Banned from MADB

[_The Dude]

I suspect DCP has something to do with it. It's a way for him to lash back at those who also post here.

Notice the timeline:

3/16 10:29AM ... Skylla reminds everybody about Temple content rules
3/16 10:30AM ... The Dude utters words "YouTube video"
3/16 2:02PM ... Nemesis says somebody was banned. (Me?)
3/16 2:13PM ... Skylla says somebody else just got banned.
(Or was that one me?)
3/18 9:15AM ... DCP says things quoted by John Larsen (above, this thread)
3/18 9:59AM ... Chronos clarifies rules (quoted above, this thread)

I don't think DCP had anything to do with me getting banned. I don't even think he would want me banned, especially not as a way to get back at this board. I was just some vindictive, trigger happy moderator. Could have been any one of them.

[_asbestosman]

I was just some vindictive, trigger happy moderator.

I never would have suspected you had you not confessed.

[_The Dude]

I was just some vindictive, trigger happy moderator.

I never would have suspected you had you not confessed.

No, Abman. As long as there's still money in my bank account, my computer is free of malicious popup ads, and I recognize all the charges on my credit cards, I won't suspect you had anything to do with it. ;)

[_marg]

I suspect DCP has something to do with it. It's a way for him to lash back at those who also post here.

Notice the timeline:

3/16 10:29AM ... Skylla reminds everybody about Temple content rules
3/16 10:30AM ... The Dude utters words "YouTube video"
3/16 2:02PM ... Nemesis says somebody was banned. (Me?)
3/16 2:13PM ... Skylla says somebody else just got banned.
(Or was that one me?)
3/18 9:15AM ... DCP says things quoted by John Larsen (above, this thread)
3/18 9:59AM ... Chronos clarifies rules (quoted above, this thread)

I don't think DCP had anything to do with me getting banned. I don't even think he would want me banned, especially not as a way to get back at this board. I was just some vindictive, trigger happy moderator. Could have been any one of them.

Ok, if you say so. I don't read MAD by the way. But if you look at his words, it is as if he has talked with the mods there. He says: "By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators." So I do think it a high probability that he has suggested to them it is in the brd's best interest to get rid of certain critics. I'm sure a few of the mods must chat with him. I doubt very much you were banned for mentioning Youtube.

[_The Dude]

Ok, if you say so. I don't read MAD by the way.

Thanks for reminding me of your background in this area.

But if you look at his words, it is as if he has talked with the mods there. He says: "By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators." So I do think it a high probability that he has suggested to them....

The thread where he said this is about turning the tide of anti-mormonism on the whole internet, not one one little message board. So, if you look at his words in the context of the thread, it doesn't sound at all like he was talking about himself and the MA&D moderators when he said "we". That is, unless he envisions himself as the leader of a band of cyber superheroes or something. (Maybe he'll change his avatar to "The Comedian" from Watchmen. We'll see.)

I'm sure a few of the mods must chat with him.

You are sure? Really?

I doubt very much you were banned for mentioning Youtube.

As I already said, I think it was personal.

[Doctor Steuss]

The banning of The Dude had absolutely, and positively nothing to do with Daniel C. Peterson. Daniel Peterson reported precicely zero posts by The Dude, never pm'd or contacted any moderators about The Dude, and had nothing whatsoever to do with his banning in any way whatsoever. While this is not likely to be seen as honesty by some critics, that doesn't matter. They can live in denial if they'd like. The Dude was given many many chances this time, contacted thropugh private message about particular matters, but decided he did not want to live up to the board expectations. I repeat: It had literally and totally nothing to do with Dan Peterson. have a good day ~hermes

Bull crap Hermes! I was banned on somebody's whim, less than one minute after the "warning" was pinned, without having a chance to see it. Furthermore, I didn't even violate the warning. See above.

[_John Larsen]

for what it's worth, I don't think Peterson initiated The Dude's banning. We have discussed this extensively in the past and I believe Peterson's words when he says he has never asked specifically for a banning. However, the board worships him and they see his presence as validating their board. From time to time, Peterson waxes philosophical and wonders about the worth of participation. I think this, possibly coupled with some backdoor communications about the purpose and intent of the board, seem to forewarn of an impending cleaning of the house. However, Juliann hasn't reared her head in this yet, so it is anybody's guess.

By the way, I agree with Peterson's assessment. I think the board is a net negative for missionary work and member retention. I think many of the arguments the apologists put forth are weak and transparent, not to the junior participants of the board who do the bulk of the posting, but to anyone lurking who is versed in high school science and maybe freshman philosophy. I sense that Peterson and others are aware of this.

Peterson's forté is debating EVs and other Christians who don't understand Mormonism very well. The most poignant attacks of the last few years have been from patient critics, attacking from a secular point of view who are well versed in Mormonism. The CFR spear has been blunted against this group because they tend to understand the doctrines as well as the apologists. Think about how often does the old guard just end discussion by saying something like "you just don't get it" and then walk away.

In the past 5 years, I have had many conversations with ex Mormons and post Mormons. It is surprising how many found MAD during their soul searching period and were completely turned off by the antics of the apologists. So I get Peterson. He must know this--but like most of us he likes the fight, at least most of the time. Also, I think there is something else. I remember listening to Doug Wright on KSL a few years ago. Doug reviews movies and he used to go to R rated movies--he now has non-LDS side kicks who review most of the R rated movies for him. However, he used to say that "high level church officials" had given him a special dispensation to do this very un-Mormon activity. Peterson has often bragged about heading to SLC to met with the Brethren. I am sure that he has been given a special under the table calling to fight the good fight.

Someday, they are going to wake up and shut down the entire board. I hope not anytime soon.

[_harmony]

Meanwhile, perhaps, there are others out there who would be interested in learning about the Church if only they had a non-threatening way of doing so. By spending excessive energy on certain kinds of critics, we risk neglecting potential investigators. This shouldn't be about testosterone-fueled quests for "victory," and it certainly isn't about defending ourselves, personally, against unfair (and perhaps even, in my own case just mentioned, unbalanced) critics.

I wonder if he realizes that the only place where an investigator is able to see multiple facets of the church is... here. Unless he's saying he wants only one side presented? I thought he didn't approve of the one-sided faith-promoting-only history? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

[_harmony]

Someday, they are going to wake up and shut down the entire board. I hope not anytime soon.

"they" being who?

[_John Larsen]

Someday, they are going to wake up and shut down the entire board. I hope not anytime soon.

"they" being who?

I would assume "the brethren" would order Juliann to take it down. But if FAIR or FARMS asked her to, she would probably comply. It has always been a little shady exactly who or what is behind that board.