MDD Forum - credit where it's due

[_MrStakhanovite]

but if i say something that comes acrossed as trolling, I'm sorry.

i am never good at monitoring my tone.

It’s not so much the tone, but the supreme confidence in the effectiveness of Mormon Apologetics, a lot of the senior posters here were at one time apologists themselves, while many others were doubting Mormons who received such a harsh treatment over at the old FAIR Board/MAD/MD&D they eventually ended up over here.

In any case, welcome to the forums.

[_Lizard Jew]

so critics were banned for other reasons than the supposed need to silence un answered criticism?

Why are you focusing on specific reasons for bans? If you're truly curious, I would recommend starting a thread and asking people to post why they were banned from MDD. It would probably make for some hilarious reading.

cuz only one reason would have anything to do with the idea that apologists need protection from critics.

they don't.

[_Jersey Girl]

Until they unban the folks who were banned while not even posting there (like myself and Darth J) as well as the folks who were capriciously banned for no reason (like Ceeboo, Consiglieri and RockSlider), they're not getting any credit from me.

And Dill Pickles! And Jersey Girl. And Liz.

Yeah, I was banned when I had posted absolutely nothing for, I think, 3 months.

But the thing is, I'm kinda stubborn. After a bit of time had passed, I went back in under a different screen name, said who I was upfront, and they have't ever banned me again.

No guts, no glory!
:-)

[_Buffalo]

cuz only one reason would have anything to do with the idea that apologists need protection from critics.

they don't.

Again, this is a recent development at MDD. Needed or not, apologists HAVE been historically protected from critics.

[_Lizard Jew]

cuz only one reason would have anything to do with the idea that apologists need protection from critics.

they don't.

Again, this is a recent development at MDD. Needed or not, apologists HAVE been historically protected from critics.

this makes no sense at all.

protected from critics?

but they weren't banned for there so called arguments?

protected from what about the critics?

their smell? ;)

[_Buffalo]

this makes no sense at all.

protected from critics?

but they weren't banned for there so called arguments?

protected from what about the critics?

their smell? ;)

Critics, historically, have been banned there for no reason at all, or for infractions that the apologists also engaged in, but were not punished for.

[_Lizard Jew]

this makes no sense at all.

protected from critics?

but they weren't banned for there so called arguments?

protected from what about the critics?

their smell? ;)

Critics, historically, have been banned there for no reason at all, or for infractions that the apologists also engaged in, but were not punished for.

as a general rule or in personality wars?

[_harmony]

Why are you focusing on specific reasons for bans? If you're truly curious, I would recommend starting a thread and asking people to post why they were banned from MDD. It would probably make for some hilarious reading.

cuz only one reason would have anything to do with the idea that apologists need protection from critics.

they don't.

We've had several of the top apologists who have posted here in the past. The list is long and illustrious, starting at the very top. They have presented their arguments, references, CV's, links, and articles/books. For the most part, they no longer post here in the "wild wild west", nor do they post in the Celestial forum here.

If their arguments are bullet proof, then why leave?

[_Lizard Jew]

maybe they were accused of being trolls?

[_Buffalo]

Critics, historically, have been banned there for no reason at all, or for infractions that the apologists also engaged in, but were not punished for.

as a general rule or in personality wars?

As a secret policy, I believe. One of our posters here used to be a moderator there (forgive me, I forget who it was). If I recall correctly, they actually had an unspoken policy of protecting apologists through one-sided moderation.

Apparently they're now looking to be a respectable forum for scholarly debate. They seem to be on the right path to achieving that goal.