ZLMB Moderators in Action
alienward
because the subject is "Complaint against Woodsy") , this moderator
that goes by: Pacumeni9 Title: Webdictator II changed the subject of
the thread to a personal attack of Duwayne with this:
"Wow. Maybe I should check that discussion out again. Then again, I
really don't have time to waste on the emotionally irrational and
militant postings of some of them (like Duwayne Anderson, bless his
heart)."
But the asshole doesn't stop at violating two of his own bullshit
rules. He goes on in another post in the same thread about why I was
capped:
"BTW, what these guys are all missing is that it wasn't even so much
an individual post of Alien's. Rather, it was the cumulative effect of
his posting style overall that began to raise the attention of mods. A
poster just crossing the line from time to time is not going to do it.
It is the aggressive tone coupled with frequent violations that tends
to do it."
And then in another post he and his "team" are letting a Mormon get
away the same "agressive" shit he capped me over:
"I am obligated to tell you that the consensus of the moderator team
is that as one of the most aggressive LDS posters, our view is that
you should be capped. However, instead of an immediate capping, I
would much prefer a sort of probation (I admit personal bias on this
watered-down ruling)."
Now what was that bullshit about unbiased moderating again, you
pathetic Mormon geeks?
Alien
Mike W
> news:da1f15d3.03061...@posting.google.com...
Maybe the name of the title should be changed? Bouncer, perhaps? This is
*the* Club ZLMB and you, you are barred! C'est la vie.
Heck, maybe it's just waiting in line... waiting... waiting... waiting.
Oops, closing time, ezboard's folded, it's time to start a new site. That
could happen. Good old usenet then but that's the joke, right? "Old" is
the word. Our ISPs could very well abandon the whole concept.
Fragile freedom.
Duwayne Anderson
> In a post that started as a complaint against Woodsy (I know this
> because the subject is "Complaint against Woodsy") , this moderator
> that goes by: Pacumeni9 Title: Webdictator II changed the subject of
> the thread to a personal attack of Duwayne with this:
>
> "Wow. Maybe I should check that discussion out again. Then again, I
> really don't have time to waste on the emotionally irrational and
> militant postings of some of them (like Duwayne Anderson, bless his
> heart)."
A little history on Pacumeni. It goes back to a debate we had, which
included another apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Russell McGuire), about whether or not Mormons can
answer all the questions put to them.
I asked for the references to the scientific literature supporting the
Book of Mormon's claims about domesticated horses and steel swords.
Russell and Pacumeni tried winning a technical point by responding
that there are no references to the scientific literature supporting
the Book of Mormon's claims regarding domesticated horses and
iron/steel. He then claimed that he had won the debate by answering
the question.
So, I started quoting Pacumeni and his statement that there is no
evidence in the scientific literature for domesticated horses and
steel swords among the ancient Americans. He was livid at having won
the minor debate (answering the question) while inadvertently shooting
himself in the foot by agreeing that there is no evidence in the
scientific literature supporting these claims of the Book of Mormon.
And, he's hated me ever since, with the same sort of hate that a
stupid person has when they lose a game of chess by exchanging a
knight for checkmate.
Now it seems that Trixi (another infamous censor) is on the war path.
Her tit is in the ringer over being unable to satisfactorily deal with
the following questions related to Guy R. Briggs' assertion that x
number of the moderators are Mormon and y number are not:
How is membership verified? I've asked this question before, and as
near as I can tell the question has been ignored.
Supposedly, membership records are confidential. So when someone on
the censorship committee says they are LDS, how is that verified? Is
it just a matter of taking their word for it?
CONVERSELY, when someone on the censorship committee says they are NOT
LDS, how is THAT verified? Is that also just a matter of taking their
word for it?
Given the propensity for Mormons to lie for the Church, is it possible
that Mormons might try to get on the censorship committee under the
pretense of not being members, so that they could more effectively
control or limit the discussion? How is that possibility defended
against?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
€R.L. Measures
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> monso...@aol.com (alienward) wrote in message
news:<da1f15d3.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > In a post that started as a complaint against Woodsy (I know this
> > because the subject is "Complaint against Woodsy") , this moderator
> > that goes by: Pacumeni9 Title: Webdictator II changed the subject of
> > the thread to a personal attack of Duwayne with this:
> >
> > "Wow. Maybe I should check that discussion out again. Then again, I
> > really don't have time to waste on the emotionally irrational and
> > militant postings of some of them (like Duwayne Anderson, bless his
> > heart)."
>
> A little history on Pacumeni. It goes back to a debate we had, which
> included another apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints (Russell McGuire),...
€ McGregor?
--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
Duwayne Anderson
Yeah. I think that was his name. It's interesting how so many Mormon
apologists have come and gone over the years. Is it just my
imagination, or do they often leave to startup their own Internet
sites or participate in some "moderated" newsgroup where they be a
little more insulated from having to deal with the issues?
Mike W
> news:a42139e3.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > ? McGregor?
That's what any church is, isn't it? Insulation from the chaos of many
disparate voices. A prayer that harmony can be achieved, a chorus of voices
in unison under one roof. It's a difficult challenge. You need a chorus
DA. I want to join a chorus some day.
Mike
€R.L. Measures
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> ^2...@vc.net (?R.L. Measures) wrote in message
news:<^2-1206031...@192.168.1.201>...
> > In article <a42139e3.03061...@posting.google.com>,
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
> >
> > > monso...@aol.com (alienward) wrote in message
> > news:<da1f15d3.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > In a post that started as a complaint against Woodsy (I know this
> > > > because the subject is "Complaint against Woodsy") , this moderator
> > > > that goes by: Pacumeni9 Title: Webdictator II changed the subject of
> > > > the thread to a personal attack of Duwayne with this:
> > > >
> > > > "Wow. Maybe I should check that discussion out again. Then again, I
> > > > really don't have time to waste on the emotionally irrational and
> > > > militant postings of some of them (like Duwayne Anderson, bless his
> > > > heart)."
> > >
> > > A little history on Pacumeni. It goes back to a debate we had, which
> > > included another apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> > > Latter-day Saints (Russell McGuire),...
> >
> > ? McGregor?
>
> Yeah. I think that was his name. It's interesting how so many Mormon
> apologists have come and gone over the years.
** No human can continuously manufacture bologna without taking an
occasional vacation. Shirts and McGregor endured longer than most, but
even they need a break..
>Is it just my
> imagination, or do they often leave to startup their own Internet
> sites or participate in some "moderated" newsgroup where they be a
> little more insulated from having to deal with the issues?
>
** Moderated groups are usually preferred by apologists, groupies,
sycophants, toadies, and lap-dogs.
cheers, Duwayne