Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_MsJack]

Frankly EA I don't see you carrying on many discussions with anyone..except recently you've begun to post a little more than usual.

Then you haven't been paying much attention to EA's posts. At all.

At least he puts himself on the line and lets everyone know who he is, unlike yourself. It really is very easy to criticize anonymously.

I don't see what EA's anonymity has to do with anything. He criticized Dan's posting habits, not some aspect of Dan's life that could only be gleaned from knowing Dan's identity. Dan could type up a similar critique of EA's posting habits if he so desired. Likewise, EA could criticize the posting habits of anonymous LDS apologists like Pahoran and Simon Belmont if he wanted to. Anonymity is irrelevant.

Personally, I experienced both threats of violence and sexual harassment (very explicit stuff) over the Internet before the age of 18. I don't blame anyone for posting anonymously, and if I thought I could switch to anonymity at this point, I would.

On another note though, marg: I have no idea who you are. Perhaps you've posted your RL information at some point in your history on this forum, but (If I recall correctly) you've made thousands of posts on this forum, most of which aren't easily searchable because you deleted your last profile. You don't post under your full real name, nor do you make that information easily available in your profile, so I don't think you're in any position to be criticizing others for choosing to remain anonymous.

[_MrStakhanovite]

The person who I spend most of my posting energy here disagreeing with is probably EA. EA knowing my real name doesn’t make a bit of difference in how he treats me, and me not knowing his real name doesn’t make a bit of difference in how I treat him. His analysis of DCP is spot on.

[_marg]

Frankly EA I don't see you carrying on many discussions with anyone..except recently you've begun to post a little more than usual.

Then you haven't been paying much attention to EA's posts. At all.

Even in this thread he's not carrying on a conversation with anyone. I don't see EA very often carrying on a back and forth discussion..except perhaps with Stak.

At least he puts himself on the line and lets everyone know who he is, unlike yourself. It really is very easy to criticize anonymously.

I don't see what EA's anonymity has to do with anything. He criticized Dan's posting habits, not some aspect of Dan's life that could only be gleaned from knowing Dan's identity. Dan could type up a similar critique of EA's posting habits if he so desired. Likewise, EA could criticize the posting habits of anonymous LDS apologists like Pahoran and Simon Belmont if he wanted to. Anonymity is irrelevant.

Would EA be as likely to be critical if we & Dan knew who he was, where he worked? It might put a damper on his criticism of Dan. The problem with message boards is that some people perhaps many treat it as a game... they aren't interested in discussion so much as rhetorical games. And because of that..using real names in discussion with others makes one vulnerable to being disrespected, of having one's name and reputation attacked. So DCP is at a disadvantage, and that disadvantage is also a reason he may have no interest in discussing with some particular individuals.

I'm not saying anyone should reveal their names, rather I'm saying that it's easier generally to be critical of others when one is anonymous, where they work isn't known for example, than if one wasn't.

Personally, I experienced both threats of violence and sexual harassment (very explicit stuff) over the Internet before the age of 18. I don't blame anyone for posting anonymously, and if I thought I could switch to anonymity at this point, I would.

My point is this is not a debate or discussion with Dan on a topic, it is an attack on Dan...and he's not here to defend himself. I tend to think topics should be discussed ...not individuals.

Anyhow you ignored my point and chose to shift to personal attack, the point being that of course Dan is limited in defending his views when they come up against science, that's not particularly insightful.

[_MsJack]

marg ~ I've observed EA off-and-on for 8-10 years. If you really want me to round up threads where he's engaged in conversations with people, I certainly can. As for this thread, he's only posted twice and I already see the start of a conversation with RayAgostini. Ray and EA don't seem to get along well and obviously have very different feelings about Dan Peterson, so I imagine that (if it continues) it isn't going to be a very friendly conversation. But EA engaged Ray's comments thoughtfully and substantively. That's how conversations begin.

EA would have to answer for himself, but I imagine little would change about his criticisms of Dan if his identity were known. He's one of the most well-behaved posters I've ever observed and has very little to be ashamed of. In my view, anonymity only makes things easier for those who wish to engage in poor behavior online and not suffer the consequences to their real-life reputation. It also makes things easier if there are real-life facts surrounding them that would contradict the persona they wish to project online. Since neither is the case with EA, I don't find his anonymity particularly relevant. On the contrary, I think his anonymity has the beneficial effect of forcing his opponents to focus on what he says rather than who he is.

I don't know how this thread turned into a conversation about Dan Peterson and I generally try to avoid the Dan Peterson pile-on threads. However, I think a person's online behavior and whether or not s/he adequately engages topics is fair game for discussion. Dan still reads this forum regularly and is welcome to defend himself here if he wishes. He isn't banned from posting here like some of us are over at his favorite forum. (Granted, I don't blame Dan or any believing Mormon for not posting here.)

Finally, I don't see where I attacked you personally, unless you're claiming that it was a "personal attack" for me to point out your anonymity. Is that the case?

the point being that of course Dan is limited in defending his views when they come up against science, that's not particularly insightful.

That's something EA will have to address for himself. My only reason for posting in this thread was to give testimony that your assessment of EA's posting habits was way off, to point out that EA's anonymity is hardly relevant to anything that's happening in this thread, and to note that you're being a bit of a hypocrite on that note since you yourself are anonymous.

[_marg]

My only reason for posting in this thread was to give testimony that your assessment of EA's posting habits was way off

Well that and your desire to support stak's friend.

and to point out that EA's anonymity is hardly relevant to anything that's happening in this thread,

Well let's put it this way, EA didn't start the discussion on DCP however he's adding to it by being critical of him, along with including my name to personally attack me. Apparently EA and yourself have this penchant about attacking individuals you guys aren't even in discussion with.

and to note that you're being a bit of a hypocrite on that note since you yourself are anonymous.

[/quote]

Once again...I didn't say one should reveal their name, I said that when one does reveal their name (i.e. DCP) they are at a disadvantage in responding to individuals who are into rhetorical gameplaying. Particularly on a board such as this, in which although it claims to moderate in Terrestial against blatant personal attack ..it does not do so very often in a timely manner. While you think EA's anonymity makes no difference to what he'll say...I'm not convinced of that.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Well that and your desire to support stak's friend.

[_marg]

Well that and your desire to support stak's friend.

Ya it's not even supporting you, it's your friend she's come to defend. It's precious.

[_EAllusion]

Marg, I used you as a prototypical example of a poster who argues poorly and thus makes for an easy mark by those who oppose your general outlook. I understand why this is upsetting to you and I don't begrudge you for wanting to respond. On the other hand, you probably should respond with something more on point. I offer substantive discussion often enough and my anonymity is irrelevant.

[_marg]

Marg, I used you as a prototypical example of a poster who argues poorly and thus makes for an easy mark by those who oppose your general outlook. I understand why this is upsetting to you and I don't begrudge you for wanting to respond. On the other hand, you probably should respond with something more on point. I offer substantive discussion often enough and my anonymity is irrelevant.

The decent thing to do is enter a thread in which a discussion is going on, and then point out I am arguing poorly. I can't very well defend against a general attack which you are prone to do. You've been at this since the inception of this board...pulling cheap shots in threads I'm not in, and even popping in to threads I am in such as the one with Stak, in which you offered nothing to the discussion other than to attack me.

As far as responding on point I did..you are the one who has gone off on a tangent. DCP is not the point of this discussion, essentially moderation is. I pointed out, the moderation on this board doesn't effectively & efficiently enforce the rule "no blatant personal attacks". In fact you are part of the problem obviously.

[_EAllusion]

The decent thing to do is enter a thread in which a discussion is going on, and then point out I am arguing poorly.

Why would I do that? My post wasn't about how you are a bad poster. I was making a point that required me to name an example of a bad poster who would be skeptical of the claim I mentioned. It wasn't addressed to you. But, as it happens, you read it. I get why you are insulted.

As far as responding on point I did..you are the one who has gone off on a tangent.

Not "on topic." "On point" as in effectively addressing the point I made.