liz3564 wrote:I copy/pasted the actual log of Harmony's action(minus her IP address). This is the only record we have access to:
Moderator Log wrote:harmony 2xx.xxx.xxx.xxx Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:30 pm Edited post “Re: Why wasn't Mark Hoffman executed?” written by » William Schryver View topic | View forum
This is very odd. If harmony didn't do the edit until 6:30 p.m. on 10/22 (as the above information seems to suggest), then this would mean that Will's post with the alleged "c" word would have remained up for all to see for over 9 hours, during which time this thread was very active (i.e., 30 posts were made by a variety of people (including several by me) during this 9-hour period). If this were the case, then surely many of us would now recall if Will had indeed used the "c" word in the post in question (and, as I stated in a prior post, I do not recall ever seeing the "c" word used by Will).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
I'm on my way out, but I will double-check and make sure that I posted the correct entry. Going through six months of Moderator Logs is tricky. When I did the search, I searched under all logs made by Harmony, but there could have been an earlier edit that I didn't catch.
I'm on my way out, but I will double-check and make sure that I posted the correct entry. Going through six months of Moderator Logs is tricky. When I did the search, I searched under all logs made by Harmony, but there could have been an earlier edit that I didn't catch.
I wish this investigation into the whole "c-word" question had never taken place. It is one giant distraction.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Rollo Tomasi wrote:This is very odd. If harmony didn't do the edit until 6:30 p.m. on 10/22 (as the above information seems to suggest), then this would mean that Will's post with the alleged "c" word would have remained up for all to see for over 9 hours, during which time this thread was very active (i.e., 30 posts were made by a variety of people (including several by me) during this 9-hour period). If this were the case, then surely many of us would now recall if Will had indeed used the "c" word in the post in question (and, as I stated in a prior post, I do not recall ever seeing the "c" word used by Will).
Hello,
Note the red herring post in question was toward the bottom of the page and the subsequent posts that pushed the conversation to a new page didn't address, and it could very well be that people simply clicked on the new page of the thread and didn't see the previous page and offending post toward the end of the page.
V/R Dr. Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Trevor wrote:I wish this investigation into the whole "c-word" question had never taken place. It is one giant distraction.
I wish the "c-word" allegation hadn't been made based on such dubious evidence. It puts me in the uncomfortable position of appearing as a "Mopolopoligist" when I'm really only interested in the truth. I hope that MsJack amends that section of her post, in light of the investigation.
Being accused of calling an elderly woman a c-word is a serious allegation, and whatever side of the fence you're on, I don't think it should be taken lightly.
Eric wrote: Being accused of calling an elderly woman a c-word is a serious allegation, and whatever side of the fence you're on, I don't think it should be taken lightly.
My two cents. I appreciate your sentiments toward Harmony and all of womankind here, but I don't think using the term "elderly" is called for anymore than saying, for example, "a tall woman" or "a skinny woman." It essentializes the person based on some irrelevant quality.
stemelbow wrote:Amen to that. Oh wait, distraction from what again? Maybe we don't agree. I can't tell.
I'm not sure that is worth sorting out either, stem. I have made my position on Jack's post clear. I think it was worth having a concerned, LDS sympathetic person voice their opinion on apologetic decorum. Unfortunately the discussion has devolved into a discussion of the precise extent to which one apologist may have transgressed a particular sense of decorum. The latter is a distraction, in my view.
If the course of this thread has taught me one thing, it is that for every legitimate point that is made, there is a whole mess of crap that clings to it and almost buries it. That crap comes from participants representing all points of view. My own experience of correcting Simon's blatant falsehood, followed by Wade's inexplicable inability to read, has largely been a waste of my good time.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Morley wrote:My two cents. I appreciate your sentiments toward Harmony and all of womankind here, but I don't think using the term "elderly" is called for anymore than saying, for example, "a tall woman" or "a skinny woman." It essentializes the person based on some irrelevant quality.
I know we're all in a hurry to get back to discussing misogyny, but where I come from elderly women typically warrant more respect, especially in the way you speak to them. While I might use foul language in front of my girlfriend, for example, I would never curse in front of my grandmother. Ever. That's the distinction I was making. I appreciate your hyper vigilance, though.