The Nehor has left the building...

[_sock puppet]

I think Liz if you had set up your board and suggested that it was for whatever purpose i.e. 'a more Mormon friendly social board' , and specified you didn't want to encourage animosity between posters on Shades board who aren't participants on yours and for that reason would prefer your participants to not discuss posters on Shades board or make disparaging remarks since they don't have an opportunity to respond..that would indicate your motivations ...that you are interested in creating a more friendly social environment for posters from this board.

However what you did was lead by example that it is okay to gossip and encourage disparaging remarks about posters here. If you suspected that many people would write derogatory comments about Nehor then in essence you were deliberately setting it up for them to do so, but you were then encouraging a discussion on your board ..to discuss the various posters who might be labelled by the negatively emotionally ladened word "vultures.

I understand what sock puppet is saying about "honesty". You have not been fully honest about your motivations. You revealed your motivations by your comment on your board ..in which you thought it would be interesting to see all the "vultures" respond and then a whole thread could be devoted to discussing those people and this board...essentially behind their backs.

Better said, marg, than I have been able to muster to date in this thread.

[_RayAgostini]

Usually it is because they are passively aggressive, favoring a single school of thought. With time it becomes more and more apparent until it hits critical mass.

That's a very ironic statement.

In short, this thread dropped the facade and left the true liz standing naked in full view. And she's not the person she's pretended to be.

How long have you known Liz, and were you here when this board began in 2006? Do you understand Liz's history with the FAIR board and this one?

You're not "exposing" anything, sock, except your apparent single-minded determination to drive Liz from being a mod here, or from the board altogether. Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if Liz did leave this board, but it would be better for her to do it without a trailing and shouting posse.

In regard to Liz's board commenting about this board, what would you like? Silence? Tell you what, how about a deal? I will never say anything about this board or any poster here, ever again, if you agree to never say another word about MDDB or any poster there.

Deal?

[_sock puppet]

Usually it is because they are passively aggressive, favoring a single school of thought. With time it becomes more and more apparent until it hits critical mass.

That's a very ironic statement.

In short, this thread dropped the facade and left the true liz standing naked in full view. And she's not the person she's pretended to be.

How long have you known Liz, and were you here when this board began in 2006? Do you understand Liz's history with the FAIR board and this one?

You're not "exposing" anything, sock, except your apparent single-minded determination to drive Liz from being a mod here, or from the board altogether. Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if Liz did leave this board, but it would be better for her to do it without a trailing and shouting posse.

In regard to Liz's board commenting about this board, what would you like? Silence? Tell you what, how about a deal? I will never say anything about this board or any poster here, ever again, if you agree to never say another word about MDDB or any poster there.

Deal?

Very intriguing offer, Ray A. But I want to make sure I understand what exactly you are offering. First, there are many common posters to both MDB and MDDB, and have a life outside either board. I suppose what you are meaning my restriction would be that I could not, if I agree, comment about an MDDB's postings, or the fact that he or she is posting at MDDB. It would yet be fair game for me to say something about that person's non-MDDB activities and postings other than at MDDB. For example, DCP. I know of his NAMIRS activities and writings; I know of his MDB postings and registration here. Those would yet be fair game, but I would not post about his MDDB registration or postings.

At that, however, if someone else here makes DCP's postings at MDDB an issue here, would I have to refrain in discussing in such a thread here, even if I did not bring in new materials into the thread here that I might find over at MDDB?

What about past comments by DCP at MDDB (then MAD), such as the 2nd Watson Letter Fiasco? Would that be fair game to bring up since it has been discussed here, so long as I did not go mine new quotes from his old MDDB posts on that topic?

You see, if it can be done simply by my never going to MDDB again, or only to look when someone here mentions something of interest going on there, this might be doable from a practical perspective. However, I don't think, practically speaking, that greater limitations are workable.

As for the limitation you propose on yourself, "never say anything about this board or any poster here, ever again", I want to make sure that you are not going to use this agreement as some limitation to refrain from here, on MDB, ever saying anything about this board or any poster here. I would not agree to a limitation on you that prevented you from freely posting on MDB about MDB or from freely posting on MDB about any MDB posters. If the limitation you are suggesting on yourself about not saying anything about MDB and its posters is a limitation against saying such things off of MDB, but that you are yet free to do so on MDB, then I'd go for that.

Just a general comment too. It has been a very, very long time, in the context of my MDB posting history, since I made a comment about any MDDB (formerly MAD) poster or postings. So I am curious what you see as a gain from the limitation you are proposing on me. Are you hoping that I'd never be able, for example, to utter the names Juliann or Scott Lloyd again?

[_beastie]

I don’t have much more to say on this topic, but will add this.

I don’t believe liz intended her board to replace this one. The vast majority of posters there still post here. I don’t post much anywhere anymore, but still post here more than I do there. With some exceptions, I think that’s generally true. The discussions move more quickly here with more input.

I view liz’s board more as a supplement. Shade’s board is guided by a strong libertarian philosophy. I know Shades has modified that somewhat over the years, but it is still the underlying philosophy. Let people build monuments to their own stupidity instead of censoring them.

Personally, I’ve never hidden the fact that I disagree with liberatianism in general, with some exceptions, and that includes as a board philosophy. It doesn’t matter that I disagree: this is Shades' board. He is free to run it as he sees fit. If I don’t like it, I can leave. I don’t leave, but it’s nice to have an alternative now and then when I get fed up here. And I do get fed up now and then.

The fact is that a libertarian board with, practically speaking, a no banning policy, is going to attract some posters with styles that would never survive on any other board. Again, this is Shades' board and that’s what he wants. He expressed it clearly on his mormonstories panel discussion wherein he said he’s be happy for the banned poster from FLAK who had a habit of harassing female posters and sending them nude pictures to come to this board. (Shades, if my faulty memory has misled me, feel free to correct me, but that’s how I remembered the exchange.) I’m not comfortable with that philosophy, but tolerate it because I enjoy some of the interactions on this board. But it’s nice to have a supplemental alternative.

The latest episode that resulted in me signing up on liz’s board was Deputy Dan. (and I no longer remember his real name, thank goodness – no one remind me!) Shades was never going to ban this guy. I know Shades interpreted his words differently than some of us (to me it was clear he was saying HE would report infractions himself, not just warn Shades of possible infractions). Aside from that, he was so silly and incendiary it was hard for me to believe he wasn’t a troll. I would have banned him without a second thought. But I knew that Shades would not. Again, his board, his rules. I can make my own board if I want. (ain’t gonna happen) But this last episode convinced me I needed an alternative now and then. Currently, I’m not posting anywhere enough to need an alternative, but maybe some day I will again.

I do not believe liz created her board with the same intent that Juliann created FAIR. Juliann wanted all believers to leave ZLMB. She wanted to make it a ghost town, and did. I do not believe that was ever liz’s intent.

I do think liz was unwise to create this thread, knowing nehor was on her board, and knowing that her board was exclusive. That was bad judgment, and I believe she’s apologized for that. But the existence of her board itself is something I don’t think she has to apologize for or explain.

[_RayAgostini]

You see, if it can be done simply by my never going to MDDB again, or only to look when someone here mentions something of interest going on there, this might be doable from a practical perspective. However, I don't think, practically speaking, that greater limitations are workable.

[Snip]


Just a general comment too. It has been a very, very long time, in the context of my MDB posting history, since I made a comment about any MDDB (formerly MAD) poster or postings. So I am curious what you see as a gain from the limitation you are proposing on me. Are you hoping that I'd never be able, for example, to utter the names Juliann or Scott Lloyd again?

I'm glad you see that in general, it's not workable, but in theory, yes, it would involve not mentioning anything about dual posters, and what is mentioned on one board (say, MDDB) stays there, and even if the person posts here you would not be free to comment about their MDDB activity.

You seem to forget one of the main reasons Shades started this board, which was to give a voice to those banned from FAIR, so naturally this board became FAIR's nemesis, and everyone and anyone posting on FAIR was, well, fair game here. Cross posting and "board wars" were encouraged. So by being hypercritical of Liz and her board, you're acting as if it's almost a crime to say anything negative about this board on Liz's board, which is inconsistent with the ideal of free speech.

As far as I'm concerned, you are free to say anything about Liz's board or the posters there, but don't complain when the criticisms are returned over there. I'm quite sure Liz doesn't want a board war, but she's already said she's not going to gag posters on her board, or deny them free speech, except when it comes to unwarranted and sustained personal attacks, and things like mobbing or ganging up on a single poster, as frequently happens here. No one is going to be bullied on her board (among those she has chosen to invite).

You are also wrong about how much criticism (of Mormonism) is allowed on Liz's board, and this fuzzy idea you seem to have about her creating a safe haven for her so-called "TBM-envy". She simply wanted to create a board where mutual, but respectful criticism could take place, what Truman Madsen once called "a respectful meeting of [alternative but critical] minds". See, for example: Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels. The reason such respectful but critical discussions are very unlikely to occur here, is because people like you prefer to play the man rather than the ball. To demonise and discredit first, and to "win" arguments through character assassination (such as highlighting the supposed dishonesty of posters), rather than to sensibly engage differences critically but respectfully.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I do think liz was unwise to create this thread, knowing nehor was on her board, and knowing that her board was exclusive. That was bad judgment, and I believe she’s apologized for that. But the existence of her board itself is something I don’t think she has to apologize for or explain.

I think that this has been the basic thrust of sock puppet's criticism, for what it's worth. Her board has at times functioned as a place for her and others to complain about the people here, and the fact that she was sort of "sneaking" around to do it is what has gotten some posters riled up, in my opinion.

This particular thing will blow over, of course, but I hope Liz realizes that from here on out, her board is going to be a continual target for criticism and cross-posting, and the likelihood is going to be that she's going to be taking crap from both sides for the foreseeable future. I don't have any solutions for her--and I do understand her intentions in creating the board. I just don't see any way that she's going to get out of it quite what she wanted. It's going to create at least as much drama as it was meant to solve.

[_sock puppet]

As far as I'm concerned, you are free to say anything about Liz's board or the posters there, but don't complain when the criticisms are returned over there.

But for this thread and her OP, I wouldn't give a rat's about thecafeteria or if the posters there snigger about posters here. You've misread my posts if you think that is what my complains surround. The only significance for me of thecafeteria, its membership or its postings is that it provides a starkly different context to the OP and what liz was attempting with it. The context demonstrates her duplicity. My criticisms are on target. As for the content there, for someone acting holier-than-thou like liz to bitch about the tone and tenor here to then create a venom playground for DCP and his like there, and when it is exposed here, to tout thecafeteria, "vultures" comments and all, as elevated discourse--she's so damn full of it her eyes are brown no matter what their natural color. Duplicitous is not hypercritical of liz--it deserves to be her second name.

[_sock puppet]

I do think liz was unwise to create this thread, knowing nehor was on her board, and knowing that her board was exclusive. That was bad judgment, and I believe she’s apologized for that. But the existence of her board itself is something I don’t think she has to apologize for or explain.

I think that this has been the basic thrust of sock puppet's criticism, for what it's worth. Her board has at times functioned as a place for her and others to complain about the people here, and the fact that she was sort of "sneaking" around to do it is what has gotten some posters riled up, in my opinion.

This particular thing will blow over, of course, but I hope Liz realizes that from here on out, her board is going to be a continual target for criticism and cross-posting, and the likelihood is going to be that she's going to be taking crap from both sides for the foreseeable future. I don't have any solutions for her--and I do understand her intentions in creating the board. I just don't see any way that she's going to get out of it quite what she wanted. It's going to create at least as much drama as it was meant to solve.

Dr Scratch, I respectfully disagree. thecafeteria might be a source of amusement for some here who are not registered there. Myself, I won't be looking. I've always preferred public courses to the members-only country clubs. It's so bourgeois or plebian of me, I know. Sorry--I like beer better than wine too.

liz will as the admin be able to shape thecafeteria to suit her liking. So it ought to suit her taste or goals just fine. It does not have as lofty an aim as Shades' libertarian, inclusive MDB. There should be no hesitation or compunction for her to promulgate and enforce rules to keep thecafeteria meeting her intentions.

I think the real value of this entire episode is that it points out why readers of MDB should take liz's posts with a grain of salt rather than at face value.

[_Simon Belmont]

thecafeteria might be a source of amusement for some here who are not registered there. Myself, I won't be looking. I've always preferred public courses to the members-only country clubs. It's so bourgeois or plebian of me, I know. Sorry--I like beer better than wine too.

Yet, from what I understand, you chose a generally high-paying country club-type career (and good for you for doing so). Was it not because you wanted to attend the country clubs, to drink expensive wine, and to mingle with high society sock puppet, esq.?

[_sock puppet]

thecafeteria might be a source of amusement for some here who are not registered there. Myself, I won't be looking. I've always preferred public courses to the members-only country clubs. It's so bourgeois or plebian of me, I know. Sorry--I like beer better than wine too.

Yet, from what I understand, you chose a generally high-paying country club-type career (and good for you for doing so). Was it not because you wanted to attend the country clubs, to drink expensive wine, and to mingle with high society sock puppet, esq.?

Awe, L.A. Law. What a TV show, and so realistic. Didn't Arnie Becker drive a new, different Porsche in every episode?

Law is my chosen profession, and I was very fortunate to have the opportunities needed to pursue it. "[T]o attend the country clubs, to drink expensive wine, and to mingle with high society" were not motivators for me. Maybe too many episodes of Perry Mason, or those old black and white movies about Clarence Darrow, when I was a kid. To me, it seemed noble. Help the innocent guy beat the bad rap and help people resolve conflicts that arise between them (heck, the Bible even said that when there were only 2 humans on earth, they couldn't agree on whether to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil--so Eve unilaterally took it upon herself to eat the fruit, damnable woman that she was--leaving Adam with a Hobson's Choice of staying in the garden alone or leaving it, to be with banished Eve; and then add a few people, their children, and we got mankind's first murder, per Genesis). It seems the need for lawyers nearly preceded the need for prostitutes. So which really is the oldest profession?

Actually, the kind of law that I practice is designed to prevent conflict from arising. In large cities, the specific brand of conflict avoidance (i.e., the type of legal planning) that I practice is quite lucrative. It pays handsomely. In a burg the size I live in, it pays the bills and allows me the luxury to go to live rock shows, which I can afford because I do not pay tithing.

Rex Lee was the dean of the BYU law school when I was there, and he tried his best to tell us to go to big cities, where the high pay for lawyers is. To me, the higher pay was not worth the lifestyle sacrifices.

There are reasons that I would be happy to share with you in PM or private e-mail that would not be appropo for mentioning on an open internet board devoted to religious topics rather than the topic of me, but rest assured, Simon, that I have had dinner at a country club on just two occasions in my life (but made probably two dozen presentations on legal planning to groups assembled at area country clubs), I've never golfed at one, when I have wine rather than beer the wine is of the cheap fruity variety not the expensive dry one that tastes like vinegar to me, and I prefer posting on internet boards to rubbing shoulders with 'high society'. In fact, today's lunch was pizza with a couple of buddies that spent the hour talking about drag racing and parts on their dragsters. (No beer because I had to work this afternoon.)

Sorry, no two martini lunches at the Brown Derby for me. I'd probably find the lunch talk in such rarefied confines too boring. I'd rather hear guys talk about what parts they use on their drag racers than gossip about whose $2.1m house is going into foreclosure.