Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Corpsegrinder
_Emeritus
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _Corpsegrinder »

EAllusion wrote:Mormon apologetics in my online experience in a nutshell.

My feelings exactly. If you want to show someone the shortcomings of Mopologetics, introduce them to Yahoo Bot. He’s the perfect object lesson. For that reason alone I would argue against banning him.
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _LDSToronto »

MrStakhanovite wrote:Bob,
Face it, you are a professional bully. You get paid more money than you are worth to defend cults like NXIVM (where more charges from women who left NXIVM claim you tried to outright intimidate them). You leap to defend child molesters for the Church



Well, well, well... Bob Crockett sympathizes with child molesters. Pedophiles, even.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_Milesius
_Emeritus
Posts: 559
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _Milesius »

I first encountered Bob in the late nineties on an list server called "free-saints." I don't have a problem with him and I don't understand the antipathy, to be honest. (Although, my fondness for free-saints might make me more sympathetic to Bob than I otherwise would be.)
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

EAllusion wrote:I don't think this is warranted.


The point is, he's gone after LDST here and on MD&D for having an avatar of Harvey Milk and made some insidious suggestions, but then turns around and goes to bat for the Church who had more against him than have an avatar of a guy who had a 16 year old boyfriend.

It's textbook Mopologetic double standards.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _bcspace »

I don't know that it would be fair to retroactively apply the rule, but any board would be a better place without Bot.


I can think of a few exmo's whose banning would make this board a better place. But oh how ironic it is that a board which celebrates free expression of opinion is now on the slippery slope to banning anyone who doesn't fit some defined norm.

The point is, he's gone after LDST here and on MD&D for having an avatar of Harvey Milk and made some insidious suggestions


I initiated that and I stand by it. Anyone who sees fit to have Harvey Milk for an avatar without other explanation is a sexual predator either implicitly (Romans 1:32) or explicitly.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _SteelHead »

Bc,
What would be the difference per se of an avatar of Harvey Milk and an avatar of Joseph Smith in terms of sexual predation?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Willy Law
_Emeritus
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _Willy Law »

MrStakhanovite wrote: You leap to defend child molesters for the Church,


Holy Hell. Reminds me of The Sins of Brother Curtis.

“And as I asked him questions carefully and when I heard his answers — and I did my best with my experience and with trying to feel what the Spirit is telling me — I thought I could believe him...so, at that point in time, there was no reason to start a file” of a complaint, Clayton said.

Clayton told Finaldi that the church’s instructions for leaders is to call a hotline number, not authorities, when sexual molestation complaints come up. This was the first time he ever had to call it, Clayton said.

“The point of the abuse line is to help us go through and do the right things with the authorities. We have lawyers there and I know now it’s with [his lawyer’s] firm. When the contact goes through, it goes to Kirton & McConkie,” he said. “They help us know how to navigate those waters.”
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _Bond James Bond »

bcspace wrote:I can think of a few exmo's whose banning would make this board a better place. But oh how ironic it is that a board which celebrates free expression of opinion is now on the slippery slope to banning anyone who doesn't fit some defined norm.


I rarely agree with bcspace about ANYTHING but THIS. Seriously I can't believe how far this board has come since I was a moderator in 2006-07 to the present. All I ever did as a mod was split off-topic posts, move arguments to the appropriate forums, and edit language. And I never had any problems with anyone. It seems that the more rules you have the more people you make mad. Now this board is starting to look like MAD Lite with rules. Another couple of years and Mr. Stak will be posting from the queue.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _why me »

beastie wrote:Yahoo Bot has been frequently accused of threatening Shades with a lawsuit if he didn't remove Eric's What About Bob thread. The thread was deleted. Bob is still here.
.


And what is the point of this thread? Ban someone because of what happened a couple of years ago or a few years ago? These kind of threads only cause problems for shades. I think that any thread with 'legal threats' in it should be blocked and allowed to rest in peace.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

Post by _bcspace »

What would be the difference per se of an avatar of Harvey Milk and an avatar of Joseph Smith in terms of sexual predation?


Harvey Milk admited to it and seemed to celebrate it. It was also homosexual, a deep, dark sin. Joseph Smith is accused of it yellow journalistically but no evidence has been forthcoming.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply