The Nehor has left the building...

[Guest]

liz exhibits a passive aggressive style, to dispel tough, substantive questioning of TBMs. It is very un-mod of her, and she's the only one here at MDB that is afflicted with this problem.

It was my understanding that Shade's purposefully did not want to impose a requirement of objectivity or other requirements for moderator user names, with the full intention of them representing their own personal beliefs and feelings. I thought this was an advantage of the board? Do we want MAD type moderators, where they share moderator user names, but post anonymously with their own personal names that have no association with the moderator?

Thus if liz is passive aggressive, so what? If liz tends to defend/protect those whom she chooses, so what? Was this not Shade's intention for his moderators?

The OP in this thread showed more of liz than the persona (facade) she has sought to cultivate here. That's why the challenges to her in the thread are driving her nuts.

Seems like the same old liz I've always read here, tends to like and defend Nehor and DCP. Nothing new here.

She continues with this distinction without a difference about 'missing' The Nehor's 'wit, and perspective'. The topics are the same on the two boards. The Nehor is over there. He's made posts. So what aspect of his 'wit, and perspective' is she missing?

Wow, that liz really is a deceiver and liar! I’m really starting to see why this bothers you so much and how dishonest liz really is! (NOT).

.... endless on and on

I bore of this ... have fun with the continued personal assassination based on such a worthy stand, it really shows your advanced Cassius University intellect.

[_Morley]

Those ‘invited’ seem to be those who have not clashed with (or critiqued) DCP in recent history.

Not true.

Obviously, you're right, MsJack. I'd forgotten about your conflict with Daniel. Apologies.

[_Tarski]

liz exhibits a passive aggressive style, to dispel tough, substantive questioning of TBMs. .

Hmm. OK. I haven't really noticed this.
I have noticed that there aren't enough apologists around here to have decent debate.

[_sock puppet]

liz exhibits a passive aggressive style, to dispel tough, substantive questioning of TBMs. .

Hmm. OK. I haven't really noticed this.
I have noticed that there aren't enough apologists around here to have decent debate.

I suspect that's because there aren't enough fact points for the apologists to base a decent debate on many of Mormon topics. There are a few defenders that I have found know aspects and details of Mormonism and its history that can enlighten through substantive discussion. There are more, but two that jump to mind are Nevo and asbestosman. I find Enuma Elish thought provoking, and bringing a fresh perspective. There are aspects of maklelan that I find contributory as well.

More common, however, are the 'wearisome of the nonsubstantive ilk' that do little more than derail the discussion so that the logical and practical implications of Mormon quirks are not explored further. Here's where DCP of the last few years, Schryver, stemelbow, Pahoran, Scott Lloyd,... the list goes on and on... fit. They do not facilitate discussion, they thwart it.

Derailments are more a threat to substantive discussion than ad hom attacks. The TBMs/mopologists have been quite successful in their cries of victimization to get the focus of this board, internally on procedures rather than on substantive issues, to bead on ad homs. Derailments are the real threat, and these defenders are very good at derailing good threads that begin and have a few good, thoughtful posts. But the defender derailment is sure to come whenever a Mormon vulnerable point is being discussed.

And when a critic goes after a defender for derailing, there's liz providing protective cover for the defender--particularly if it is the 'great and powerful' DCP.

[_Yahoo Bot]

liz exhibits a passive aggressive style, to dispel tough, substantive questioning of TBMs. .

Hmm. OK. I haven't really noticed this.
I have noticed that there aren't enough apologists around here to have decent debate.

I for one don't have patience to hang around here when I get suspended.

And, when I am here, it is one personal attack after another.

And, most posters here are not sophisticated enough to know the difference between an ad hominem and a criticism of the post itself. So we "apologists" get dragged into procedure where, in reality, most of you just don't want to hear the truth.

[_jon]

And, most posters here are not sophisticated enough to know the difference between an ad hominem and a criticism of the post itself. So we "apologists" get dragged into procedure where, in reality, most of you just don't want to hear the truth.

On behalf the board meanies I apologise.

Now if you would care to contribute, as an apologist, on the thread about Latin Shorthand and the Book of Abraham with some substantive apologetic response I'm sure we'll be 'all ears'.

How long do you need before we can go and look at your contribution?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Wow. A Moderator is actively undermining the very board she's moderating.

Way to go, Dr. Shades.

V/R
Dr. Cam for Moderator, NC for Me

[_marg]

I think Liz if you had set up your board and suggested that it was for whatever purpose i.e. 'a more Mormon friendly social board' , and specified you didn't want to encourage animosity between posters on Shades board who aren't participants on yours and for that reason would prefer your participants to not discuss posters on Shades board or make disparaging remarks since they don't have an opportunity to respond..that would indicate your motivations ...that you are interested in creating a more friendly social environment for posters from this board.

However what you did was lead by example that it is okay to gossip and encourage disparaging remarks about posters here. If you suspected that many people would write derogatory comments about Nehor then in essence you were deliberately setting it up for them to do so, but you were then encouraging a discussion on your board ..to discuss the various posters who might be labelled by the negatively emotionally ladened word "vultures.

I understand what sock puppet is saying about "honesty". You have not been fully honest about your motivations. You revealed your motivations by your comment on your board ..in which you thought it would be interesting to see all the "vultures" respond and then a whole thread could be devoted to discussing those people and this board...essentially behind their backs.

[_Buffalo]

And, when I am here, it is one personal attack after another.

Yes, if you could cut that out we'd all appreciate it.

[_sock puppet]

Yahoo Bot,

When you are posting in a thread, I would like to hear in detail why you understand the topic of that thread in the way you do.

It would be fascinating to see what the rub is, the point(s) where our understandings and approaches diverge.

It is only natural that each poster would give his or her separate reasons for why he or she so understands, differently than another. That will likely sound argumentative to the others, those who do not share that point of view.

That would be much more helpful than any of us posting that someone else or the 'other side' does not understand. Whenever I read someone claiming that another doesn't understand, to my mind pops the question: doesn't understand what??