion. Context in this case is irrelevant. And I don't post just for the sake of being heard. I have actually been rarely posting at all. This particular issue happened to catch my attention.

[_marg]

But Shades it was one insignificant event. And the complainers were complainers who knew nothing of the events. Doesn't it occur to you that some people like to post complaints just for the sake of it. Wasn't it skippy who said that what she found wrong about it was that I hadn't put my name to it, then later Liz asked me and went back and my name Washington attached. So skippy didn't even know what the heck she was complaining about and yet you are relying on her complaint.

I did retract the statement about the edit being done without acknowledgment, but I also found the change to be wrong on its face. I did not change my opinion on that. So I did know what the heck I was complaining about.

Good for you that you retracted the statement. The point still stands that you jumped into the thread to complain about something which didn't happen, so you showed you didn't know what had gone on. Of course you retracted, the evidence that you accused me of was blatantly false, even if you didn't retract it was blatantly obvious anyhow.

And of course now you are going to say the change was wrong.

What I've been accused of is bias against critics. Making a change to take away a slur against Dan shows the opposite of bias against critcs. In addition the change is not exactly egregious, if that's how you spend yout time worrying about and complaining about insignificant things, you most have a very boring life.

skippy the dead didn't have a clue what was going on, and just posts to be heard for the sake of being heard

You seem to think that it is required that one invest hours into a particular thread before one can form an opinion about a particular action. This is not simply not true. I can see an action (changing a derisive address to a respectful one, thus altering a poster's complete tone and intent) and form an opinion. Context in this case is irrelevant. And I don't post just for the sake of being heard. I have actually been rarely posting at all. This particular issue happened to catch my attention.

Trust me you post for the sake of being heard, even now you are doing it, and you sound like you have a few short circuits in that noggin of yours.

[_skippy the dead]

[a bunch of useless ramblings]

Whatever, marg. Get over yourself. Seriously. You've dedicated hours trying to convince people you think are worthless and stupid that you're right about something insignificant. I suspect your life is somewhat more boring than mine if you have the time and energy to do that. I find it unbelievable that you continue to miss the point of nearly everybody's posts (especially Shades'), while focusing on the most minute details that do not contribute to the overall situation. Short circuits indeed.

But please continue. It apparently gives you great pleasure. Who am I to deny your self important posturing?

[_marg]

[a bunch of useless ramblings]

Whatever, marg. Get over yourself. Seriously. You've dedicated hours trying to convince people you think are worthless and stupid that you're right about something insignificant. I suspect your life is somewhat more boring than mine if you have the time and energy to do that. I find it unbelievable that you continue to miss the point of nearly everybody's posts (especially Shades'), while focusing on the most minute details that do not contribute to the overall situation. Short circuits indeed.

But please continue. It apparently gives you great pleasure. Who am I to deny your self important posturing?

Everybody's posts? You mean those people who jumped into a thread to criticize but demonstrated they didn't have a clue what happened. Right. What it boils down to skipster, is that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge you were wrong, so you want to continue on, still complaining to justify that despite the fact you didn't know, that you are still right. Got it.