Could this happen? Airing of grievances & simple apologies?

[_Dr Moore]

Hey Doc,

Seems you have been banned and also - at another time? - been given a timeout. Those are two distinct moderator actions.

You’re right that I’m trying to give every benefit of the doubt. Your case is different from mine in that your screenshots do appear to show the moderator actually banned you from being able to comment. Mine show a message but I was able to make comment posts anyway. Different data, different conclusion.

Cheers!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey Doc,

Seems you have been banned and also - at another time? - been given a timeout.

Dr. Moore,

No. The second screen is a Patheos page explaining Banning and Time Outs. I added it to underscore that you don’t get the banning message without the site moderator enacting a ban.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

Ah. Ok. I saw that too.

Can’t know for sure what happened unless someone asks Disqus (not Patheos, I believe) via a support ticket. If you were banned and then unbanned, maybe the site continues to show the message for a while. Maybe it’s a glitch. I’m happy to submit a ticket to learn more. Would think they would want to resolve any glitch and would be forthright about account history and whether/when a ban was put on and taken off.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ah. Ok. I saw that too.

Can’t know for sure what happened unless someone asks Disqus (not Patheos, I believe) via a support ticket. If you were banned and then unbanned, maybe the site continues to show the message for a while. Maybe it’s a glitch. I’m happy to submit a ticket to learn more. Would think they would want to resolve any glitch and would be forthright about account history and whether/when a ban was put on and taken off.

Go for it. THIS MYSTERY MUST BE SOLVED.

- Doc

[_Doctor Scratch]

I dunno, Dr. Moore...has he already blown it?:

An ex-Latter-day Saint critic, having read my blog entry from yesterday entitled “Well? Does Qur’an 9:11 prophesy that “the wrath of the eagle” will cleanse the lands of the Arabs?”, lauds my demolition of the purported Qur’anic prophecy of the eagle that will clean out the Arab lands (or “the lands of Allah”).

[SNIP!]

Umm, well . . . Perhaps he, umm, should have, like, read what I posted with more care?

[SNIP!]

My guess is that he was so eager to criticize me that he didn’t bother to read what I’d actually written. (He’s done that many times before.)

So, he starts off by telling his readership that the critic in question is an "ex-Latter-day Saint." Why's that relevant, exactly? Then, he goes on to accuse this person of having poor literacy skills. Quite insulting! I thought that the spirit of the deal was to ratchet down the nastiness? By the way, he's responding to Philo Sofee's post here.

Tough call, Dr. Moore. If it was up to me, I would argue that he has forfeited the $10,000--and wow, he only managed to last a few hours! LOL!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I was kind of trying to save Dr. Moore $10,000 with my ‘eyes wide open’ post on page 2. He should know, if he doesn’t already, that Mr. Peterson lies openly and routinely. He is, in fact, the bald faced liar (projection seems to be his forté).

I hope the good doctor reconsiders giving Mr. Peterson this feather in his cap when his internet addiction is still in full blown control of him.

- Doc

[_Philo Sofee]

I was kind of trying to save Dr. Moore $10,000 with my ‘eyes wide open’ post on page 2. He should know, if he doesn’t already, that Mr. Peterson lies openly and routinely. He is, in fact, the bald faced liar (projection seems to be his forté).

I hope the good doctor reconsiders giving Mr. Peterson this feather in his cap when his internet addiction is still in full blown control of him.

- Doc

I think giving him the money shall give him enough of the rope to completely hang himself. He is bound to misinterpret this whole thing as a bonus from God demonstrating he is in the right. He always finds a way to one upman everyone and everything in what he does. Peterson is always on top, always innocent, always correct, and always fair. Just ask him. He is literally blinded by his own rhetoric and personal glory and its why he is so vastly overly busy trying to impress everyone. He outdoes everyone in everything and it shows he is closer to Elohimhood than all the rest, which means he is better, more spiritual, more this and more that and therefore respect and being impressed is in order. It's all political pride, and it will cause his ultimate downfall, which is unfortunate. All he has to do is actually do what Jesus said to do, and swallow his pride and love one another. He just can't do it. He hasn't yet grasped what love is. The very heart and best part and it escapes him... I feel truly sorry for him.

[_Dr Moore]

Philo,

Yes, the challenge does require no negative personal remarks about the MD board or its members.

The speculation to as to your intent (“eager to criticize”) bothers me deeply.

It’s legitimate in my view to be confused and question whether you read the OP by referencing the content of your post (more below).

I consider it questionable to mention past attacks, even if verifiable, because it insinuates you are a serial malcontent (who cares) and is just a small step from calling you a <insert choice of bad name>.

As to non personal content...

I honestly can’t tell if you made an error in reading his original post, or if he made the error in reading your logical progression.

1. OP says no such prophesy exists. Presumably, it is commonly assumed that the prophecy does exist. And presumably there is context as to why it matters if the prophecy exists or not — specifically, related to 9/11 and America (“eagle”). One can see this being a nasty battleground subject! Esp with Sept 11 just around the corner.

2. Your response appears, to me, to assert it is similarly fallacious for Mormons who believe in non existent yet faith promoting prophecies ascribed to Joseph. Logical enough. But is that what you meant, or was it more broad regarding other purported prophecies? My re reading of your post doesn’t help clarify that.

What Joseph Smith prophecies are you referencing? All of them? Just the purported ones he didn’t really make? Or just the purported ones for which fulfillment is a dubious matter for fair minded people? I’m actually more confused the more I read your post (sorry!). If it was me, I would have asked you to clarify. You draw a parallel to how the world interprets certain obvious canards attributed to Joseph Smith. Which ones?

3. Dan’s response presents a confused reading of your post. I can identify with that. But again, not sure I understand why it’s productive to assume insight about your nefarious intent without first clarifying what your post meant in the first place.

Legit concerns about the negative chatter re Philo. I appreciate the heads up guys. At the same time let me just also say that this is a really interesting point of debate, which would be even more interesting without all of the daggers. Just saying.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Speaking of prophesies, we can see--once again--why Dr. Robbers is the Dean of Cassius. These comments are from the same blog entry that attacks Philo:

One wonders why Dan would be surprised that an ex "Mormon" critic would fail to understand what he had read. Getting things wrong is what exMo's do. (That's why they are exMo's.)

Furthermore, the kind of error in view is something I see very frequently from that side of the aisle. It's rather as if they are less interested in getting the facts right than in finding something to criticise. (Or complain about.)

Funny, that.

In my rather extensive experience, I have never witnessed Dan shouting. I have been known to raise my voice a little to get the attention of someone. Dan never even does that. Dan even has a difficult time not always being nice. Even when there is much provocation. I am, however, not quite as nice as Dan. What Dan has posted above is as strongly worded as I have ever seen before.

Wow! I guess Midgley wasn't present when DCP told Blair Hodges to "go to hell"? (Or I guess he said it really softly?) This is hilarious: "What Dan has posted above is as strongly worded as I have ever seen before." I guess he never saw Dan's legal threats against various people? Maybe those were "weakly" worded, by comparison?

And I am not sure what to make of the new poster called "Mr. Sweeps." Is this meant to be a parody of Midgley's writing style?

[_moksha]

By any chance, was Dr. Peterson's chosen charity the Quranic Home for Decommissioned Eagles?