I'm not sure/convinced? (I have and continue to digest/ponder this)
Peace, Ceeboo
I mean there's no point for me, personally. I already know that at least some people over there think I'm totally insincere, so trying to mend fences would probably come across to them as insincere posturing. So, no, there is no point. I did some things there I'm not proud of, but I think I contributed something positive, and I made some good friends.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Part of the reason they brought [Kevin] back was so that Will S. could hopefully score a few points and bring them back "into the game."
Wait, say what?
Breaking character a little, I'm afraid I'm going to have to CFR on that one, Doctor Scratch. Certainly the powers-that-be at MD&D must know that William's Mopologetics dry up and blow away like chaff whenever Kevin enters the room. They've seen it, what, a hundred times already?
I've been doing this a while and have seen a lot of strange stuff, but them bringing Kevin back so that William can hopefully score a few points against Kevin stretches credibility a little too far even for my playbook. Sure, I could certainly buy it if it was the other way around, but this is a bit much.
Everybody Wang Chung is right, Dr. Shades--it seems that you've been an ex-Mormon for way too long. You have to remember that, despite their Internet Mormonism, these people are fundamentally creatures of faith. Yes, it's stupid of them to assume that Will Schryver will come out victorious in this, but they have to believe that it's possible.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I think they’ve made an honest and good attempt at trying to create a board where there could be decent discussion about Mormon issues with people from a variety of backgrounds and opinions.
Their biggest mistake is that their “big guns” are positively contentious (exempli gratia Bill Hamblin) and seem completely unable to get along with the likes of Mike Reed or George Miller. Guys like Pahoran, Crocket, LeSellers, Schryver, and numerous others follow that lead, making it hard to foster the kind of dialogue they envision.
Critics are guilty too, take me for example, I’m able to get along with people of differing opinions if I respect them, but if I lose my respect for someone, I’m just plain mean. I understand why they don’t want most of us over there, but some of the most informed and nicest people I’ve met from here (Chris Smith, Mike Reed, George Miller, The Narrator), seem to always be walking a thin line over there.
So they are left with three choices, warn the big guns (not likely to happen), try to reel in the critics, or just let the contention run wild contra their intended mission.
I think they’ve made an honest and good attempt at trying to create a board where there could be decent discussion about Mormon issues with people from a variety of backgrounds and opinions.
Their biggest mistake is that their “big guns” are positively contentious (exempli gratia Bill Hamblin) and seem completely unable to get along with the likes of Mike Reed or George Miller. Guys like Pahoran, Crocket, LeSellers, Schryver, and numerous others follow that lead, making it hard to foster the kind of dialogue they envision.
Critics are guilty too, take me for example, I’m able to get along with people of differing opinions if I respect them, but if I lose my respect for someone, I’m just plain mean. I understand why they don’t want most of us over there, but some of the most informed and nicest people I’ve met from here (Chris Smith, Mike Reed, George Miller, The Narrator), seem to always be walking a thin line over there.
So they are left with three choices, warn the big guns (not likely to happen), try to reel in the critics, or just let the contention run wild contra their intended mission.
I think that's pretty much it. It's too bad, because there are a lot of bright folks who would have added a lot had they not been banned. There are not many "critics" left, and as you say, they tend to be the uber-polite, well-informed people, and even they have to watch their steps constantly. I totally understand why they banned me, but they've gone way too far in clearing the board of reasonable, intelligent people who are not apologists.
Doctor Scratch wrote:You have to remember that, despite their Internet Mormonism, these people are fundamentally creatures of faith. Yes, it's stupid of them to assume that Will Schryver will come out victorious in this, but they have to believe that it's possible.
I see your point. FAIR enough.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Spurven Ten Sing wrote: Ya know, you're such as dill. I once thought you were "intelligent". Now I'm convinced that your head is hollow.
But if you reconsider, I might actually think you have a brain.
As the official Dill Pickles, I think I've just been insulted. :-(
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I think they’ve made an honest and good attempt at trying to create a board where there could be decent discussion about Mormon issues with people from a variety of backgrounds and opinions.
That's not true at all, by the way. FAIR started out with a pretty standard TBM message board culture with the ultra-protective moderating that implied. When it blossomed into a full-fledged message board around the time that a bunch of posters emigrated from ZLMB, it existed with very biased moderation in favor of LDS posters. And that was a major, if not primary, attraction point to that influx of posters. Critics followed because that's where they could continue to access the apologetic names. The attempt wasn't so much an open and honest dialogue as a format where critics posts could be controlled in a more heavy-handed manner. The goal was to create a format in which apologists could best the critics on issues that surround Church criticism. Granted, the people in question aren't going to express it that way - instead they'll see it as necessary removal of "bad behavior" and "rabbit holes" from critics that wasn't done in a more genuinely open format like ZLMB. But there never was an effort to get at what you are discussing. Indeed, even adopting the wrong sort of apologetic approach was always a risk for poking the moderator hornets nest from the get-go.
EAllusion wrote:That's not true at all, by the way. FAIR started out with a pretty standard TBM message board culture with the ultra-protective moderating that implied. When it blossomed into a full-fledged message board around the time that a bunch of posters emigrated from ZLMB, it existed with very biased moderation in favor of LDS posters. And that was a major, if not primary, attraction point to that influx of posters. Critics followed because that's where they could continue to access the apologetic names. The attempt wasn't so much an open and honest dialogue so much as a format where critics posts could be controlled in a more heavy-handed manner. The goal was to create a format in which apologists could best the critics on issues that surround Church criticism. Granted, the people in question aren't going to express it that way - instead they'll see it as necessary removal of "bad behavior" and "rabbit holes" from critics that wasn't done in a more genuinely open format like ZLMB, but there never was an effort to get at what you are discussing. Indeed, even adopting the wrong sort of apologetic approach was always a risk for poking the moderator hornets nest from the get-go.
I thought the latest incarnation (MD&D) was an attempt at that in my opinion, they started to clamp down on some of the mouth breathers.