A Meltdown of Epic Proportions

[_sock puppet]

Perhaps I should remain silent in this thread?


To read this thread (involving people that I consider to be friends from both the MDB and Liz's board) has left me really bummed out.

Unfortunate.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

It wasn't those of us here that created a secret board to flame throw at Dr Scratch. Just keep that in mind as you assess your two groups of friends.

[_RayAgostini]

I have to say I can now appreciate more how certain people feel they are being "talked about" behind their backs. I think I can understand the grievances. In reality Liz's board gave no protection from criticism. I'm not a PC (politically correct) man, and I've put forward the suggestion that Liz should open up her board for the full view of the Internet. Of course risks are involved, but those risks come with freedom of speech.

In my view, it's a damn good board, but I now feel that the "invite only" policy can raise real, and not unjustified, resentments. If I was in the position of the "uninvited", I think I'd be pissed off too, because I don't like being "favoured" above others. I was a "pundit" on FAIR, once upon a time, a long time ago, and I only got that status because I defended Mormonism. Not on any brain-worthy or academic credentials merit. But I've never really felt comfortable with some kind of "superior" status. So yes, this is a kind of "repent" post for me. Those criticised on The Cafeteria should have full rights to respond to the criticisms. It's only fair.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Interesting post, Ray. Thank you for contributing to the thread.

[_RockSlider]

Yes, I feel wronged about the utter moral stupidity that someone who creates a secret place for some to make fun of others (vultures, immature, constant derogatory comments towards Dr Scratch, etc) comes here claiming the moral high ground in decrying that others speak openly about her secret combination. That is classic hypocrisy.
If you cannot see that, RockSlider, you are beyond hope of objectivity.

Sock, all I know is my own experience with it. Of course my hobby horses often focus me a bit too myopically. So sure, I guess my objectivity to what you have said is lacking. What you describe (secret hiding place whose purpose is to point hidden fingers of scorn) just has not been my experience with it. Apparently your experience (possibly viewed myopically as well) just has not been my experience either.

Who's to say which view is right, and it seems pretty silly to suggest that either is objective.

You see, I was actually never invited but snuck in when the whole Nehor exit thread thing happened - which was just barely post Liz's yuck/yuck deal. I saw the link from those posts here and registered myself on her site before all the lock down, but after the things it appears offended you.

I honestly don't recall reading any posts, other than the singular ttribe u2 deal spoken of here, where individuals from here that are not members there were being attacked.

Of course scratch just verified for you that this does indeed happen all the time there.

But of course, his objectivity would not be in question.

[_RockSlider]

I have to say I can now appreciate more how certain people feel they are being "talked about" behind their backs. I think I can understand the grievances. In reality Liz's board gave no protection from criticism.
...
Those criticised on The Cafeteria should have full rights to respond to the criticisms. It's only fair.

Ray, please identify every member here, that is not a member there who you have seen bashed in secret in the café.

also, I think its fair if that were post Liz yuck/yuck ... as that was addressed publically already

[_sock puppet]

Yes, I feel wronged about the utter moral stupidity that someone who creates a secret place for some to make fun of others (vultures, immature, constant derogatory comments towards Dr Scratch, etc) comes here claiming the moral high ground in decrying that others speak openly about her secret combination. That is classic hypocrisy.
If you cannot see that, RockSlider, you are beyond hope of objectivity.

Sock, all I know is my own experience with it. Of course my hobby horses often focus me a bit too myopically. So sure, I guess my objectivity to what you have said is lacking. What you describe (secret hiding place whose purpose is to point hidden fingers of scorn) just has not been my experience with it. Apparently your experience (possibly viewed myopically as well) just has not been my experience either.

Who's to say which view is right, and it seems pretty silly to suggest that either is objective.

You see, I was actually never invited but snuck in when the whole Nehor exit thread thing happened - which was just barely post Liz's yuck/yuck deal. I saw the link from those posts here and registered myself on her site before all the lock down, but after the things it appears offended you.

I honestly don't recall reading any posts, other than the singular ttribe u2 deal spoken of here, where individuals from here that are not members there were being attacked.

Of course scratch just verified for you that this does indeed happen all the time there.

But of course, his objectivity would not be in question.

RockSlider, my posts and motivations in this thread have nothing to do with ttribe or U2.

My posts and points in this thread do not depend upon the totality of the nature of thecafeteria (as you here supposed) or the totality of its registrants (as Jersey Girl has supposed in this thread).

What do the registrants there all have in common: a-Mormonism, and b-MDB. So the secrecy of its existence, and then once busted in September, shutting down its public view were moves to allow some there to feel comfortable and protected, and not have to face responses, for throwing flames this way, towards MDB. That has happened, with Dr Scratch being their #1 target.

And then for the queen dame to come here and act morally indignant that once exposed, we the abused chumps would dare to comment openly--you really don't see liz's hypocrisy, or just how damn morally bankrupt she must be to do so? That's why, RockSlider, the side blinders in your avatar just seem so damn appropriate today.

[_sock puppet]

I have to say I can now appreciate more how certain people feel they are being "talked about" behind their backs. I think I can understand the grievances. In reality Liz's board gave no protection from criticism.
...
Those criticised on The Cafeteria should have full rights to respond to the criticisms. It's only fair.

Ray, please identify every member here, that is not a member there who you have seen bashed in secret in the café.

also, I think its fair if that were post Liz yuck/yuck ... as that was addressed publically already

Why not, RockSlider, join RayA's call for thecafeteria to be opened up to public inspection? Why limit it to who from here that RayA recalls has been trashed there?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, please identify every member here, that is not a member there who you have seen bashed in secret in the café.

also, I think its fair if that were post Liz yuck/yuck ... as that was addressed publically already

I've done some Scratch-bashing. Liz has done some Joseph-bashing. There was also a thread devoted to "Dr. Cam", who could not reply, because he was not invited. I feel very uneasy now, about all of this. It's just not my "style".

I very deeply admire Daniel C. Peterson, and I will defend him where I think he has been "short-circuited", or unjustly criticised. But I really don't feel any "bosom-burning" about this Cafeteria exclusion policy. It deeply bothers me.

[_RockSlider]

Why not, RockSlider, join RayA's call for thecafeteria to be opened up to public inspection? Why limit it to who from here that RayA recalls has been trashed there?

Earlier today when Liz was asking the board rather to open it up. I made this post:

"Of course, the right thing to do here is for the individual or individuals who have ever made whole threads, or large portions of them available to MDD posters to privately get with liz and fix this up. I don’t think an occasional mention of the goings on here is wrong, but someone is obviously going way beyond this.

You have been invited here for a reason, you have exhibited qualities from your posting history that is desirable for a board like this to try and achieve its stated goals. Do you really have no ethical or moral problem with violating the trust of those on this board?

Maybe it’s my desires for the board that has caused a lot of the problem. My hopes were for a place to share a bit more of ourselves with each other. That involves various levels of revealing information about ourselves where we need to trust the other participates with whatever level that we may reveal of ourselves.

For example, I post under an anonymous name because of the real dangers that posting on the internet subject’s one to. And yet early on while under attack of my cowardice in posting, I freely posted my name to establish some trust, that I am willing to stand behind what I say here, that my name here is as good as my name in real life, other than I need/want the protection.

Or while challenged to show how I might have any qualifications to make some statement, I share some very personal information about my past.
Yes, I was a fool to expose myself here, however, that does not make it right for you to endanger my in real life information here for whatever your purposes may be.

I believe that Liz’s ethics as a moderator is something that is important to her. I believe that Liz is the kind that would actually forgive you. I know that Liz deserves to hear from you, either to resign, explain, or apologize.
She in turn could then give us some indication of the relative safety of privacy on this board."


The board would be useless for my desires, and has in real life information about me I was willing to share with that group, not the world.

[_RockSlider]

RayAgostini

Whatever Ray, I'm pretty pissy about now, and should stop right here.