Droopy wrote:As a example of the animus that exists there against some specific posters, I would point to my own case, in which that animus is so deep they have apparantly blocked my IP address, or taken some similar measure, because for the last couple of months, at least, I cannot even access the MADboard website.
Last edited by Guest on Mon May 23, 2011 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
wenglund wrote: ...that, or some of you have way over-active imaginations (nothing new there either), not that this really matters much.
I am not the one who said it the makings of a Oliver stone movie. I don't even pay much attention to this issue as you have.
Now, speaking of overreaction, if you wish to speculate on why a number of my posts in the Schryver thread were deleted and banned from the Celestial Forum here, well have at it.
Well you are known for insulting people, which would not be celestial material.
wenglund wrote:Spin it however you wish. However, rationally, if people have a problem with the alleged over-reaction of so-called MAD moderators, then they ought to have the same, if not more problem with moderation of the celestial forum here. But, they don't.
Why should we. I am not aware you have been banned from here. Some material may be deemed non-celestial so Mods may move it to a lower kingdom. I wonder if it upsets you that some may consider some of your statements not be be celestial. :)
For my part, I don't have a problem with either boards moderation--and this from a guy who has been banned more often from LDS related discussion boards than any of the people complaining here.
Have you been banned from here, other then your choice to ban yourself. I thought that was suppose to be a permanent ban. :)
wenglund wrote: ...that, or some of you have way over-active imaginations (nothing new there either), not that this really matters much.
I am not the one who said it the makings of a Oliver stone movie. I don't even pay much attention to this issue as you have.
I was obviously being facetious. Sorry it escaped you.
Now, speaking of overreaction, if you wish to speculate on why a number of my posts in the Schryver thread were deleted and banned from the Celestial Forum here, well have at it.
Well you are known for insulting people, which would not be celestial material.
The thread, itself, was a personal insult to Will (which was, in part, the reasonable point that I generically made in the posts that were ironically banned from the celestial forum). So, your wild guess got it exactly backwards.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
wenglund wrote: The thread, itself, was a personal insult to Will (which was, in part, the reasonable point that I generically made in the posts that were ironically banned from the celestial forum). So, your wild guess got it exactly backwards.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I just have to laugh each time you come over to defend Will, when everyone knows his behavior has not been very good. Most of the real apologists know to stay away or risk losing all credibility as you have. I have yet to see you instead of defend him at least admit he does not always behave well. I know some apologists like yourself feel a need to defend everything instead of trying to get to the truth. Unfortunate.
wenglund wrote: The thread, itself, was a personal insult to Will (which was, in part, the reasonable point that I generically made in the posts that were ironically banned from the celestial forum). So, your wild guess got it exactly backwards.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I just have to laugh each time you come over to defend Will, when everyone knows his behavior has not been very good. Most of the real apologists know to stay away or risk losing all credibility as you have. I have yet to see you instead of defend him at least admit he does not always behave well. I know some apologists like yourself feel a need to defend everything instead of trying to get to the truth. Unfortunate.
Wade's crush on Will is kind of cute. And I wouldn't think of denying a 50 + year old celibate man his harmless internet fantasies.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.