A message for TAO

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_themessenger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:11 pm

A message for TAO

Post by _themessenger »

Tao, I sent you a pm on MDDB warning you that public criticism of William Schryver would lead to you being labeled an ant-mormon or a cohort to anti-mormons, you responded that you did not think that was likely.

Did you see what William labeled Calmoriah for her criticism of his behaviour? Yes, he in essence labeled her a confederate to anti-mormons.

I was banned from the board this morning because I too, dared post criticism of Williams behaviour. And here is the lesson you need to learn TAO, Juliann Reynold who posts a Juliann on MDDB owns or is directly involved in the administration of MDDB. You need to know that she will what amounts to totalitarianism to silence anyone who dares to question so called "Apologist". This totalitarianism as serves as a "chilling effect" to send a message to others that they better not dare speak out against any so called Apologist.

You can find in closed threads that Nemsis (Juliann or DanG) do not believe in living a higher standard. Nemisis exact words are "this is not Relief Society or Elders Quorum" and thus she and he expose their Weekend Warrior mentality. Rather than hold everyone accountable to a higher standard, they lower everyone to the most base standard.

A warning about FAIR, while FAIR can provide some information, FAIR relyies on upon its own members interpretations, thus FAIR relies on the philosophy of men mingled with scripture. Take a look at Daniel Peterson's own word:

[url]
Peterson said. "He was defending and explaining them using reason and logic." Which is precisely the objective of the religious apologist.
[/url]

Selek1, jwhitlock, Wade Englund a.k.a. wenglund, will be the first and loudest to label anyone an anti-mormon if that person dares to question anything a so called apologist types/speaks/prints. It is standard procedure over there, disagree with the party line = anti-mormonism. Good luck to you.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

themessenger wrote:Tao, I sent you a pm on MDDB warning you that public criticism of William Schryver would lead to you being labeled an ant-mormon or a cohort to anti-mormons, you responded that you did not think that was likely.

Did you see what William labeled Calmoriah for her criticism of his behaviour? Yes, he in essence labeled her a confederate to anti-mormons.

I was banned from the board this morning because I too, dared post criticism of Williams behaviour.

Sounds like the latest of many purges is underway at MADB. What a silly place.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Will himself has been banned on several occasions over there also. You just never know what may lead to a banning. That they have left the thread running for as long as they did is a surprise. If they were really protecting Will, who really mostly needs protection from himself, they would have shut the thread down right away. Strangely enough the thread was closed then opened at least once.

Bottom line is there isn't any rhyme or reason at MD&D to their moderation except they are a lot more lenient toward posters who defend the Church.
Outside a few (Pahoron, DCP & Wade) they will ban any one for anything and will not explain why.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Cicero
_Emeritus
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:09 am

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Cicero »

Fence Sitter wrote:Outside a few (Pahoron, DCP & Wade) they will ban any one for anything and will not explain why.


That's why I was so amazed that they banned Bob Crockett. He has been an apologist for a long time and is also a prominent lawyer. I'm still stunned that they would ban him and not Will.
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Madison54 »

themessenger wrote:I was banned from the board this morning because I too, dared post criticism of Williams behaviour.

Is there anyone on here that isn't banned?

Type one wrong trigger word or slip of the tongue when posting and poof......you're banned for life with no explanation given. I even tried writing to the moderators asking them why I was banned and they simply never responded.

Very poor form....what a horrible way to run a forum that many believe represents the church.
_mercyngrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _mercyngrace »

Cicero wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:Outside a few (Pahoron, DCP & Wade) they will ban any one for anything and will not explain why.


That's why I was so amazed that they banned Bob Crockett. He has been an apologist for a long time and is also a prominent lawyer. I'm still stunned that they would ban him and not Will.


I think Bob was only thread banned. His member page doesn't say banned.
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Madison54 wrote:Very poor form....what a horrible way to run a forum that many believe represents the church.

That so-called "discussion" board has damaged the testimony of so many faithful members who went there precisely because they thought it did represent the Church, only to be treated like apostate garbage.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _cwald »

I have been thread banned a dozen times...but still manage to keep an account. That Wade is the biggest ass, and they don't do crap. All I want is an even playing field.

PS. TAO is alright. I know him from NOM. He is a good kid...and he is a kid...I was surprised by his comments today, and hope he doesn't get black balled over there.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _cwald »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Madison54 wrote:Very poor form....what a horrible way to run a forum that many believe represents the church.

That so-called "discussion" board has damaged the testimony of so many faithful members who went there precisely because they thought it did represent the Church, only to be treated like apostate garbage.



So true.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_Cicero
_Emeritus
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:09 am

Re: A message for TAO

Post by _Cicero »

mercyngrace wrote:I think Bob was only thread banned. His member page doesn't say banned.


That's correct and I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. I guess I should have said "I am still stunned that they banned Bob instead of just taking down the thread."

However, based on his one post here, I don't think you'll see Bob over there anytime soon unless cooler heads prevail upon him to come back.
Post Reply