Why are there not more apologists on this site?

[_Runtu]

In the end, we've lost another poster. I'm not sure why mfb put so much weight on one minor thread from Gadiantion such that nothing else here was worth sticking around for. Seems to me that you just ignore the stuff you don't feel like dealing with. At least that's what I do.

Either way, the constant back and forth between the two boards is silly. In my opinion, MAD has lost some valuable and intelligent posters for no good reason, but then so have we. So, both boards suffer. They have every right to ban whomever they wish, though they are paying the price, in my opinion. Likewise, we have every right to treat people like crap, but we also pay the price for that.

[_Alter Idem]

In the end, we've lost another poster. I'm not sure why mfb put so much weight on one minor thread from Gadiantion such that nothing else here was worth sticking around for. Seems to me that you just ignore the stuff you don't feel like dealing with. At least that's what I do.

I agree with you, I think he should have ignored Gadianton, or, if he didn't want to ignore it, at least decline to discuss it--which I think was perfectly legitimate since it didn't even involve him.

One of the benefits of this board is that it is not as restrictive as MADB. Example; If I don't want to answer a CFR, I don't have to--No moderator is going to point to board guidelines and use it as an excuse to ban me.

And if someone were to try to get me to defend MADB or a poster on MADB and I don't want to, I can ignore it. And with the limited amount of time I can give to MD and MADB, I have to ignore a lot that is posted.

[_Alter Idem]

Well, the thread had a fair amount of substance, so that's not surprising. So far, unless the thread is talking about posters' personalities, flaws, what constitutes fair interaction on a bb in your mind, you don't seem to have much of an interest. And leave it to you to judge me fully based on a thread you "skimmed". There are dozens of threads on page 1 talking about Mormon issues with no participation from myself or Scratch, they must not interest you much either, you like the conflict I think.

My schooling was in Psychology--yes, I am interested in 'people' a lot more than philosophizing. Is there something wrong with this? in my opinion, we all come to these boards for different reasons, I think my reason is as valid as yours.

I've been on the boards for over four years and dicussed Mormonism ad nauseum. I don't interact on any threads as much as I used to, most notably at MADB. I never interacted much on this board because, as I said on an earlier thread, many of the threads involve someone's complaints about their experience with Mormonism. I assume they do this to 'vent'--and they are not interested in being told I think they are wrong and these are the reasons why. Since I don't think this is wanted or even effective, I don't comment very often.

Mfb only came to this board as he himself explained on Mad because I called him out a couple months ago on another issue. So if you think Mfb's participation here was to be treasured, you have me to thank for it in the first place. Personally, I think he's a lightweight. But he could man up, produce a real argument, and prove me wrong at any time.

Maybe you don't care much whether he's here or not, but I think others on the board welcomed his participation. I don't think they ought to feel grateful to you that you brought him here only to drive him away later :(

[_Alter Idem]

Alter,

I think his decision to stay away is wise.

But he DIDN'T stay away, Alter. He didn't.

If you mean that he 'lurks', yes, you are right--it's clear he still reads the board and he has at times commented at MADB about what's said about him here. I suspect that many 'lurk' here from MADB.

What I meant was that he has not posted here since about the New Year...--is that correct or have I missed some of his posts?

[_ttribe]

If you mean that he 'lurks', yes, you are right--it's clear he still reads the board and he has at times commented at MADB about what's said about him here. I suspect that many 'lurk' here from MADB.

What I meant was that he has not posted here since about the New Year...--is that correct or have I missed some of his posts?

I believe Jersey Girl is referring to a PM kerfuffle which arose between she and he.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Alter,

I think his decision to stay away is wise.

But he DIDN'T stay away, Alter. He didn't.

Yes, and in fact Dr. Peterson has given his own account of the matter:

I've kept cordial relations with a few there, and have communicated with them from time to time via private e-mails. (One of them, though, went ballistic a while back about something I'd written privately to her and exploded rather oddly on the message board itself, so I guess she's no longer a welcoming contact! Which is fine, though a tad disappointing.)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__60

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, and in fact Dr. Peterson has given his own account of the matter:

I've kept cordial relations with a few there, and have communicated with them from time to time via private e-mails. (One of them, though, went ballistic a while back about something I'd written privately to her and exploded rather oddly on the message board itself, so I guess she's no longer a welcoming contact! Which is fine, though a tad disappointing.)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__60[/quote]

I need a ruling by moderators. Does the above fall incompliance with this portion of MDB Universal Rules?

Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted.

Mods, I need a response from you. If it meets the above, I'm ready to discuss it.

[_harmony]

Yes, and in fact Dr. Peterson has given his own account of the matter:

I've kept cordial relations with a few there, and have communicated with them from time to time via private e-mails. (One of them, though, went ballistic a while back about something I'd written privately to her and exploded rather oddly on the message board itself, so I guess she's no longer a welcoming contact! Which is fine, though a tad disappointing.)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__60

I need a ruling by moderators. Does the above fall incompliance with this portion of MDB Universal Rules?

The original quote does not fall within our rules, since it was made on another board over which we have no control.

[_Jersey Girl]

I need a ruling by moderators. Does the above fall incompliance with this portion of MDB Universal Rules?

The original quote does not fall within our rules, since it was made on another board over which we have no control.

Then the moderators on this board need to get their stuff in line, harmony, because I already have moderator approval. The Universal Rules on MDB do NOT specify where the information needs to have been made overtly public.

[_harmony]

Then the moderators on this board need to get their stuff in line, harmony, because I already have moderator approval. The Universal Rules on MDB do NOT specify where the information needs to have been made overtly public.

Moderator approval for what? Discussing it? I'm just telling you I'm not going to delete it, since it was written on another board. If Shades wants to override, that is his perogative.