Why are there not more apologists on this site?

[_ttribe]

I must defend some of the posters at MADB--there are a number who most definitely are able to 'disagree without being disagreeable', the problem is, they get no credit, they are ignored. It's the offenders who get all the attention--especially in threads here.

You haven't been at MADB in a long time and I'm sure the bad examples are the ones you remember most, but I bet if you thought about it, you could remember back to at least some who were able to discuss and even disagree with others without resorting to attacks and ridicule.

This board also has posters who are able to disagree without being disagreeable--some were even banned from MADB (and it wasn't for being 'disagreeable'), and while it may be impossible to always live up to the ideal, it's worth trying.

X2

[_zeezrom]

A.I. and ttribe: I wish you would stick around here more.

Thanks for posting here.

[_mfbukowski]

I must defend some of the posters at MADB--there are a number who most definitely are able to 'disagree without being disagreeable', the problem is, they get no credit, they are ignored. It's the offenders who get all the attention--especially in threads here.

You haven't been at MADB in a long time and I'm sure the bad examples are the ones you remember most, but I bet if you thought about it, you could remember back to at least some who were able to discuss and even disagree with others without resorting to attacks and ridicule.

This board also has posters who are able to disagree without being disagreeable--some were even banned from MADB (and it wasn't for being 'disagreeable'), and while it may be impossible to always live up to the ideal, it's worth trying.

X2

X3

[_beastie]

I also agree with Alter Idem's assessment.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mr. Ttribe,

Perhaps you misunderstand the logical fallacy of an ad hominem? Making an observation apart from a discussion is very different than engaging in ad hominem during a critical debate.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_ttribe]

Mr. Ttribe,

Perhaps you misunderstand the logical fallacy of an ad hominem? Making an observation apart from a discussion is very different than engaging in ad hominem during a critical debate.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Uh yeah. So cheap ad homs are fair game outside of the strict confines of a particular debate? I didn't realize we were subject to such bright line tests around here. From where I sit, the real "debate" is ongoing and such posts (and you're Scott Lloyd is a "horror of a human being" one, for example) are nothing more than well poisoning.

[_Yoda]

A.I. and ttribe: I wish you would stick around here more.

Thanks for posting here.

I agree. Alter Idem and ttribe are both very knowledgeable and even-keeled posters. They are a pleasure to read, and I am happy to include them as part of our MDB Internet family. :)

[_Alter Idem]

A.I. and ttribe: I wish you would stick around here more.

Thanks for posting here.

I'm sorry I don't have more time to devote to the boards. I don't post much on MADB these days either. But thanks :)

I'm not really an apologist anyway; Many of the complaints voiced here against the church are subjective. How do you counter a person's claim that the LDS people they know are jerks? For all I know, they are all jerks. All I can say is that my experience is different. So, I don't even try, where as, I think the hard core apologists will take on the challenge to find some argument they can use to dispute what's said.

Also, I think ttribe said it on one of the recent threads; sometimes the comments are so outlandish, it seems useless to even comment.

I think there are some good 'apologists' here--ttribe, asbestosman, gazelem, Jason, and mfbowkowski to name a few(I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones who came to mind).
Maybe I didn't read enough, but I didn't think Wenglund was 'disagreeable', but I think some took offense to him. The Nehor has posted here a long time--I don't know if he's considered 'disagreeable'--what I've seen of his posts was not, in my opinion. He's a survivor!

I think being 'targeted' is something that runs off LDS apologists. If they start getting the attention directed at them, rather than the topic, if threads start being made about them and they aren't able to just discuss without having to constantly be on the defensive and they aren't allowed to just be a member of the board, but are singled out...I think THAT kind of treatment probably makes the board an unpleasant place for LDS apologists. While some may like the attention on them, others don't.

I don't know, but it seems that LOAP was able to post here and not get 'disagreeable', but what I observed, he got 'targeted' and I'd expect that took some of the enjoyment out of it, just my opinion, though.

As you can see from MADB, it only takes a few rude posters to hurt the tone of a board--and in my opinion, the same goes for here.

This board is the way it is, and so, if one chooses to post here, they have to accept it. But I think it's best to admit that the experience of the board is not the same for all posters. Runtu and Trevor enjoy it, and that's great. But their experience and perception is not the same as mine, or ttribe or any of the other active LDS who visit here.

[_MsJack]

I think Beastie's earlier comments speak the truth. There already was a board that tried to shoot for fair, unbiased moderation while protecting participants from personal attacks and insults. It had ex-Mormons, believing Mormons, and never-Mormons on its moderation staff; and since the final calls always belonged to Pacumeni, if anything, I would say that moderation calls tended to favor the LDS side. Yet it wasn't good enough for apologists; they still abandoned it for MADB, which has aptly been called the LDS version of the UTLM board.

I would certainly love to see more apologists participating here, and I would love to see more activity in the Celestial Forum. I think this place tends to be an echo chamber of critical thought on the LDS church. Still, I respect the principles under which the board has been set up. As message boards on Mormonism go, I definitely think that this one is the best.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: here's to the apologists and LDS believers who do tough it out here. I respect you, even if I have to butt heads with you from time to time.

[_Joseph Antley]

The reason I don't often post here is because of, as others have mentioned, the language that sometimes prevails here. While there's often significant and meaningful dialogue, it's not worth having to wade through the trash of insults, attacks, and general diatribe that some posters regularly spout.