Remove the Facebook posts

[_LDSToronto]

It is interesting how I am the one who is singled out here and not Shades. I tried to be good-humored about your rude comment, but it is clear there was malice in it.

Rude comments are usually intended to offend. I hope my comment reflects how offended I was by your censorship.

Why is it that I am being unfair in my Moderating tactics but Shades is not?

Were you aware that we were both actioning those threads at the same time, the same way?

You have admitted you have a horse in the race, Liz. You've stepped up to defend Daniel time and again, but this time you are using your moderation powers to defend him.

H.

[_Kishkumen]

What does it say about who Daniel is that he is willing to watch Pitbull bump and grind his crotch on J.Lo's butt?

At worst, that he's human? That he was curious about why his friend would announce that he had watched such a video? I don't know. J. Lo does have a marvelous tush!

In any case, I think all of this is silliness. The tendency people have to cannibalize each other is really depressing.

[_Kishkumen]

How come Ray A never defends Kish from these attacks? I don't understand that.

Kish and I have had long personal correspondence by email, which ceased perhaps a year or so ago, I can't be certain and I'd have to check. Maybe that's a question he could ask me by email, if he wants. He's more than welcome to email me so we can openly discuss any differences. (I'm off to work.)

My friendship with Ray does not depend on him defending me from any of these silly "attacks." It is true that, Daniel Peterson being the friend that he is to Ray, the conflict, such that it is, puts Ray in an awkward position. Besides, Ray believes I have been in the wrong here. I think he is somewhat swayed in this by the fact that I have been arguing on the same side of Doctor Scratch, of whom Ray most definitely does not approve or respect.

Listen, I am not really moved by criticism of me in this matter. I would not change my feelings about the necessity of taking these posts down regardless. I think the threads are awful and really drag us all down. In fact, I am getting so weary of the behavior of all people concerned that I am getting to the point of retreating from the board again, just for the sake of salvaging my general mood in life and faith in humanity, as limited as it is.

[_Yoda]

You have admitted you have a horse in the race, Liz. You've stepped up to defend Daniel time and again, but this time you are using your moderation powers to defend him.

I cloned Shades' actions, which is what he expects from his moderators. If you don't like the way I moderate, tell Shades to release me from Mod duties.

But I didn't do anything he didn't do.

Also, as far as censorship goes, did I delete the threads? No. Did I stop the discussion? No. All I did was delete the image. And, Shades was attempting to delete the image the same time I was. We were both on the board at the same time. We were making the same call. So don't tell me I was using my moderating powers out of the spectrum that Shades was. It isn't true.

ETA--Scratch was the thread starter, and HE had no problem with my deleting the image. If anyone should be giving me a hard time about it, it should be him, not you.

[_Kishkumen]

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years, and especially over the past several months. He seems to spend much of each day sneering at and deriding "apologists" in particular, but also, to a remarkably large extent, Mormons in general. And, while he's rigorous to the point of blatant injustice with regard to the flaws he sees in those targets, he's remarkably serene (to the point of blissful unconsciousness) about the obvious flaws on his side.

The old Popular Front slogan and implicit rule of thumb was Pas d'ennemi à gauche ("No enemy to the left"), which meant, in practice, that the preferred enemy was always somebody or something on the right. For Kishkumen, there seems to be no enemy, nobody to be seriously criticized, among critics of the Church and of those who seek to defend it. But he subjects defenders of the faith to withering disdain and moral indignation, often on remarkably flimsy and even downright illusory grounds. And he's notably credulous with respect to often extraordinarily wild charges leveled against them.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/526 ... e__st__300

I wasn't aware that DCP had been "extremely disappointed in Kishkumen over the years." I knew that they had had their up-and-down moments, but wasn't aware that the animosity extended back that far. I would guess that's he's livid over the fact that J Green has spoken of Kishkumen in complimentary terms.

What amuses me about Dr. Peterson's comments here is that they so well apply to the man himself that it boggles the mind to imagine him posting that bilge with a straight face. I mean, I couldn't if I were he, but maybe that's just me.

Really, who cares? In a way this is not about Dr. Peterson at all. It only is because he is a human being, like me, and I cringe to think of myself in anything like his position on this one. It was a silly error, and people are just waiting on the sidelines to pick on any gaffe like this and make the most of it. People can be cruel. I feel for people who suffer at the hands of others' cruelty, whether they are D. Michael Quinn or Daniel Peterson.

And I want to be clear that I had and have no part in this. I condemn it. I condemned it before I saw this post which you have brought to everyone's attention. I continue to do so after seeing it.

It is not like I can take Peterson's "disappointment" very seriously. If it were genuine, he would register it with me personally, not gossip with Russell McGregor on MDDB about it in the context of the latter's silly jabs. Since Daniel's disappointment shows no marks of sincerity, I would be a fool to be concerned about it.

I'll tell you whose example does move me these days: mercy&grace and J Green. They could wash windows in a small midwestern town and yet I would still think the world of them for how they behave online. They are the kinds of people whose example bids me to be a better person. In fact, I don't doubt the power of their examples in moving me to say something about these awful threads.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It's my personal philosophy that this board shouldn't have any sort of palpable effect on anyone's "real life"--registered user or not.

For what it's worth, here's my $.02:

I see the merit of each side in this dispute. Dan can be so cavalier about throwing his in real life information around the Internet (I personally think it's because he enjoys his Mormon celebrity) that he shouldn't be surprised when he is "caught" in the vagaries of cyberspace (such as Socialcam, etc.). Using in real life information on the Internet is very, very risky, which is why I think anonymity (to the extent possible) is the best move when traveling in cyberspace (I know, Bob has a real pet peeve about this, but let this be a lesson to him).

On the other hand, Dan is employed by an extremely sensitive (and unforgiving) organization when it comes to this kind of thing, and I don't think any reasonable person would want his viewing a harmless video to negatively impact his life's vocation. I realize that Dan rubs many of us here the wrong way, but this bb should never be the source of harming one's livelihood. So, I respect our good Dr. Shades's decision to remove the screencap (at Kish's suggestion, for whom I also have a great deal of respect) in an effort to protect Dan from any possible problem with his ridiculously sensitive employer (we've all have had crazy bosses, so we should all be able to relate). I don't see this as censorship (at least not the kind that buries the truth), and I still love this board because it let's us say whatever we want when it comes to Mormonism (within reason, but even that is needed in a free society). So carry on the good work, Bro. Shades.

[_Infymus]

On the other hand, Dan is employed by an extremely sensitive (and unforgiving) organization when it comes to this kind of thing, and I don't think any reasonable person would want his viewing a harmless video to negatively impact his life's vocation. I realize that Dan rubs many of us here the wrong way, but this bb should never be the source of harming one's livelihood. So, I respect our good Dr. Shades's decision to remove the screencap (at Kish's suggestion, for whom I also have a great deal of respect) in an effort to protect Dan from any possible problem with his ridiculously sensitive employer (we've all have had crazy bosses, so we should all be able to relate). I don't see this as censorship (at least not the kind that buries the truth), and I still love this board because it let's us say whatever we want when it comes to Mormonism (within reason, but even that is needed in a free society). So carry on the good work, Bro. Shades.

Do I have to remind everyone about Daniel Peterson, PRIVATE emails, publication on a website called SHIELDS using real names, real emails, and full email contents - leading to the loss of potential employment - all done by one Daniel C. Peterson?

Screw Daniel's privacy AND his job.

[Guest]

What does it say about who Daniel is that he is willing to watch Pitbull bump and grind his crotch on J.Lo's butt?

At worst, that he's human? That he was curious about why his friend would announce that he had watched such a video? I don't know. J. Lo does have a marvelous tush!

In any case, I think all of this is silliness. The tendency people have to cannibalize each other is really depressing.

Or cannibalize themselves. I think he was interested, in a male way, in the video from the photo included in the SocialCam report about a Facebook 'friend' having watched it. It was suggestive, but it was taken from a public awards (AMA) show performance. It was not like its source was Penthouse or Hustler magazines (my age is showing again--no other porn outlets came to mind).

My disappointment in DCP in the situation is not that he watched the video. Not that he would have preferred that no one know he watched it. But that he gave such a lame, tired excuse--that he even made mention at all of the video or the SocialCam report.

I think the concerns for retribution from BYU (i.e., the Church) are just downright pathetic. Not that the concerns might not be well placed. After all, with Jeffrey I-was-handed-my-ass-in-a-BBC-interview Holland in a decision making role, the concerns might be spot on. But that an institution like the Church could possibly think that having watched the Pitbull video diminishes DCP's value to the Church as an employee at BYU... .

[_Trevor]

My disappointment in DCP in the situation is not that he watched the video. Not that he would have preferred that no one know he watched it. But that he gave such a lame, tired excuse--that he even made mention at all of the video or the SocialCam report.

I think the concerns for retribution from BYU (i.e., the Church) is just downright pathetic. Not that the concerns might not be well placed. After all, with Jeffrey I-was-handed-my-ass-in-a-BBC-interview Holland in a decision making role, the concerns might be spot on. But that an institution like the Church could possibly think that having watched the Pitbull video diminishes DCP's value to the Church as an employee at BYU... .

I think many of us know what it is like to be under the thumb of the LDS Church and how difficult, as well as emotionally trying, that can be. There one finds sufficient reason to have a little compassion.

[_LDSToronto]

You have admitted you have a horse in the race, Liz. You've stepped up to defend Daniel time and again, but this time you are using your moderation powers to defend him.

I cloned Shades' actions, which is what he expects from his moderators. If you don't like the way I moderate, tell Shades to release me from Mod duties.

But I didn't do anything he didn't do.

Also, as far as censorship goes, did I delete the threads? No. Did I stop the discussion? No. All I did was delete the image. And, Shades was attempting to delete the image the same time I was. We were both on the board at the same time. We were making the same call. So don't tell me I was using my moderating powers out of the spectrum that Shades was. It isn't true.

ETA--Scratch was the thread starter, and HE had no problem with my deleting the image. If anyone should be giving me a hard time about it, it should be him, not you.

I'll re-iterate:

1. Dan is a close friend of yours, so you have claimed, and you have used your moderation authority to protect him, even though no rule has been violated. You can use Shades as an excuse if it eases your conscience, but that's how I see it.

2. Moderation on this board is akin to playing a board game with a bunch of 4-year-olds. You think you have the rules nailed down, when suddenly one of the kids decides the game is unfair and so they make up a new rule and act like the rule was always in force, when in reality, the rule is self-serving and temporary.

And I call BS on the notion that only Scratch should have a problem with the image deletion. You have castrated the thread by deleting the image, and you have abused your power as a moderator. Everyone should be concerned about that.

H.