Who has decided to voluntarily stop posting on MAD

[_Jersey Girl]

You peole who have posted don't understand the psyche of the majority of the posters on MA&D. We are there for the intelligent discussion. Evidently, a lot of the really good posters are flying under your radar. Of course, Bokovoy is a star. But you are missing a lot.

The MA&D board doesn't live or die on the types of critics who have been booted. You should also be careful about talking about encouraging people to leave them so they dry up and blow away. How many critics of your point of view do you have here? You are much closer to being a "pat each other on the back" crowd than MA&D.

I think every board, as it develops into a community of posters, has it's fair share of back slappers, charity.

[_Mister Scratch]

You peole who have posted don't understand the psyche of the majority of the posters on MA&D. We are there for the intelligent discussion.

No, you're not, as I fully documented in my thread, "The Origin of FAIR/MAD." You guys packed up and fled ZLMB because you could not hack it in "intelligent discussion." You definition of "intelligent discussion" means glad-handing and TBM love-ins. MAD exists to reassure you that there isn't a flow-of-information crisis underway as far as Mormonism is concerned. You can hide on the board, boot out the critics, and lean back smilingly as DCP taunts a critic such as Yme. But once The Good Professor, or you, or Bokovoy comes over here, what happens? They get hammered and have to go limping back in order to lick their wounds.

The MA&D board doesn't live or die on the types of critics who have been booted.

I can't say that I disagree with that. Increasingly, MAD seems to be turning into a social club for juliann and her ilk.

[_beastie]

selek made a comment on the "bomb thrower" thread I found enlightening.

And John W, I really believe the reason you're content with the current flavor and rule set is because it's not your ox being gored.

Believers like Charity (and many others) act as if the favor is truly on the apologists' side - ie, that the apologists or believers truly have the weight of evidence in their court. Their arguments are stronger and more convincing. It is only the stubbornness or "predatory" nature (selek's word) of critics that renders them incapable of seeing the reality of how superior the apologists' arguments are, in contrast to the critics.

Believers on MAD seem to assert or insinuate this so much that I really believed them - I believed that, perhaps due to confirmation bias, they really have themselves convinced that they're "winning" these debates. I think I've been fooled. I think they're well aware whose "ox is being gored".

[_charity]

Believers like Charity (and many others) act as if the favor is truly on the apologists' side - ie, that the apologists or believers truly have the weight of evidence in their court. Their arguments are stronger and more convincing. It is only the stubbornness or "predatory" nature (selek's word) of critics that renders them incapable of seeing the reality of how superior the apologists' arguments are, in contrast to the critics.

I don't think we have the "weight of evidence" in our court. I believe there are answers to most critic complaints. I also believe that most of the "evidence" critics think they have are fried froth. An almost complete argument from absence of evidence. I think neither side has any smoking gun. This is fine with me. For our side we have something that the critics don't have. We have time.

Believers on MAD seem to assert or insinuate this so much that I really believed them - I believed that, perhaps due to confirmation bias, they really have themselves convinced that they're "winning" these debates. I think I've been fooled. I think they're well aware whose "ox is being gored".

I can't speak for all. I can speak for myself. We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired." DNA, for instance, made a big splash and sounds good to the people who don't know DNA. But when applied to population genetics, the killing blow critics hoped it would be vanished into thin air. There are questions now about the "production" of the Book of Abraham. But the text is being increasingly confirmed. No killer blow there either.

For me, what is upsetting about the critics, is they get to the weak and vulnerable. Sort of like wolves going after the lame and young in the flock.

I

[_Trevor]

We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."

I think I just peed my pants I laughed so hard.

[_dartagnan]

Of course, if we said something like this at MADB we'd immediately be reprimanded by Juliann.

Charity does occasionally provide comic relief doesn't she?

We are there for the intelligent discussion.

Like what, exactly? DCP doesn't debate and Bokovoy only provides an occasional lecture about some laughable "parallel" he thinks he found between the "ancient" world and something Joseph Smith said at breakfast. Do you think he "won" the debate still standing in the celestial forum?

Anybody capable of challenging either of them at MADb are immediately reprimanded or intimidated by the mods, so what's left is an group of people - most of whom are amateur apologists at best and aspiring apologists at worst - who congratulate each other for "beating" the critics who never had a voice there to begin with. It becomes a straw man factory, of which you are a senior member.

Name one single debate you think has been "won" at MADB charity. Just one. Name it.

I dare you. I double dare you.

What's the matter, cat got your tongue? You know the drill. This is the part where you slink away to avoid backing up your wishful thinking.

[_charity]

Dartagnan, just one huh?

How about Joseph Smith Hits the Bullseye? There were exaclty two critics bowing in. Their only argument, "oh, not it isn't." No substance.

I met your challenge, dartagnan. Just one.

[_charity]

We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."

I think I just peed my pants I laughed so hard.

At least you produced something.

[_Bond...James Bond]

We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired."

I think I just peed my pants I laughed so hard.

I always make a trip to the little Bond room before reading the board, it saves on computer chairs.

[_richardMdBorn]

Dartagnan, just one huh?

How about Joseph Smith Hits the Bullseye? There were exaclty two critics bowing in. Their only argument, "oh, not it isn't." No substance.

I met your challenge, dartagnan. Just one.

And how many critics have been banned? Let's discuss the same topic on the Celestial and see who wins. A more typical thread at MAD is discussed at

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

There was a long discussion about a supposed miracle leading the delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence on 7/4/1776. No one knew enough to point out the slight problem that the Declaration was not signed then. It was adopted on 7/4. The first signatures were on 8/2. Many threads on MAD are at this low level.