Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_Jersey Girl]

For anyone:

I'd like to know what moderator decisions made on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread, were not in keeping with the board rules.

To be fair, I don't know that there were many actual acts that are under discussion. For me, the correction of "Danny Boy" to "Mr. Peterson" (as admitted by marg) is the most egregious example of abuse (I believe I said it was stupid, and still think so). The stated intention of providing Uncle Dale with preferential treatment is likewise troubling, whether or not she had multiple opportunities to do so.

But perhaps we should let this die? The problem is not going to present itself again.

skippy,

Whether or not the problem is going to present itself again, remains to be seen. The general characteristics of the complaint against a moderator aren't new. Having said that, your post above highlights my concern about this thread.

More than one poster who replied on this thread, hasn't followed the Book of Mormon Authorship thread or it's splits. How do I know that? Because I've carefully followed it from the day that I opened the thread. I know what was requested in the form of moderation, what requests were granted and which were denied. Why? Because I made the requests myself and most of the requests were posted publicly.

Ray has posted multiple falsehoods on this thread. When his false statements were challenged, he ignored and failed to address any challenges and instead, continued to go onto something else, even when documentation was presented to him. This is someone who chose to challenge the integrity of one or more posters and who failed to address his own false statements.

Some of the posters who replied here, did so after reading the thread title or latched on to a recent comment and passed judgement (if you will) without bothering to inform themselves. It's painfully clear that there are persons on this thread who didn't care about what was true and chose to use the thread to spite marg on account of their interactions with her on this board during discussion/debate.

I understand why marg would choose to cease moderating however, the issue of concern for me is how readily posters on this board so willingly ignore truth in favor of spite, their attempts to disparage another person with Ray being the glaring and prime example of that.

If removing the phrase "Danny Boy" from a post is deemed "egregious", then I'd like to know what bearing that has on the totality of one persons moderator actions overall and is that reason enough to accuse someone of overall bias? The removal of two words is "egregious"?

This entire thread is an example of bias and spite.

I know every single moderator action that marg took on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread. I know them because in most cases, I requested them. I also know of at least one case where I publically declined an offer by harmony to split off comments.

Ray has yet to identify any moderator action made by marg on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread that isn't in keeping with the board rules. Why? Because he isn't informed.

What you have on this thread is a person who is strongly biased agains marg herself, leveling accusations of bias without demonstrating bias, making repeated false statements without correcting them when they are demonstrated, essentially blowing smoke while others willingly inhale it.
<
<
<
<
<
<

[_skippy the dead]

I'm not the one making a claim of bias, so I really don't care about that aspect of it.

I do have a problem with someone taking something a poster wrote, and changing the complete tone and intent (e.g., "Danny Boy" to "Mr. Peterson" - I think the implications are obvious). I don't care who did it in what thread. That's just wrong.

As far as the preferential treatment statement (as made by marg herself), that issue has been dealt with in a global way, as it should.

Any other pursuit of discussion on bias is just continuing an argument that will never resolve. I have no desire to be a part of that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let it go marg. Life really is too short. And it really may be all we have.

Jason,

I read your recent exchanges with marg here and chose to just highlight the above instead of going comment for comment.

In the above, you advise marg to "Let it go". Jason, maybe you should have spent almost two months keeping up with a thread to see that it stay on topic and removing off topic derailments. When you spend two months doing so and then look at yourself being accused multiple times of bias without the person accusing you, demonstrating bias, then I'd like to see how easily you would "let it go".

Ray's comments on this thread give the appearance that marg's "bias" was pervasive on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread. Not one poster, excepting myself, has asked that those accusations be demonstrated.

If marg's bias were pervasive on the thread (which has been up for nearly two months to the tune of 1,000+ posts and perhaps 10K views by now) don't you think that another poster would have noticed it? Other moderators? Shades?

marg and I share an online history of 10 years. Most of that history is laced with animosity toward eachother. Anyone on this board who knows the history of those interactions is well aware of that. However, I will not fail to comment when I see that a group of posters on a discussion board falls gullibly for the unsubstantiated tactics of another who is merely out to smear a person because they couldn't cut it or were annoyed with them in a separate thread.

Given the fact that accusations are accepted without evidence other than hyperbole and a sensationalized thread title, I see little incentive for people to volunteer to moderate this board.

Would you like to try?

What you've been a part of here, Jason, is wrong. The M.O. on this board appears to be "aggravate the hell out of the moderator until they throw up their hands in disgust and quit".

marg devoted herself for nearly two months to trying to keep a lengthy thread on topic and she completely succeeded in doing so. The thread is over 1,000 posts now and still on topic.

[_Ray A]

Ray has posted multiple falsehoods on this thread. When his false statements were challenged, he ignored and failed to address any challenges and instead, continued to go onto something else, even when documentation was presented to him. This is someone who chose to challenge the integrity of one or more posters and who failed to address his own false statements.

I answered your questions and you failed to reply. You made a false charge against me that I "lied", and you failed to demonstrate how. In other words, you were just being spitefully malacious, as you have been since the hostile Pearl Curran thread you started.

It's painfully clear that there are persons on this thread who didn't care about what was true and chose to use the thread to spite marg on account of their interactions with her on this board during discussion/debate.

Sure, it's not marg's fault, it's every one else's.

I understand why marg would choose to cease moderating however, the issue of concern for me is how readily posters on this board so willingly ignore truth in favor of spite, their attempts to disparage another person with Ray being the glaring and prime example of that.

Just remember these three words: Pearl Curran Thread.

If removing the phrase "Danny Boy" from a post is deemed "egregious", then I'd like to know what bearing that has on the totality of one persons moderator actions overall and is that reason enough to accuse someone of overall bias? The removal of two words is "egregious"?

And here you're simply being disingenuous. As if that was the only problem. I suppose Brent's comments mean nothing?

This entire thread is an example of bias and spite.

Yes, yours.

I know every single moderator action that marg took on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread. I know them because in most cases, I requested them. I also know of at least one case where I publically declined an offer by harmony to split off comments.

What? And you're not even a moderator?

Ray has yet to identify any moderator action made by marg on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread that isn't in keeping with the board rules. Why? Because he isn't informed.

Keeping with the rules isn't the point. Moderator whim and bad judgement is the point, and many expressed dissatisfaction at marg's moderation, not just me.

What you have on this thread is a person who is strongly biased agains marg herself, leveling accusations of bias without demonstrating bias, making repeated false statements without correcting them when they are demonstrated, essentially blowing smoke while others willingly inhale it.

BS

[_Jersey Girl]

Framing this.

Keeping with the rules isn't the point.

Thank you for so richly making my case.

[_Ray A]

Framing this.

Keeping with the rules isn't the point.

Thank you for so richly making my case.

And according to Shades:

All rules are subject to change or clarification as the need arises.

So if marg did no wrong, why did Shades write:

For the sake of not wanting to undermine my own moderator, I really would've rather taken this post up via PM, but I think the issue is important enough that needs to be seen by the public here.

Yes, the answer is Dale, enjoys preferential treatment due to poor health, along with his expertise which is of value to the issues presented in the thread.

Marg, with all due respect to you, I'm afraid that that is simply NOT TRUE. NOBODY gets, expects, or enjoys preferential treatment here. NO ONE.

Are you ready for some more reality checks?

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you ready for some more reality checks?

Are you?

Your posturing doesn't work with me, Ray. Quoting Shades, referencing Brent and whining about how mean you think people are to you does nothing to support your claims on this thread.

You've supplied no evidence that the moderation actions taken by marg on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread demonstrate pervasive bias on her part.

[_Ray A]

Your posturing doesn't work with me, Ray. Quoting Shades, referencing Brent and whining about how mean you think people are to you does nothing to support your claims on this thread.

You've supplied no evidence that the moderation actions taken by marg on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread demonstrate pervasive bias on her part.

And of course, your judgements are "objective". I believe marg was biased without even realising her bias. Until it was pointed out. I think she still doesn't see how she was biased.

Rollo Tomasi:

The issue with you came about essentially because I never said anything to Mikwut regarding his insult in a post to Dale. I felt bad actually that Dale responded to them, and it wasted his time. I didn't want to see that line of questioning which was off topic completely, nothing to do with the issues, pursued.

This is precisely the type of Mod attitude that destroys bb's. Let Dale decide what to respond to, and what not. Let Dale decide what wastes his time, and what does not. We are all big kids and can take care of ourselves.

I've got more.

[_Jersey Girl]

Your posturing doesn't work with me, Ray. Quoting Shades, referencing Brent and whining about how mean you think people are to you does nothing to support your claims on this thread.

You've supplied no evidence that the moderation actions taken by marg on the Book of Mormon Authorship thread demonstrate pervasive bias on her part.

And of course, your judgements are "objective". I believe marg was biased without even realising her bias. Until it was pointed out. I think she still doesn't see how she was biased.

What you believe and the statements of others isn't evidence that marg's moderator actions held pervasive bias. You continue to blather your way through this thread in an attempt to evade what you aren't able to deliver.

Until you list and link to each moderator action that she took and explain how it was biased and not in keeping with the board rules, you're simply blowing baseless smoke.

Let's see it, Ray.

[_Ray A]

Until you list and link to each moderator action that she took and explain how it was biased and not in keeping with the board rules, you're simply blowing baseless smoke.

Let's see it, Ray.

I've already done it. In this very thread.

If you want to keep the sour grapes going, that's your choice, but it's making you look like an ass.