Departure, Effectively with a Gun to My Head

[_Tiktaalik]

The smart thing to do is just remain anonymous. What is to be gained by revealing your identity?

That's true, but nevertheless identities are sometimes revealed unintentionally, and many posters here are already "public". With that in mind, threats of lawsuits should result in immediate banning.

From what I gather, Moniker was banned for repeatedly bringing up off-topic issues, but GoodK is allowed to threaten lawsuits against other posters with no consequences??! Something is terribly, terribly wrong with that kind of moderation policy.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Well this is just pretty darn stupid. Why the heck do you wanna sue him GoodK you fricking asswipe??? This is an internet forum INTERNET... not actual life matters LIFE! Can you tell the difference between the two?

Well I think dihoreah[sp?] has brought on some cramp. Haha. Ouch.

[_KimberlyAnn]

We've had several lawsuits threatened on this board.

Daniel Peterson threatened legal action against Gadianton and Scratch for libel, though he says he didn't actually contact a lawyer, but warned that he would. If I recall correctly, it was concerning Dr. Peterson's compensation as an apologist.

Moniker threatened legal action against Polygamy Porter and possibly others for libel or harassment or some such issues. I do not know whether or not she pursued litigation, but it was threatened. She also threatened to sue Shades for access to her PM's after she was banned.

There have probably been others who threatened litigation, but I can't remember any off the top of my head.

I find legal bullying distasteful, but in the past it hasn't been a ban-worthy offense so I don't think there's a moderation bias in that regard.

KA

[Alf'Omega]

From what I gather, Moniker was banned for repeatedly bringing up off-topic issues, but GoodK is allowed to threaten lawsuits against other posters with no consequences??! Something is terribly, terribly wrong with that kind of moderation policy.

Hmmm… I’m on the fence about this one. I’m as far from a litigious person as you can get and have always thought people who take others to court are rightfully called “sewers.”

However, I’m not sure that what a person does on their own time should influence whether they can participate on a board. And quite frankly, I don’t like people being banned (I hate the rule that got Moniker banned and think it needs to be revisited – I don’t think she should have been banned for that particular behavior, although I understand being banned for repetitively breaking a rule, albeit a bad one).

I recognize that it’s simply the threat of suit that you’re saying should result in a banning, but what’s a threat? The police won’t even respond to a threat (if my vast experience with movies is any indication). :D

So yeah… I have to give this one more thought.

I will say that I echo KA’s very thoughtful and sensible post, and encourage GoodK to just drop the whole thing. It’s not worth it. Sure, DCP can be a raging prick at times, but so what? He suffers because he’s a raging prick sometimes. Isn’t that enough?

Forgiving people because we’re taught to in church is a bad reason to do it. Forgiving people because it’s good for our mental health and piece of mind is the only reason to do it.

[_William Schryver]

This is a mistake, GoodK.

In any case, this board is probably the single least-frequented LDS-related forum in cyberspace.

This board actually seems to have a surprisingly large readership. I get far more hits on my blog when I post a link here than when I put one on MADB.

Something tells me you haven't fully thought through the logic behind those facts. Especially since it's not very hard to observe that this board does not have a very large readership. There are never more than a dozen or so total users. Shades/Keene don't have the board display the number of "active" users as does the MAD board, but I'll bet that is an option for them with this phpBB package. I would bet that the total "active" users is fewer than 100, if not actually fewer than 50.

In any case, this board has certainly served an important purpose in the past: it's like the seedy bar at the end of the street on the wrong side of tracks, where anyone is welcome, but only the outcasts from the finer establishments actually go.

I'm not sure where DCP and I fit into that description.

Maybe we're like the kind-hearted but hard-fisted vice squad officers who have inexplicably developed a certain morbid fascination, if not actual affinity, for the sorry bastards weeping into their beers in the shadowed corners.

It certainly can't be because we like the smell of the place ...

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe we're like the kind-hearted but hard-fisted vice squad officers who have inexplicably developed a certain morbid fascination, if not actual affinity, for the sorry bastards weeping into their beers in the shadowed corners.

No, you're more like the escaped mental patient who keeps beating his head against the bars covering the windows to make the voices stop.

[_William Schryver]

Pig in a Pokatator:

Will, you are by far one of the most foul mouthed, ignorant and insensitive Mormons I have ever encountered. If what you have said in the "Easter Greeting" thread is true:

And then, presumably as “evidence” of my status as “the most foul-mouthed … etc.” Mormon, you cite two paragraphs I wrote on that thread:

Yes, dear Dr., I am passionate about my beliefs. And one of my most passionate beliefs is that the first thing an apostate Mormon loses on his way out the chapel door is his irony sensor. Who would have thought it was something that depended on religious faith? I know I wouldn’t have. Nevertheless, I’ve long since established the incontrovertible connection between the two things: once they’ve vacated the chapel, there ain’t a lick of irony ever registers in their minds again.

Do you see what I mean, Shades?

I'm not saying it happens to all of them, but for many (and Ray is a case in point) it's like a certain part of their brain gets cauterized the instant they walk out the chapel door with the intent of never returning.

OK ………………

Are you familiar with the latin term non sequitur? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) )

Or perhaps there’s some nuance to your remarks that has eluded me?

You then conclude:

Will, stay in the church, please, because if you leave it you are going to turn into one ugly, vulgar, foul mouthed mother.

Well, it’s going to be hard to achieve the “ugly” part at this juncture – I’m just too damn handsome already!

And since I’m already, according to some, “one … vulgar, foul-mouthed mother,” I suppose there’s no good reason to leave the church on that account alone. So … I guess I’ll just have to stay.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

We've had several lawsuits threatened on this board.

Daniel Peterson threatened legal action against Gadianton and Scratch for libel, though he says he didn't actually contact a lawyer, but warned that he would. If I recall correctly, it was concerning Dr. Peterson's compensation as an apologist.

Moniker threatened legal action against Polygamy Porter and possibly others for libel or harassment or some such issues. I do not know whether or not she pursued litigation, but it was threatened. She also threatened to sue Shades for access to her PM's after she was banned.

There have probably been others who threatened litigation, but I can't remember any off the top of my head.

I find legal bullying distasteful, but in the past it hasn't been a ban-worthy offense so I don't think there's a moderation bias in that regard.

KA

I think it should be a bannable offence of top prioroty and it is downright stupid. I love mon she is awesome and no offense to anyone in particular but there seriously is no need. Some people need to see what harrasment really is. When you live in fear of your life for 2 years taking turns to stay up half the night on watch out because you are so harrased and manipulated into believing someone when they tell you the are going to find you and kill you and then kill themself because life isn't worth living, this all becomes pitiful and incredibly idiotic. I think you are right KA it is distasteful. Incredibly so.

This is a forum, a place where people come and share their views and discuss and argue and get into fights but it is also something that when you log of it is meaningless and has no regards to your life whatsoever until you next log on and if it is taken into real life then that is just a shame and a waste of a life.

[_harmony]

Maybe we're like the kind-hearted but hard-fisted vice squad officers who have inexplicably developed a certain morbid fascination, if not actual affinity, for the sorry bastards weeping into their beers in the shadowed corners.

It certainly can't be because we like the smell of the place ...

This has to rank up with the most inane comments ever made. To be that self-unaware is just frightening.

[_WjExMo]

It is about time someone sued DCP.

I think everyone who has been bullied by DCP and had their posts placed up on SHIELDS - should also get together and sue DCP for defamation of character.

Him and his twin, Allen Peterson.

Both deserve to be sued.