Censorship on s.r.m.
Duwayne Anderson
Censorship on s.r.m.
When s.r.m. was formed, there was considerable discussion about
the likelihood of censorship. Since many of you were involved in
those discussions, I thought you would be interested in seeing
what types of posts are banned from s.r.m. I have the dubious
honor of having had one of my recent posts rejected. The
moderator who rejected my article was Hedgehod. He felt I was
discourteous by saying that Joseph Smith did not have a clue
about relativity (a claim to which I was responding). How long,
I wonder, before posters who disagree that Joseph Smith was a
prophet will likewise be considered discourteous, and also banned
from s.r.m?
Here is the unaltered article that I submitted to s.r.m:
On 27 February 1997, Jerry James said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
>I find this interesting in the Mormon context because our
>scriptures (PofGP and BoM) talk about time flowing at different
>speeds for different beings/worlds. We knew about relativity
>before the scientists did!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The Book of Mormon never discusses time "flowing" differently for
people on other worlds.
The Pearl of Great Price says that time is "reckoned" differently
for people on other worlds, but makes it clear the difference is
because of different speeds of rotation. This is about as
significant as saying time changes when you cross the
international date line. Consider, for example, Abraham 3:4
which says:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
"And the Lord said unto me [Abraham], by the Urim and Thummim
that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to it
times and seasons in the REVOLUTIONS thereof, that one REVOLUTION
was a day unto the Lord after his manner of reckoning, it being
one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that
whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time
according to the reckoning of Kolob."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Smith was confused with the idea that time is determined
by the rate of rotation of the planet upon which we dwell. He
had no special insight into the nature of time and relative
speed, much less the nature of time and gravitational fields.
There are many similar problems with the Book of Abraham. For
example, a recent article about the Book of Abraham (see the
March edition of the Ensign -- published by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints) says the earth orbited Kolob until
Adam "fell." Supposedly, when Adam "fell" the earth moved from
its orbit around Kolob, and took up its present position in the
solar system. Even the informed layperson understands the wealth
of information that disproves this story.
Anyone with a science background, who is investigating the Mormon
church, should acquire a copy of the Pearl of Great Price and
read it. This book is typically bound with a copy of the Book of
Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons call the bound set a
"triple combination." The Pearl of Great Price is a relatively
short book, and may easily be read in an hour or two. It is the
source of some of the greatest conflicts between science and
Mormonism.
There is, of course, no relativity in the Pearl of Great Price.
To be sure, some Mormons have reinterpreted the Pearl of Great
Price in a failed attempt to make it seem as if the book might be
talking about relativity. In similar manner, some people
reinterpret verses from the Old Testament to make it seem as if
Isaiah saw rocket ships. Such forced arguments after the fact
are unconvincing. Similar techniques are used to "prove" the
authenticity of sorcerers and astrologers.
Suffice it to say there is little enough about relativity in the
Book of Abraham that Mormons had to wait for gentile scientists
to discover the theory of relativity. I know of no significant
contributions to the special or general theories of relativity by
Mormons, in spite of Jerry James' boastful assertion that Mormons
knew about relativity before "the scientists." I think it safe
to say Joseph Smith was completely clueless on the subject.
Duwayne
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are my own,
and do not necessarily represent those of the company for which I
work.
TMace87364
Duwayne,
I found your post very thoughtful, articulate and polite.
It is indeed a distressing reflection that the moderators
found it unacceptable.
Tracy M
Petibacsi
Yes, the moderation doesn't work very well.Big surprize?
Probably I hold the record the number of rejected posts in one day, I
got back 7 (!!!) a few weeks ago.A few were OK to me, but not the all.
I got back posts saying too much quotation, but I saw posts with much
more
than it was in my post.
Sarcasm was rejected also, although by Mormons there were posts, that
didn't give anything extra to the discussion, except fun.
The best example of bad moderation was a few days ago.Someone said
that Hyrum Smith wrote the View of the Hebrews. I tried to correct it, but
got rejected because of lack of quotation.I thought it was obvious because
of the title of the thread what I was refering to.
Rpcman got rejected in the same thread with his expellent explanation.
And what got posted? That the View of the Hebrews was written by
Evan Smith!!! :)
Congratulations to all of the moderators who knows so well Mormon
history. The correct name of the writer is Ethan Smith.If the moderators
don't
like to get correct material I don't mind, but nobody should be surprised
the
general misinformation of LDS members.
Petibacsi
Craig Anderson
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@master.cna.tek.com> wrote in article
<5fkobu$s...@master.cna.tek.com>...
> Since many of you were involved in
> those discussions, I thought you would be interested in seeing
> what types of posts are banned from s.r.m. I have the dubious
> honor of having had one of my recent posts rejected.
So have I. So has just about everybody, I think. It's simply a matter of
adjusting to the nature of the ng.
> The
> moderator who rejected my article was Hedgehod.
I could be wrong, but I think a post must be rejected by _two_ of the
moderators for it to be prohibited from posting.
> He felt I was
> discourteous by saying that Joseph Smith did not have a clue
> about relativity (a claim to which I was responding).
I read your article. The last line saying that JS was "clueless" could
indeed be considered discourteous. It certainly didn't need to be said in
the manner you said it. You could have found an alternate choice of words,
or simply snipped the last line in order to get past moderation.
> How long,
> I wonder, before posters who disagree that Joseph Smith was a
> prophet will likewise be considered discourteous, and also banned
> from s.r.m?
Hmmm, I think this is just a little over-reaction. Personally, I find many
of the threads in s.r.m. interesting and just as many uninteresting. But I
think the moderators are doing a decent job considering the difficulty of
the task. Frankly, there are some posters here whom I have chosen not to
respond to, and I notice that many of the these people don't post on
s.r.m., and I assume it's because they can't get their stuff past the
moderators. So, from that POV alone, I think s.r.m. serves a very
worthwhile purpose.
Craig
Diana Newman
Petibacsi wrote:
>
> Yes, the moderation doesn't work very well.Big surprize?
>
> Probably I hold the record the number of rejected posts in one day, I
> got back 7 (!!!) a few weeks ago.A few were OK to me, but not the all.
>
> I got back posts saying too much quotation, but I saw posts with much
> more
> than it was in my post.
You know, we moderator types get more flak over the "too much quotation"
rejections than just about any other reason; so to help you out, heres'
the deal:
the server that carries SRM will not accept a post longer than about
fifty lines with more than 50% quotes. No acceptions, not our fault,
thats all there is to it. It doesn't allow for any human judgement
whatsoever. If you get a rejection notice saying "too much quotation",
you will probably find that you were rejected first by the
automoderator..and we have absolutely no way to overide the servers'
objections to it.
So, when you get one of these, don't rail at US....simply trim the
quotes, add a little more original commentary, and repost.
As to the rest of your objections, Peter....you certainly have a right
to your opinions. Just remember that there is always more than one side
to an issue.
Diana
Peggy Rogers
I just want to note that Duwayne's post, minus a couple of jabs toward
the end at JJ and JS, appeared on s.r.m. this morning. Removing those
did not detract at all from the point he was trying to make.
| For when two beings who are not friends
Peggy Rogers | are near each other, there is no meeting,
kro...@xmission.com | and when friends are apart, there is
| no separation. --Simone Weil
Jeff Shirton
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@master.cna.tek.com> wrote:
>Censorship on s.r.m.
>
>When s.r.m. was formed, there was considerable discussion about
>the likelihood of censorship. Since many of you were involved in
>those discussions, I thought you would be interested in seeing
>what types of posts are banned from s.r.m. I have the dubious
Welcome to s.r.m., Duwayne!
Believe me, Duwayne, you haven't seen anything yet. The moderators of
s.r.m. have admitted that I have had the largest number of posts rejected
from s.r.m. than any other poster to that newsgroup. And yes, the
censorship is *very* real. They will allow any off-topic post to be
posted, as long as an LDS posts it (that is my observation, anyway; they
may very well claim to reject *some* off-topic posts, but far too many
off-topic posts are approved and posted). And even when these off-topic
posts contain personal slams and factually incorrect information,
non-Mormons (or at least me) are *never* allowed to post a correction or
to deal with the slam, because when a non-Mormon replies to the off-topic
post, it is invariably "rejected" as "off-topic".
But that's to be expected. I've seen it on just about *every* "moderated"
LDS newsgroup that I've ever been on. LDS have carte blance to say just
about whatever they want, and when factual corrections (against LDS
theology) are presented, excuses are always found to "reject" the post.
I just take comfort in the fact of how the unChristlike (IMO) behaviour
of such LDS reflects on the general worldwide readership. By their
fruits you will know them.
>moderator who rejected my article was Hedgehod. He felt I was
Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
(I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
in practice.
--
Jeff Shirton (VE3OJS) McMaster University Shir...@McMaster.CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He didn't sound like a baseball player. He said things like 'Nevertheless,'
and 'If, in fact.' " -- Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
Craig Olson
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@master.cna.tek.com> wrote:
>Censorship on s.r.m.
>
>When s.r.m. was formed, there was considerable discussion about
>the likelihood of censorship. Since many of you were involved in
>those discussions, I thought you would be interested in seeing
>what types of posts are banned from s.r.m. I have the dubious
>honor of having had one of my recent posts rejected.
Returning posts to allow the author to make changes consistent
with the intended purpose of the newsgroup isn't exactly what
I'd call blatant censorship. Deleting your submission without
informing you, now that might be.
For those who haven't had a post returned to them by the
moderators at s.r.m, you might be interested to know that the
article is returned with an explanation of _why_ it was returned,
references to the charter and moderation FAQ, and an address
to which appeals can be directed should you feel that your
post was returned in error.
Perhaps Duwayne would have found more satisfaction in appealing
to the moderation board to have his article accepted, rather
than appealing to the readership of a.r.m? Depends upon
the desired outcome, I suppose.
<snip>
> <...> How long,
>I wonder, before posters who disagree that Joseph Smith was a
>prophet will likewise be considered discourteous, and also banned
>from s.r.m?
This supposition can only be supported if you have been "banned
from s.r.m" for posting your article. Have you been? If not,
then why do you assume others will be?
Craig Olson
--
http://www.netins.net/showcase/gershom/
Peggy Rogers
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Jason Roberts wrote:
> Duwayne,
>
> I have had only one post to s.r.m rejected. I thought it was rejected for
> totally bogus reasons, so I resubmitted it, it got reviewed by a different
> moderator and passed.
So, Jason, would you like to have the job of sorting though various
posts, from the well-meaning but clueless to the vicious and demeaning,
and always be perfectly fair, reasonable, and even-handed? Or are
moderators allowed to be human?
> However, I see no reason why your post was rejected, and have seen
> instances of far greater injustice than that.
As I've noted elsewhere, it was accepted today with only minor
revisions.
> Power corrupts.
I always think it's strange when religious people quote that remark as
an aphorism--and its companion: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
God must be a pretty corrupt Being, if that's the case.
> But if you
> want to see how lucky we are with s.r.m try looking at soc.religion.bahai
> where the two bahai moderators make no attempt to hide the fact that the
> moderate the group according to 'bahai teachings'. Among other things this
> means that complaints about individuals aren't handled on Usenet but
> forwarded to their local bahai authorities. S.r.b has to be the biggest
> stain on moderated Usenet.
Well, I suppose that amounts to a kind of back-handed compliment--"not
nearly as bad as s.r.b."!
mle...@engg.uregina.ca
> But if you
> want to see how lucky we are with s.r.m try looking at soc.religion.bahai
> where the two bahai moderators make no attempt to hide the fact that the
> moderate the group according to 'bahai teachings'. Among other things this
> means that complaints about individuals aren't handled on Usenet but
> forwarded to their local bahai authorities.
Sorry, but 'complaints about individuals' on soc.religion.bahai are not
forwarded anywhere. The Baha'i administration does not involve itself
with s.r.b. It simply provides us with guidelines as to how we should
conduct ourselves on usenet, since, as your post demonstrates, we are
going to be held up as examples of the Baha'i community at large. I just
wanted to clarify on that.
Marie Lewis
http://ursu.uregina.ca/~bahai/
http://www.engg.uregina.ca/~mlewis/
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illumine the whole earth."
--Baha'u'llah
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jeff Shirton
Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>> I have had only one post to s.r.m rejected. I thought it was rejected for
>> totally bogus reasons, so I resubmitted it, it got reviewed by a different
>> moderator and passed.
>
>So, Jason, would you like to have the job of sorting though various
>posts, from the well-meaning but clueless to the vicious and demeaning,
>and always be perfectly fair, reasonable, and even-handed? Or are
>moderators allowed to be human?
That's really an unfair question, for two reasons. First, Jason never
asked to be a moderator (that I know of). If someone *volunteers* to
moderate, then they better have the expectation to do a good (and fair,
and unbiased job). Second, moderators are certainly allowed to be human.
But they should at least have the decency to admit their mistakes in
moderation, and act on those mistakes, rather than ignoring them and
perpetuating biased actions.
>> However, I see no reason why your post was rejected, and have seen
>> instances of far greater injustice than that.
>
>As I've noted elsewhere, it was accepted today with only minor
>revisions.
As *Jason* noted, it was accepted *unchanged*, which speaks to the
inconsistency of the moderation staff, and to the fact that they on
occasion (and frequently, in my experience) will reject posts which
have no "rejectionable" content.
>> Power corrupts.
>
>I always think it's strange when religious people quote that remark as
>an aphorism--and its companion: "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>God must be a pretty corrupt Being, if that's the case.
What makes you think that comment applies outside of a sinful nature?
I would certainly never presume to apply it to God. After all, it is
our inherent sinfulness which corrupts power whenever humans have access
to it.
Non sequitur all the way, yours is.
>Peggy Rogers | are near each other, there is no meeting,
>kro...@xmission.com | and when friends are apart, there is
--
Jeff Shirton
Craig Olson <c...@teamquest.com> wrote:
>Returning posts to allow the author to make changes consistent
>with the intended purpose of the newsgroup isn't exactly what
>I'd call blatant censorship.
It is if you have to "make changes" in the order of rewriting everything
so that your original point is completely lost... (And I'm speaking from
experience.)
>For those who haven't had a post returned to them by the
>moderators at s.r.m, you might be interested to know that the
>article is returned with an explanation of _why_ it was returned,
>references to the charter and moderation FAQ, and an address
>to which appeals can be directed should you feel that your
>post was returned in error.
When you've received about 20 or 30 such rejection notices, and have
read the charter and the moderation FAQ, such references start to get
really lame.
As for the "appeals" address, my personal experience is that it is a
useless venture. From what I can tell, the only reason they put that
there is to have a place for you to "vent" (a la banging your head
against the wall), and possibly to make them *look* like they're
reasonable and will discuss the issue.
For after replying to them about 20 or 30 times after 20 or 30 rejections,
and 20 or 30 "invited to write to disscuss this" notices, when they were
all about the same 1 or 2 issues, all I ever got from them was a couple
of "we're looking into this" letters. After that, further responses to
rejection letters got a "we will no longer be accepting messages from
you more than once a week."
The bottom line is that they "why" at the top of the rejection letter is
just about *all* you're going to get from the moderators, who obviously
don't have time to do their jobs, and obviously have no intention of
answering any personal responses to rejection notices.
>Perhaps Duwayne would have found more satisfaction in appealing
>to the moderation board to have his article accepted, rather
Duwayne would have found that the above action would have accomplished
nothing.
>Craig Olson
>http://www.netins.net/showcase/gershom/
Hedgehog
In article <5fkobu$s...@master.cna.tek.com> Duwayne Anderson,
duwa...@master.cna.tek.com writes:
>I think it safe
>to say Joseph Smith was completely clueless on the subject.
As are you. Why shouldn't clueless posts from clueless people be
rejected?
David Bowie
Jeff Shirton (shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote:
: Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@master.cna.tek.com> wrote:
: >Censorship on s.r.m.
: >When s.r.m. was formed, there was considerable discussion about
: >the likelihood of censorship. Since many of you were involved in
: >those discussions, I thought you would be interested in seeing
: >what types of posts are banned from s.r.m. I have the dubious
: Welcome to s.r.m., Duwayne!
: Believe me, Duwayne, you haven't seen anything yet. The moderators of
: s.r.m. have admitted that I have had the largest number of posts rejected
: from s.r.m. than any other poster to that newsgroup...
"Admitted" is a leading word. We have informed you that you had more
posts rejected from s.r.m. than anyone else. Of course, most of those
were rejected because they were flames or dealt with issues more suited to
s.r.christian than s.r.m., but i notice you don't mention that...
: ...And yes, the
: censorship is *very* real. They will allow any off-topic post to be
: posted, as long as an LDS posts it (that is my observation, anyway; they
: may very well claim to reject *some* off-topic posts, but far too many
: off-topic posts are approved and posted)...
Call for references. Documentation. *Anything* to back up this entirely
false, out-of-the-thin-air claim, please.
: ...And even when these off-topic
: posts contain personal slams and factually incorrect information,
: non-Mormons (or at least me) are *never* allowed to post a correction or
: to deal with the slam, because when a non-Mormon replies to the off-topic
: post, it is invariably "rejected" as "off-topic".
Please note that there are several non-Mormons (including con-Mormons) who
disagree with you, Jeff (after all, one of the moderators is non-Mormon
and agrees with the rest of us on this one). Please get Craig Harman
(very much a pro-Mormon) to describe his early experiences with s.r.m.,
and then try to convince us that we discriminate against
non-Mormons/con-Mormons.
: But that's to be expected. I've seen it on just about *every* "moderated"
: LDS newsgroup that I've ever been on. LDS have carte blance to say just
: about whatever they want, and when factual corrections (against LDS
: theology) are presented, excuses are always found to "reject" the post.
There is one and only one moderated newsgroup about Mormonism. So why
are you implying that you've had experience with more than one?
: I just take comfort in the fact of how the unChristlike (IMO) behaviour
: of such LDS reflects on the general worldwide readership. By their
: fruits you will know them.
You really ought to be careful here--one could easily take your railing
against the moderators of s.r.m. as unChristlike. As for me, i take
neither as unChristlike except insofar as it reflects that humans--you,
the s.r.m. moderators, everyone--all tend to look at the world
differently.
: >moderator who rejected my article was Hedgehod. He felt I was
: Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
: moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
: (I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
: any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
: in practice.
Please document your claims about Hedgehog. He certainly is not a
con-Mormon, but he does fairly regularly post criticisms of the Mormon
belief system on s.r.m. Remember, Jeff, just because someone disagrees
with you does not make them a pro-Mormon, and it doesn't even make them
wrong. You're human, too, after all.
David "Human" Bowie
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <5fpjp3$g...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> Jeff Shirton,
shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA writes:
>Second, moderators are certainly allowed to be human.
>But they should at least have the decency to admit their mistakes in
>moderation, and act on those mistakes, rather than ignoring them and
>perpetuating biased actions.
But is it a mistake to reject clueless posts from clueless people?
Diana Newman
Jason Roberts wrote:
>
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95.97030...@xmission.xmission.com>, Peggy
> Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Jason Roberts wrote:
>
> > > Duwayne,
>
> > > totally bogus reasons, so I resubmitted it, it got reviewed by a different
> > > moderator and passed.
>
> > So, Jason, would you like to have the job of sorting though various
> > posts, from the well-meaning but clueless to the vicious and demeaning,
> > and always be perfectly fair, reasonable, and even-handed? Or are
> > moderators allowed to be human?
>
> really lame. I don't know why the lame-o verdict was given, it just was.
> Maybe the stress of going through all those potential posts with a fine
> tooth comb wore on the moderator who rejected my post (it was you btw,
> with cursory support from hedgehog). Who knows? However, rather than
> complain about it, I promptly resubmitted it, and, ba-da-bing, it was
> approved.
Jason, Peggy isn't a moderator. She couldn't have rejected your post.
diana
Hedgehog
In article <5fpr9g$a...@netnews.upenn.edu> David Bowie,
dbo...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>Jeff Shirton (shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote:
>: Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
>: moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
>: (I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
>: any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
>: in practice.
Technically, I am not actually a Quaker. My religion listed in the
official s.r.m. documents is "Nondenominational Christian".
As far as fairness goes, we reject messages from clueless Mormons as well
as from clueless non-Mormons. You just don't see any of the clueless
Mormon posts and so you don't know they are there. But you do get your
own rejected posts returned.
You might get a kick out of this line from an appeal we got yesterday:
A> I'll be delinking s.r.m. I realize that fanatic anti-Mormons are much
more
A> welcome in LDS groups than active, faithful members.
I guess you can't please all the people all the time.
Peace,
Hedgehog
wilt
Hedgehog wrote:
> As far as fairness goes, we reject messages from clueless Mormons as well
> as from clueless non-Mormons. You just don't see any of the clueless
> Mormon posts and so you don't know they are there. But you do get your
> own rejected posts returned.
> My apologies, but I seem to have missed the section of the srm postings
dealing with the moderators sense of which poster has a "clue." While I
have found all too many of your observations less than complete - I
nonetheless have respected your view. If one is not using disrespectful
language - and the posting has some bearing on the LDS faith - it
should be posted without regard to your likes or dislikes.
It would appear you reject postings simply as an exercise in power.
__Not__ due to the content - but your subjective view of what constitutes
a "clue." With all due respect, your arrogance is showing -
wilt
Matt Steen
In article <5fq21a$s...@riscsm.scripps.edu>, hedg...@scripps.edu says...
>
>In article <5fpr9g$a...@netnews.upenn.edu> David Bowie,
>dbo...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>>Jeff Shirton (shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote:
>
>>: Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
>>: moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
>>: (I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
>>: any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
>>: in practice.
Hedgehog rejected a post from me once. I answered JR who said something to
the effect of "our normally well balanced friend, Matt Steen said so & so."
I replied that I wasn't all that sure of the "normally well balanced" part,
and Hedgehog bounced it saying that it was unacceptable to say people were
not well balanced on s.r.m.
When I brought to his attention that it was myself that I was referring to,
it was bounced again for not having much "substance." How could I argue
with that? Quite often I don't post articles with much substance.
I rarely post to s.r.m., because I feel that I don't really fit in there to
well, but I'm not willing to critize them because I feel that they're
doing what they're supposed to do. Keeping s.r.m. a fairly liberal, yet
moderate group without a lot of the acrimonious stuff you see here on a.r.m.
Matt Steen
Diana Newman
Jason Roberts wrote:
>
> In article <33207D...@utah.uswest.net>, b...@utah.uswest.net wrote:
>
> > Jason, Peggy isn't a moderator. She couldn't have rejected your post.
> >
> > diana
>
You are quite welcome.
> I attribute it to a brain fart, the result being mixing Peggy up with
> someone else.
>
> I deserve to be severely ridiculed for this gaffe.
I'm sorry, I'm not up to severe ridicule this evening. I'm not even
ready for mild sarcasm. You will just have settle for the simple
statement of fact that I made, and learn to live with the disapointment.
Much as your gracious opening tempts me, I think I will have to decline
your invitation to ridicule, mock and flame you for your "brain fart".
(shaking head in weariness) sometimes one has to let even the most
irresistable opportunities go.......
diana
Hedgehog
In article <jason.roberts-0...@144.92.156.145> Jason Roberts,
jason....@mail.admin.wisc.edu writes:
>No one
>forced you at gunpoint to be a moderator.
How do you know?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <33207D...@utah.uswest.net> Diana Newman,
b...@utah.uswest.net writes:
>Jason Roberts wrote:
>>However, rather than
>> complain about it, I promptly resubmitted it, and, ba-da-bing, it was
>> approved.
Then in what manner are you being censored if your post did eventually
appear unaltered?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Yist&Feog
Jeff Shirton wrote:
>
> Craig Olson <c...@teamquest.com> wrote:
>
> >Returning posts to allow the author to make changes consistent
> >with the intended purpose of the newsgroup isn't exactly what
> >I'd call blatant censorship.
>
> It is if you have to "make changes" in the order of rewriting everything
> so that your original point is completely lost... (And I'm speaking from
> experience.)
>
If that is the case, then my college proffessor's censored every paper I
wrote. And news reproters are censored every day by their editors.
Heck, the whole job of editing is to censor then. Face it, it is a fact
of life that you can not always get everything in that you want to. Is
it too hard to be polite? If it is, just post it to a.r.m. People will
find it.
> When you've received about 20 or 30 such rejection notices, and have
> read the charter and the moderation FAQ, such references start to get
> really lame.
>
Perhaps you are the problem. Ever thought of changing your attitude. I
mean this in the nicest way, but someone should tell you. . .
> As for the "appeals" address, my personal experience is that it is a
> useless venture. From what I can tell, the only reason they put that
> there is to have a place for you to "vent" (a la banging your head
> against the wall), and possibly to make them *look* like they're
> reasonable and will discuss the issue.
Anybody succeed in appealing? Bring your experiences here.
> The bottom line is that they "why" at the top of the rejection letter is
> just about *all* you're going to get from the moderators, who obviously
> don't have time to do their jobs, and obviously have no intention of
> answering any personal responses to rejection notices.
Well, maybe if we paid them to moderate, then they could quit their jobs
and do this full time. . . :)
>
> >Craig Olson
> --
> Jeff Shirton (VE3OJS) McMaster University Shir...@McMaster.CA
Geoff Matthews
"You keep saying that it's not fair. I would be interested in knowing
you comparison."
Goblin King, in Labyrinth
Hedgehog
In article <jkrobert-ya023080...@news.doit.wisc.edu> Jason
Roberts, jkro...@students.wisc.edu writes:
>Yeah. I made a dumb-ass mistake. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>someone else.
Do moderators also make dumb-ass mistakes, or only non-moderators? Are
there shades of gray in how posts are interpreted or is it all black and
white? If the rejecting of a post by a moderator is "censorship" then
why aren't your dumb-ass mistakes "malicious slander"?
Jeff Shirton
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
A typical remark from one of the s.r.m. moderators, Hedgehog.
Thank you for proving my point so well, Hedge.
--
Jeff Shirton (VE3OJS) McMaster University Shir...@McMaster.CA
Jeff Shirton
David Bowie <dbo...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>: Believe me, Duwayne, you haven't seen anything yet. The moderators of
>: s.r.m. have admitted that I have had the largest number of posts rejected
>: from s.r.m. than any other poster to that newsgroup...
>
>"Admitted" is a leading word. We have informed you that you had more
>posts rejected from s.r.m. than anyone else. Of course, most of those
I'm sorry if you find fault with my terminology. Frankly, I don't consider
the distinction to be very relevant. But thank you for supporting my minor
point (that I've had ample experience in rejections).
>were rejected because they were flames or dealt with issues more suited to
>s.r.christian than s.r.m., but i notice you don't mention that...
I didn't mention that, David, because it's not true. I note that *you*
didn't mention the fact that the posts that you moderators approved that
I responded to, were by Mormons, and were flaming me, and yet you would
never let me respond, even when the flames were based on factual errors
and my responses were corrections.
>: ...And yes, the
>: censorship is *very* real. They will allow any off-topic post to be
>: posted, as long as an LDS posts it (that is my observation, anyway; they
>: may very well claim to reject *some* off-topic posts, but far too many
>: off-topic posts are approved and posted)...
>
>Call for references. Documentation. *Anything* to back up this entirely
>false, out-of-the-thin-air claim, please.
Excuse me, David, but this claim is *VERY* very true. And since I qualified
it as "my observation", I need offer no more "documentation" than my
testimony of htat fact, which I have done. No, I did not save all my
rejected posts, and all the rejection notices. I didn't think I had
any use for them. And I also didn't save all the flames that Hedgehog
sent my way privately (although with his posts of today about "clueless
people" I don't think I'll have any problems convincing people of that
fact). I also didn't save the emails that Diana and Hedgehog both sent
me "strongly suggesting" that I be nice to them, since they (as moderators)
were the ones in power on the newsgroup. But whether those messages still
exist or not, it's all very very true, and I'll testify to that to my
dying day, for I do not lie.
What you don't seem to understand, David, is that truth is truth, and facts
are facts. And they don't suddenly become "non-truths", or "un-facts", just
because no concrete "evdence" is handy. And the uniform testimony of so
many independent sources should give you cause to at last consider that
something may be amiss in the way you (plural) run your newsgroup.
>: ...And even when these off-topic
>: posts contain personal slams and factually incorrect information,
>: non-Mormons (or at least me) are *never* allowed to post a correction or
>: to deal with the slam, because when a non-Mormon replies to the off-topic
>: post, it is invariably "rejected" as "off-topic".
>
>Please note that there are several non-Mormons (including con-Mormons) who
>disagree with you, Jeff
Why should I "note" that, David? I see no reason to believe that to be true.
> (after all, one of the moderators is non-Mormon
>and agrees with the rest of us on this one).
Yes, David, I very much realize that Hedgehog is a non-Mormon (and I believe
I already mentioned that fact). But as non-Mormons go, he is more "pro-
Mormon" that most LDS I know, including you, Diana, or Roger. So the
fact that he disagrees with me means squat to me.
>Please get Craig Harman
>(very much a pro-Mormon) to describe his early experiences with s.r.m.,
>and then try to convince us that we discriminate against
>non-Mormons/con-Mormons.
I really couldn't care less about "Craig Harman"'s experiences, David, for
they are completely irrelevant to the situation. This is another thing
that you guys can't seem to understand. Just showing that LDS have had
their posts rejected does *not* deny bias against non-Mormons, any more
than a business hiring a "token black", or "token Jew", or "token Christian"
for that matter, denies that a business discriminates against ethnicity or
religion. Nothing can change or deny my experience, which is that many
of my posts that I would consider *friendly* if directed at me by LDS were
rejected by the moderators of s.r.m., and many posts by LDS which I wouldn't
for a *moment* consider posting to LDS, even in a fit of anger, are routinely
"approved" and propagated. And any non-LDS can personally witness this same
thing, just as I and many others already have, simply by comparing their
posts which are rejected (with the moderators lame excuses attached) with
the flames by LDS "approved" for the newsgroup.
My "witness" is myself, David.
And my second "witness" is the newsgroup itself.
>: But that's to be expected. I've seen it on just about *every* "moderated"
>: LDS newsgroup that I've ever been on. LDS have carte blance to say just
>: about whatever they want, and when factual corrections (against LDS
>: theology) are presented, excuses are always found to "reject" the post.
>
>There is one and only one moderated newsgroup about Mormonism. So why
>are you implying that you've had experience with more than one?
Perhaps "newsgroup" was a poor choice of words. My other experiences have
been on PC-based bulletin board systems, such as the FIDO-MORMON group on
FIDO-net, and Mormon groups on similar networks. The pattern is always the
same. (Stan Barker and Gene Humbert are from FIDO-MORMON, btw.)
>: Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
>: moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
>: (I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
>: any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
>: in practice.
>
>Please document your claims about Hedgehog.
As I said before, I kept no messages that would support this, but as I also
pointed out, truth doesn't suddenly become 'un-truth' just because there's
no handy "Exhibit A". Just have someone read s.r.m. (or even a.r.m.) for
a few weeks, and anyone can see for themselves.
> He certainly is not a con-Mormon, but he does fairly regularly post
> criticisms of the Mormon belief system on s.r.m.
You're talking about how he treats (the doctrines of) Mormon*ism*.
I'm talking about how he treats Mormon*S*.
Do you understand the difference, David?
> Remember, Jeff, just because someone disagrees with you does not make
>them a pro-Mormon, and it doesn't even make them wrong.
<sigh> Why are you so insulting today, David? I'm not basing my evaluation
on whether or not he agrees with me, but rather on the obvious difference in
the way he responds to LDS as he responds to non-LDS.
> You're human, too, after all.
I've never denied that, David.
>David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Jeff Shirton
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>You might get a kick out of this line from an appeal we got yesterday:
>
>A> I'll be delinking s.r.m. I realize that fanatic anti-Mormons are much
>A> more welcome in LDS groups than active, faithful members.
>
>I guess you can't please all the people all the time.
Since you didn't include the entire context, we can only guess, but I think
an educated guess would be from some LDS who wants s.r.m. to be an "LDS-only"
list, with critics completely banned. Am I close?
>Hedgehog
Jeff Shirton
In article <3320C4...@erols.com>, wilt <wf...@erols.com> wrote:
>Hedgehog wrote:
>
>> As far as fairness goes, we reject messages from clueless Mormons as well
>> as from clueless non-Mormons. You just don't see any of the clueless
>> Mormon posts and so you don't know they are there. But you do get your
>> own rejected posts returned.
>> My apologies, but I seem to have missed the section of the srm postings
>dealing with the moderators sense of which poster has a "clue." While I
Wilt makes a very good point.
I thought the entire premise behind moderation was to control:
- courtesy;
- topicality;
... rather than "correctness" or "accuracy". If that is the case, then
whether someone (or their post) is "clueless" (to use the repeated term
in Hedgehog's latest tirade) is completely irrelevant as far as "moderation"
is concerned.
Or am I wrong?
Personally, I liked the fact that one of the s.r.m. moderators presumed to
"correct" an acceptable title for Song of Solomon ("Song of Songs"), yet
I've never seen a moderator correct the common LDS reference to the book of
"Revelations". <g>
>wilt
Diana Newman
Yeah, how do you know? I'll have you know that Hedgehog was NOT forced
at gunpoint to be a moderator. We used patriot missles, black
helicopters, and the threat of hacking his name into the top ten
suspects on the grassy knoll.
Diana
Diana
Diana Newman
Jeff Shirton wrote:
<snip>
> >Call for references. Documentation. *Anything* to back up this entirely
> >false, out-of-the-thin-air claim, please.
>
> Excuse me, David, but this claim is *VERY* very true. And since I qualified
> it as "my observation", I need offer no more "documentation" than my
> testimony of htat fact, which I have done.
Oh, Jeff. I'm having a bit of trouble believing that even you think you
could get away with this one.
You made an "observation" that is no less than an accusation. Your claim
doesn't make it any more truth than my "observation" that you whine like
a toddler having a tantrum in every single post.
Now, if I really WERE to make the above "observation", you would be
right back in my face demanding proof of any post in which you whined.
You would most certainly not let me get away with my saying that since
it is my personal observation that I need not provide proof of my
statement.
Now, if you had kept your observation to yourself, no proof would be
required. However, you made it public, turning it into an accusation.
Proof is now very much required.
> No, I did not save all my
> rejected posts, and all the rejection notices.
I did, at least a majority of them. You REALLY want me to post them?
Believe me, Jeff, they do not support your "observation". What's more, I
don't think that this is the place to try your allegations, either.
However, I'd be willing to place them in evidence if you don't mind my
quoting your public AND PRIVATE (to me) mail.
> I didn't think I had
> any use for them. And I also didn't save all the flames that Hedgehog
> sent my way privately (although with his posts of today about "clueless
> people" I don't think I'll have any problems convincing people of that
> fact). I also didn't save the emails that Diana and Hedgehog both sent
> me "strongly suggesting" that I be nice to them, since they (as moderators)
> were the ones in power on the newsgroup.
Now those I definately DO have, bub. Would you like to moderate your own
statement above considering that I do indeed have those, verbatim?
> But whether those messages still
> exist or not, it's all very very true, and I'll testify to that to my
> dying day, for I do not lie.
I'm not going to say that you do, Jeff. However, I believe that you are
mistaken, and have convinced yourself through your own bias that your
version of what happened IS the "truth". You don't even remember (and
since you didn't keep the posts involved, have no way of reminding
yourself) what I actually said. I most certainly didn't say what you
claimed I did.
> What you don't seem to understand, David, is that truth is truth, and facts
> are facts. And they don't suddenly become "non-truths", or "un-facts", just
> because no concrete "evdence" is handy.
No? You seem to feel free to manufacture some--because the evidence is
no longer handy. Trouble is, Jeff, that the evidence IS handy--and you
really don't want to go there if you wish to continue to be considered
the persecuted victim in this.
> And the uniform testimony of so
> many independent sources should give you cause to at last consider that
> something may be amiss in the way you (plural) run your newsgroup.
"so many"? How many is "so many", Jeff? One? Two? A hundred?
> >: ...And even when these off-topic
> >: posts contain personal slams and factually incorrect information,
> >: non-Mormons (or at least me) are *never* allowed to post a correction or
> >: to deal with the slam, because when a non-Mormon replies to the off-topic
> >: post, it is invariably "rejected" as "off-topic".
> >
> >Please note that there are several non-Mormons (including con-Mormons) who
> >disagree with you, Jeff
>
> Why should I "note" that, David? I see no reason to believe that to be true.
Because it is Davids "observation", perhaps, and as such requires no
proof?---or does that only apply to YOUR observations?
<snip>
> >Please get Craig Harman
> >(very much a pro-Mormon) to describe his early experiences with s.r.m.,
> >and then try to convince us that we discriminate against
> >non-Mormons/con-Mormons.
>
> I really couldn't care less about "Craig Harman"'s experiences, David, for
> they are completely irrelevant to the situation.
It is? Your accusation is that we are biased against non-Mormons. If we
show you, by Craigs' experiences, that the religion of the author means
nothing in regards to whether we accept or reject messages, this is very
revelent to your position.
> This is another thing
> that you guys can't seem to understand. Just showing that LDS have had
> their posts rejected does *not* deny bias against non-Mormons, any more
> than a business hiring a "token black", or "token Jew", or "token Christian"
> for that matter, denies that a business discriminates against ethnicity or
> religion.
(hysterical laughter....)
You do realize that you have just said that we are baised against
everybody...which amounts to bias against no-one. I mean, if nobody gets
a fair shake, everyone is treated equally, right? (G)
Ahh, I've had quite enough of this.
Jeff, either provide the evidence for your accusation or take it to
someone who isn't tired of the whole thing, eh?
Diana
Diana Newman
Jeff Shirton wrote:
>
> Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>
> >You might get a kick out of this line from an appeal we got yesterday:
> >
> >A> I'll be delinking s.r.m. I realize that fanatic anti-Mormons are much
> >A> more welcome in LDS groups than active, faithful members.
> >
> >I guess you can't please all the people all the time.
>
> Since you didn't include the entire context, we can only guess, but I think
> an educated guess would be from some LDS who wants s.r.m. to be an "LDS-only"
> list, with critics completely banned. Am I close?
No. You are not close....in fact, Jeff, I'd say that was about as big an
unwarranted conclusion jump as I have seen in quite awhile. Suffice it
to say that this particular poster thought (on behalf of the Mormons)
pretty much what you think on behalf of the anti's..in fact, substitute
"anti" for "LDS", change the signature and the arguments are exactly the
same.
Diana
Peggy Rogers
On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Jason Roberts wrote:
>
> Btw, *did* someone hold a gun to the moderation teams heads?
>
I know how much all of you hate history lessons, but I'm afraid I'm
going to have to repeat this one, all the same. I realize that the
story recounted below contains only _my_ experiences in being
recruited for the SRM endeavor, but, by extrapolation, the experiences
of the moderators can't have been too different. Maybe...
| We all begin with simple rules, only to
Peggy Rogers | discover that almost any rules can have
kro...@xmission.com | valid exceptions, or be in conflict with
| another, equally valid rule. --J. Martin
_____________________________________________________________________
It all started with my home teacher, Danford D. Danforth. Even though he
always had a bad case of DANdruff, (and dozens of DANdelions bloomed in
his yard, even in the depths of winter, it had never occurred to me that
he might be a member of the dire and dreaded Danites. So when he said to
me last year, "I hear that there's a newsgroup about Mormonism on the
internet," I wasn't particularly alarmed.
"That's right, Brother Dan," I answered. "It's called "alt.religion.
mormon, and I've been reading it for about a year."
"That's very interesting," he replied, and he didn't mention the subject
again during his visit. But when he was leaving, he gave me one of those
super-secret handshakes that I had been taught about from early childhood:
the one that means, "You will be receiving a few visitors later tonight."
When my husband was asleep that night, I quietly got up and got dressed.
Exactly at midnight I heard the expected knock. Dim-witted with deep doom,
I dashed to the door and opened it. It was a DANk and stormy night.
Outside my house was a largish crowd of people, and parked up and down
the street I could see the ten black seDANs that they had arrived in.
They came into my house--all fifty of them. (Ivan Marinov seems to be
under the mistaken impression that the Council of Fifty and the Danites
are two separate branches of the Church Internal Discipline Committee.
That's the _one_ thing he's wrong about. The Danites ARE the Council of
Fifty. At least, all the members of the Council of Fifty are Danites,
though perhaps not all Danites are in the Council of Fifty. (Am I making
any sense?)) Oddly, all fifty of them wore green banDANas over their
mouths and noses. It might sound silly, but it made them look very
DANgerous.
Anyway, Brother Dan introduced me to all of them--from Dan Dannaak who
came from Sudan, to Danielle Danzig, the Danish dancer. It's an inter-
national church now, you know! (Like you, I was surprised to find a woman
in the group--but it turns out that membership in the Council of Fifty
Danites is not a priesthood calling, and women are eligible to be members.
Danielle was the only female, though, and she looked like a harriDAN to
me.) The only one of these people I recognized was their leader, Dan
Danner Dannest, who by an unfortunate coincidence happens to be my
dentist.
When everyone was standing quietly in the largest room of my basement
(there wasn't room for them to sit down) Brother Dannest began to speak
to me: "Good evening, Sister Rogers. Your mission, should you decide to
accept it (and make no mistake, you _will_ decide to accept it) is to
establish a new newsgroup for the discussion of Mormon doctrine and for
the sharing of green jello recipes. And none of this 'Post whatever you
want' malarky. This will be a _moderated_ newsgroup, and insulting
remarks about DANdelions, DANdruff, and the river JorDAN will not be
tolerated. The bretheren will deny any knowledge of your actions. Do not
fail."
So that's how it all began. That's how I became the reluctant leader of
the "start a new newsgroup" movement. My co-conspirators, Craig and David
and all the rest, were actually as sincere and innocent as they seemed.
You can imagine how alarmed I was by the steadfast opposition of Davey
Aviary (better known as Saint Rhino of Aquinas) and the last-minute
efforts of Don Boring. But thanks to the abunDANce of YES votes we
prevailed, and now s.r.m. has been created.
You may wonder why I'm telling you all this when it's too late to do
anything about it. The fact is, I've grown fond of a lot of you, and I
don't want anything bad to happen to you. So I'm asking you, please,
PLEASE don't say anything bad on s.r.m. about DANdruff or DANdelions
or the river JorDAN. I know I should have put it in the charter, but
how could I with people like Davey Aviary and Don Boring around? As for
me, well...I have a dentist appointment tomorrow. If you never hear from
me again, please don't come looking for me. Remember...these people are
DANgerous. Don't get their DANder up...
Jeff Shirton
Diana Newman <b...@utah.uswest.net> wrote:
>> Excuse me, David, but this claim is *VERY* very true. And since I qualified
>> it as "my observation", I need offer no more "documentation" than my
>> testimony of htat fact, which I have done.
>
>Oh, Jeff. I'm having a bit of trouble believing that even you think you
>could get away with this one.
Well, you can believe (or disbelieve) anything you wish, Diana. It doesn't
change the truth any, does it?
>You made an "observation" that is no less than an accusation. Your claim
>doesn't make it any more truth than my "observation" that you whine like
>a toddler having a tantrum in every single post.
It's not true simply because I'm claiming it, Diana. On the contrary.
I'm claiming it because it's true.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand the difference.
>Now, if I really WERE to make the above "observation", you would be
>right back in my face demanding proof of any post in which you whined.
>You would most certainly not let me get away with my saying that since
>it is my personal observation that I need not provide proof of my
>statement.
Why do you misrepresent me, Diana?
I would not be "in [your] face demanding proof".
I dwould not be "whining" about it.
As a human, and as a citizen of the United States, you have the right
and the privilege to hold any opinion you wish, and whatever opinion
you hold doesn't change the truth one iota.
But you really disappoint me, Diana, by sinking down to Red Davis' level,
in presuming to speak for me, falsely, simply in order to further your
own personal agenda. That's low, even for you.
>Now, if you had kept your observation to yourself, no proof would be
>required. However, you made it public, turning it into an accusation.
>Proof is now very much required.
It remains my observation, and as my observation, the only "proof" I
need is my testimony, which I have given.
>> No, I did not save all my
>> rejected posts, and all the rejection notices.
>
>I did, at least a majority of them. You REALLY want me to post them?
I have nothing to hide, Diana. I am on the side of truth.
One day you will know that, one way or another.
>However, I'd be willing to place them in evidence if you don't mind my
>quoting your public AND PRIVATE (to me) mail.
Well, actually, your position is that you *didn't* say what I claimed you
said. You have admitted to not saving all of my messages to you (only
the "majority" of them), and so there is no way you can demonstrate that
you did not say what I know you said, is there?
So posting what you do have would not only be a breach of netiquette, but
a pointless exercise (not to mention a waste of bandwidth).
>> fact). I also didn't save the emails that Diana and Hedgehog both sent
>> me "strongly suggesting" that I be nice to them, since they (as moderators)
>> were the ones in power on the newsgroup.
>
>Now those I definately DO have, bub.
"Bub"? Is there a reason that you're being so rude to me, Diana?
Is that how your Mormon "Church of Jesus Christ" teaches you to act?
It's interesting that you say you have them. If you did, I'm sure you
would have sent a copy to me to demonstrate to me that I was wrong. That
would be the "Christian" thing to do, would it not? But I have received
no such "reminder" email. What a surprise... (Not!)
> Would you like to moderate your own
>statement above considering that I do indeed have those, verbatim?
No, Diana. I have no need to "moderate" any of my statements, as they
are correct as written. I may not have the emails themselves, but I
have an *excellent* memory, your insinuendos notwithstanding.
>> But whether those messages still
>> exist or not, it's all very very true, and I'll testify to that to my
>> dying day, for I do not lie.
>
>I'm not going to say that you do, Jeff. However, I believe that you are
>mistaken, and have convinced yourself through your own bias that your
>version of what happened IS the "truth". You don't even remember (and
>since you didn't keep the posts involved, have no way of reminding
>yourself) what I actually said. I most certainly didn't say what you
>claimed I did.
But I *do* remember what you said, Diana. Such an outrageous and severely
unChristian suggestion made quite an impression on me. More than you
realize. I read it over quite a few times, just to make sure I didn't
get the wrong interpretation.
>> What you don't seem to understand, David, is that truth is truth, and facts
>> are facts. And they don't suddenly become "non-truths", or "un-facts", just
>> because no concrete "evdence" is handy.
>
>No? You seem to feel free to manufacture some--because the evidence is
I have "manufactured" nothing, Diana. Watch your accusations.
>no longer handy. Trouble is, Jeff, that the evidence IS handy--and you
>really don't want to go there if you wish to continue to be considered
>the persecuted victim in this.
I'm on the side of truth, Diana.
>> >Please note that there are several non-Mormons (including con-Mormons) who
>> >disagree with you, Jeff
>>
>> Why should I "note" that, David? I see no reason to believe that to be true.
>
>Because it is Davids "observation", perhaps, and as such requires no
>proof?---or does that only apply to YOUR observations?
But why should I make "note" of an "observation" that runs contrary to
my own (reliable) observations?
>> I really couldn't care less about "Craig Harman"'s experiences, David, for
>> they are completely irrelevant to the situation.
>
>It is? Your accusation is that we are biased against non-Mormons. If we
>show you, by Craigs' experiences, that the religion of the author means
>nothing in regards to whether we accept or reject messages, this is very
>revelent to your position.
But as I keep pointing out, Diana (and you seem to keep ignoring), any
perusal of the "approved" postings from LDS on s.r.m., compared to personal
rejections from non-LDS, show that the bias is readily present.
End of story.
>> This is another thing
>> that you guys can't seem to understand. Just showing that LDS have had
>> their posts rejected does *not* deny bias against non-Mormons, any more
>> than a business hiring a "token black", or "token Jew", or "token Christian"
>> for that matter, denies that a business discriminates against ethnicity or
>> religion.
>
>(hysterical laughter....)
If you're "hysterical", Diana, perhaps you are in need of a psychiatrist?
(Oh, my mistake, you're only being rude and insulting and otherwise acting
in a grossly unChrisitan manner.)
>You do realize that you have just said that we are baised against
>everybody...which amounts to bias against no-one. I mean, if nobody gets
>a fair shake, everyone is treated equally, right? (G)
<chuckle> No, Diana, I "said" no such thing, of course. How you could
get that out of my statement I have absolutely *no* idea.
>Jeff, either provide the evidence for your accusation or take it to
>someone who isn't tired of the whole thing, eh?
My testimony is my evidence. And as the testimony of others comes to
light, the truth shall be seen for what it is.
>Diana
Jeff Shirton
Yist&Feog <matt...@mail.utah.uswest.net> wrote:
>> It is if you have to "make changes" in the order of rewriting everything
>> so that your original point is completely lost... (And I'm speaking from
>> experience.)
>
> If that is the case, then my college proffessor's censored every paper I
>wrote. And news reproters are censored every day by their editors.
>Heck, the whole job of editing is to censor then.
I think you misread my response, Geoff... College professors and news
editors make *minor* changes. The s.r.m. moderators are far different
by comparison
> Face it, it is a fact
>of life that you can not always get everything in that you want to. Is
>it too hard to be polite? If it is, just post it to a.r.m. People will
>find it.
Since I have read all my posts which were rejected, and since you have read
*none* of my posts which were rejected, what makes you think that
"politeness" had to do with anything?
>> When you've received about 20 or 30 such rejection notices, and have
>> read the charter and the moderation FAQ, such references start to get
>> really lame.
>
>Perhaps you are the problem. Ever thought of changing your attitude. I
>mean this in the nicest way, but someone should tell you. . .
Again, since you were not privy to any of my rejected posts, on what basis
do you have for "evaluating" that my "attitude" was the problem?
The problem was not "politeness",
and the problem was not "attitude".
The problem was the identity of the poster. I am critical of the LDS church.
that is my identity.
>Geoff Matthews
Kerry Shirts
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> says:
(snip)
>I guess you can't please all the people all the time.
Laugh! Hell I have a hard enough time pleasing *any* of the people *any*
of the time!
>
>Peace,
>Hedgehog
Kerry A. "Prejudiced myself, thanks" Shirts
Diana Newman
Jeff Shirton wrote:
<snip>
> I think you misread my response, Geoff... College professors and news
> editors make *minor* changes. The s.r.m. moderators are far different
> by comparison
Yes. The moderators make no changes whatsoever. They return your post
and YOU get to make the changes, should you wish to do so. You don't
need to change anything, and you most certainly won't be in the position
of many writers who see what they think is thier article rewritten until
it is unrecognizable.
You know, you are under no compulsion to post to SRM, Jeff. We aren't
holding your puppy for ransom or anything. Consider it a magazine of
sorts: if you want to post to SRM, structure the post so that it will be
accepted. If it is rejected, you may either fix the post or post it to
ARM. I fail to see what the angst is all about.
You have, btw, had far more posts accepted than rejected. (just thought
you might like to be reminded of that small detail)
> > Face it, it is a fact
> >of life that you can not always get everything in that you want to. Is
> >it too hard to be polite? If it is, just post it to a.r.m. People will
> >find it.
>
> Since I have read all my posts which were rejected, and since you have read
> *none* of my posts which were rejected, what makes you think that
> "politeness" had to do with anything?
ahem.
I *HAVE* read most of your posts which have been rejected. Care to ask
me the same question?
> >> When you've received about 20 or 30 such rejection notices, and have
> >> read the charter and the moderation FAQ, such references start to get
> >> really lame.
> >
> >Perhaps you are the problem. Ever thought of changing your attitude. I
> >mean this in the nicest way, but someone should tell you. . .
>
> Again, since you were not privy to any of my rejected posts, on what basis
> do you have for "evaluating" that my "attitude" was the problem?
Common sense? Having a history of reading your posts to ARM, and perhaps
personal corespondance, to go by?
Nahhhh, couldn't be as simple as that.
> The problem was not "politeness",
> and the problem was not "attitude".
You may certainly think as you wish about this matter, Jeff.
> The problem was the identity of the poster. I am critical of the LDS church.
> that is my identity.
Really? I suggest you talk to James and Petibasci if you think that
simply being critical of the LDS church gets you banned from SRM.
No, Jeff; that isn't the problem.
diana
Daniel Vieira
Jeff Shirton <shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
: >Censorship on s.r.m.
: Believe me, Duwayne, you haven't seen anything yet. The moderators of
: s.r.m. have admitted that I have had the largest number of posts rejected
: from s.r.m. than any other poster to that newsgroup. And yes, the
: censorship is *very* real. They will allow any off-topic post to be
: posted, as long as an LDS posts it (that is my observation, anyway; they
: may very well claim to reject *some* off-topic posts, but far too many
: off-topic posts are approved and posted). And even when these off-topic
: posts contain personal slams and factually incorrect information,
: non-Mormons (or at least me) are *never* allowed to post a correction or
: to deal with the slam, because when a non-Mormon replies to the off-topic
: post, it is invariably "rejected" as "off-topic".
I have found the same thing. For instance, Thomas Dibble was making
outrageous statements about the Catholic faith. I told him in a post that
he was making himself look ignorant about Catholicism by making such
uninformed statements, and also suggested that since Catholicism is really
out of scope for s.r.m., if he wanted to continue the discussion on
Catholicism we should go to e-mail. My post was rejected for 1) being
rude to Mr. Dibble for saying he was "ignorant" about Cathlolic belief,
and 2) asking him to go to e-mail to continue the part of the discussion
on the Catholic Faith. Hedgehog said that he saw no reason to admit my
post for "calling Mr. Dibble ignorant and then not allowing him to make a
public reply." He had made comments about Catholicism that were ignorant
at best and downright rude at worst, and he was allowed to post (surprise
-- he is LDS.) Yet my post, which had many relevant points to his
assertations, was rejected for being a "flame" and then telling him to
reply in e-mail (my call for e-mail was to preserve their damn charter!)
Then, last month, there was a fellow whose post had a large part more
directed at me then at general conversation (not rude, just more
personally oriented.) I responded and had my post returned because I was
trying to post something "personally oriented" -- of course, the LDS
poster could make all the "personally orieneted" remarks he wanted, but
when I simply responed to his line of thought, I was shut down.
I have to agree with Jeff that, no matter how much the moderators deny it,
there is certainly an LDS slant to s.r.m. I wouldn't call it outright
censorship, but a non-LDS poster is going to be scrutinized much closer
than an LDS one. I know they will deny this to the hilt, but too many of
us have had problems with moderation.
: >moderator who rejected my article was Hedgehod. He felt I was
: Yes, Hedgehog. S.r.m. carries three LDS moderators and one non-LDS
: moderator, for the appearance of fairness. But Hedgehog, a Quaker
: (I believe) is more "pro-Mormon" than most *LDS* who post there, and
: any appearance of "fairness" is quickly destroyed when you see the group
: in practice.
Again I have to agree here. Hedgehog may not be LDS, but he almost always
takes up the LDS banner against people who simply question an LDS belief.
He supposedly doesn't believe in the LDS restoration, but will argue for
its theoretical validity more fiercely than many actual LDS posters I have
seen. I think that if there is going to be a non-LDS moderator, he or she
should be a bit more objective than "Hedgehog" seems to be.
When I first heard about s.r.m., I thought the moderation was going to be
used to keep trolls, *real* flames, and non-topic posts from being
admited. What I see is much more liberty being given to LDS posters in
what and how they post, and at least greater scrutiny being given to
non-LDS posters in return. I don't really care how many posts LDS get
returned, or even the contents of those posts. It is abundantly clear to
far too many non-LDS posters that something is wrong there. Moderation
for keeping away obvious trolls and flames and keeping conversation on
topic is fine. But there is more going on there than meets the eye.
Dan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "He doesn't want anything.....he's insane." |
| --Frank Black, from "Millennium" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Watson
In article <5fv39q$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, dvi...@primenet.com says...
<snip>
>Dan
>--
Hi Dan,
You know, I've been rejected twice on the only post I sent to srm last
week and had to revise it twice just for it to pass. The moderators
insisted I used inappropriate language by criticising James as being
wrong on Mormonism. Heck, I didn't even swear or call him a bonehead.
It goes both ways. I wrote them and said they were either really uptight
or I've been on arm for too long.
Nice to see you back:) I missed you buddy. BTW, I still haven't heard
back from you on the issue of our ontological nature I sent you in e-mail.
Take care bro,
Ed:-)
Craig Anderson
Jason Roberts <jkro...@students.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<jkrobert-ya023080...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
> Jason "who opened himself to ridicule and expects to be ridiculed!!!"
Roberts
Feeling a little masochistic today, are we? <bwg>
Craig
Raymond Bingham
Complain complain moan moan. Wah wah wah... I just feel so bad for
all these critics that just can't manage to post on SRM. Personally
I think the reason they feel they are being censored is because they
have no ability to think in any courteous way beyond their own warped
personal view.
You think in your minds "Why in the world should I be courteous? These
are mormons! They don't deserve it!" And then guess what happens!?
YOu get moderated... Well I just feel so sorry for you. Especially, I
feel sorry for the stench of your bigotry.
I have had an amazingly large number of posts rejected, because I
tend to tell it how I see it and the moderators see no reason why
I should have my posts should get through to contend with the
wienie type critics who squeak trolls through the group. But you
don't see me complaining... In fact I am sure that the moderators
have a backlog of my responses when I am told I am going overboard,
and I bet that none of them are rude or whiney. Because quite frankly
I know that I need to be moderated occasionally to avoid conflict.
If SRM doesn't work for you, tough cookies. We had a vote on it, it
passed. The critics were given their chance to voice their apall at
the charter. They couldn't come up with anything but trolls. Much
of which was bullcrap about how we LDS are trying to take over the
universe, and other paranoia. So go back to your cacophony here in
ARM and whine and moan all you like. None of you so-called "critics"
have anything good to offer, just complaints and sad excuses of why
you can't engage people in civil dialogue. And frankly it makes me ill...
See ya in SRM... :)
PS. WEre this post to be posted in SRM, I would fully expect it to
be rejected. It is not at all civil, and it never was intended to
be. Sometimes you critics with the minds of children deserve a
swift kick in the behind... too bad all I can do is post a note... :)
Best regards,
--
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
*****************************************************************
* The internet needs a lobotomy to recover from its lobotomy. *
*****************************************************************
Duwayne Anderson
Well, I'm gratified to see my comments generating so much
discussion. I don't have much time to participate on a.r.m., so
I hope people do not mind that I have lumped responses to
comments from several people into this single article. I'm
responding in this article to comments and questions from Craig
Anderson, Craig Olson, and Peggy Rogers.
These questions were precipitated by my post to a.r.m. regarding
an article of mine that was rejected by the s.r.m. moderators. A
copy of my rejected article may be found at the end of this post.
On 6 March 1997, Craig Anderson said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
>I could be wrong, but I think a post must be rejected by _two_ of
>the moderators for it to be prohibited from posting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The post was rejected by two moderators: Hedgehog and Diana.
Hedgehog offered an explanation (described in the preamble of my
original post on this subject -- see the end of this post).
Diana offered no explanation. The moderators included a boiler-
plate explanation to the effect that my post contained
"discourteous language."
Here is the segment of Jerry James' post to which I was
responding:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
>>>I find this interesting in the Mormon context because our
>>>scriptures (PofGP and BoM) talk about time flowing at different
>>>speeds for different beings/worlds. We knew about relativity
>>>before the scientists did!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Here are the last two sentences of my rejected post (after
quoting Mormon scriptures to backup my point):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
>>I know of no significant contributions to the special or general
>>theories of relativity by Mormons, in spite of Jerry James'
>>boastful assertion that Mormons knew about relativity before "the
>>scientists." I think it safe to say Joseph Smith was completely
>>clueless on the subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
For my post to be accepted by the moderators, I had to remove the
last line stating that Joseph Smith was clueless about
relativity. I also had to remove the word "boastful" in
describing Jerry James' assertion that Mormons knew about
relativity before scientists did.
The moderators argued that changing these last two sentences did
not significantly alter the point of my post. In this they may
be correct. If these changes had significantly affected my post
I would not have altered it and resubmitted it. However,
rejecting material for illegitimate reasons has the effect of
reducing meaningful dialog. I'm a rather determined person (most
people who know me would admit to that). Consequently, when
moderators reject a post of mine for wrongful reasons, I'm not
likely to let that stop me. In this particular case, for
example, I've managed quite nicely (in spite of the s.r.m.
moderators) to get across my point.
However, I'm also interested in listening to the ideas of other
people who may not be as foreceful as myself. I can easily
imagine another person having a post rejected for inappropriate
reasons, and then deciding to just forget it altogether. When
this happens, everyone who subscribes to the newsgroup looses.
On 6 March 1997 Craig Olson said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
:Returning posts to allow the author to make changes consistent
:with the intended purpose of the newsgroup isn't exactly what I'd
:call blatant censorship.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
The point of my article was that the reasons were not legitimate.
I've posted a copy of my banned article at the end of this post
so that people may conclude for themselves whether the moderators
at s.r.m. rejected the post inappropriately.
Craig Olson also said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
:For those who haven't had a post returned to them by the
:moderators at s.r.m., you might be interested to know that the
:article is returned with an explanation of _why_ it was returned
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, and if you read carefully the article I submitted to a.r.m.
you will see that I explained the reasons given by the
moderators.
Craig Olson continued:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
:Perhaps Duwayne would have found more satisfaction in appealing
:to the moderation board to have his article accepted, rather than
:appealing to the readership of a.r.m.? Depends upon the desired
:outcome, I suppose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
In fact, I did appeal to the moderators. I made the changes they
required, and the article was posted.
The question is, how should s.r.m. operate? Should worthwhile
articles be rejected so that the author must make minor changes?
Wasn't s.r.m. started because Mormons did not want to see the
temple endowment printed? That's my recollection. I don't
recall any discussion about minor irritations needing to be
expunged. It seems that Mormon sensitivities have increased
since the original debate about the formation of s.r.m.
On 6 March 1997 Peggy Rogers wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
::I just want to note that Duwayne's post, minus a couple of jabs
::toward the end at JJ and JS, appeared on s.r.m. this morning.
::Removing those did not detract at all from the point he was
::trying to make.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Peggy is correct. I modified the article and it was posted to
s.r.m. The modifications I had to make to have my post accepted
are described above.
According to my memory, s.r.m. was founded because Mormons said
they were offended by people who post the Mormon temple
ceremonies. They were also offended by flames. Now, I can
understand why Mormons would not appreciate me saying that Joseph
Smith was clueless about relativity (that's the part I had to
remove to get the article posted to s.r.m.). I don't, however,
consider that a flame. After all, everyone in the early 1800's
was clueless about relativity (in fact, one of the moderators
made a point of saying that). I also expect that Mormons would
not appreciate me saying Joseph Smith was not a prophet. It
seems, however, that the level of censorship and control on
s.r.m. is far greater than what Mormons said they wanted when
they argued for creation of the newsgroup.
The problem here is that Mormon sensibilities seem to get higher
and higher until you just about have to agree with everything
they say, or get out. This whole fiasco about censorship on
s.r.m. reminds me of a Mormon priesthood class I attended about 5
years ago. The teacher was explaining that storing a 2-year
supply of food would be just as important for today's Mormons as
following Noah was for the "Saints" in that day. To make his
point, he argued that prophecy predicts that in the last days
there would be massive hail storms over the entire earth, and
that these storms would destroy all crops. He further said the
hail would be as large as bowling balls.
Well, I'm a physicist and I've done a little work with hail
storms and such. I told the teacher that (if he really was
expecting hail the size of bowling balls) he should build an
underground cement bunker because hail that size would smash his
house (and his store of food) to smithereens. The teacher, of
course, was offended that I did not just believe everything he
said. He accused me of distracting from the lesson and told me
to "ether be quiet or leave." Well, I suppose you could say I
was distracting the lesson, but my comments were relevant just
the same. The teacher, no doubt, felt justified in limiting the
discussion, but I doubt that the broader issues of truth were
really supported by his decision.
Afterwards I heard the bishop (who was in the meeting)
congratulating the teacher over the way he "handled the trouble
maker." [This conversation took place in the meeting-house lobby
and the bishop caught a glimpse of me out the corner of his eye
as he offered this praise to the Elders-Quorum president. To the
bishop's credit, he called me later that day to apologize for his
comments.]
For those of you who missed my original post, I've repeated it at
the end of this article. To get the post published on s.r.m. I
had to remove the last sentence. I also went through about 20 E-
mail exchanges with the moderators on s.r.m (it wasn't pretty).
I'm happy to let people decide for themselves if Mormon
sensitivities have migrated too high on s.r.m., or if Mormons
were misleading about their reasons for wanting to create the
newsgroup.
Repost censored article:
>>On 27 February 1997, Jerry James said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
>>>I find this interesting in the Mormon context because our
>>>scriptures (PofGP and BoM) talk about time flowing at different
>>>speeds for different beings/worlds. We knew about relativity
>>>before the scientists did!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
>>The Book of Mormon never discusses time "flowing" differently for
>>people on other worlds.
>>The Pearl of Great Price says that time is "reckoned" differently
>>for people on other worlds, but makes it clear the difference is
>>because of different speeds of rotation. This is about as
>>significant as saying time changes when you cross the
>>international date line. Consider, for example, Abraham 3:4
>>which says:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
>>"And the Lord said unto me [Abraham], by the Urim and Thummim
>>that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to it
>>times and seasons in the REVOLUTIONS thereof, that one REVOLUTION
>>was a day unto the Lord after his manner of reckoning, it being
>>one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that
>>whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time
>>according to the reckoning of Kolob."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
>>Joseph Smith was confused with the idea that time is determined
>>by the rate of rotation of the planet upon which we dwell. He
>>had no special insight into the nature of time and relative
>>speed, much less the nature of time and gravitational fields.
>>There are many similar problems with the Book of Abraham. For
>>example, a recent article about the Book of Abraham (see the
>>March edition of the Ensign -- published by the Church of Jesus
>>Christ of Latter-day Saints) says the earth orbited Kolob until
>>Adam "fell." Supposedly, when Adam "fell" the earth moved from
>>its orbit around Kolob, and took up its present position in the
>>solar system. Even the informed layperson understands the wealth
>>of information that disproves this story.
>>Anyone with a science background, who is investigating the Mormon
>>church, should acquire a copy of the Pearl of Great Price and
>>read it. This book is typically bound with a copy of the Book of
>>Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons call the bound set a
>>"triple combination." The Pearl of Great Price is a relatively
>>short book, and may easily be read in an hour or two. It is the
>>source of some of the greatest conflicts between science and
>>Mormonism.
>>There is, of course, no relativity in the Pearl of Great Price.
>>To be sure, some Mormons have reinterpreted the Pearl of Great
>>Price in a failed attempt to make it seem as if the book might be
>>talking about relativity. In similar manner, some people
>>reinterpret verses from the Old Testament to make it seem as if
>>Isaiah saw rocket ships. Such forced arguments after the fact
>>are unconvincing. Similar techniques are used to "prove" the
>>authenticity of sorcerers and astrologers.
>>Suffice it to say there is little enough about relativity in the
>>Book of Abraham that Mormons had to wait for gentile scientists
>>to discover the theory of relativity. I know of no significant
>>contributions to the special or general theories of relativity by
>>Mormons, in spite of Jerry James' assertion that Mormons
>>knew about relativity before "the scientists."
>Duwayne
>>Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are my own,
>>and do not necessarily represent those of the company for which I
>>work.
Keryx
Interesting. The intrepid Jason Roberts made a "dumb ass mistake"
and committed a "brain fart." You mean people do that? And it does not
mean they are morons and all the rest? You mean smart people sometimes
make little mistakes because they are not omniscient, or because
they do not necessarily read every damn post and have every damn fact
at their fingertips?
I will have to remember that. So will someone else, I presume.
wilt
Hedgehog wrote:
>
> In article <3320C4...@erols.com> wilt, wf...@erols.com writes:
> > If one is not using disrespectful
> >language - and the posting has some bearing on the LDS faith - it
> >should be posted without regard to your likes or dislikes.
> >
> >It would appear you reject postings simply as an exercise in power.
> >__Not__ due to the content - but your subjective view of what constitutes
> >a "clue." With all due respect, your arrogance is showing -
>
> arrogance.
>
> By the way, Duwayne's post was initially rejected specifically on the
> grounds of disrespectful language. Specifically, his use of the word
> "clueless".
That is something of a tap dance, Hedgehog. My comment was directed
towards __your__ use of the term "clueless" -- as it seemed to be
intended to degrade the position of another. Is the "clue" view of yours
somehow listed is the srm charter?? __That__ represents a attitude of
arrogance. . .
wilt
> Peace,
> Hedgehog
Diana Newman
Duwayne Anderson wrote:
<snip>
> The question is, how should s.r.m. operate? Should worthwhile
> articles be rejected so that the author must make minor changes?
The formation of the group took a year...for THIS effort, Duwayne, and
was discussed endlessly on news.groups, and voted upon. The charter was
made very public.
One of the things that was decided very early on was that the moderators
are NOT editors. We have no business rewriting any post; so, if you send
a post to SRM, it's YOUR post. We have only two choices; accept it as it
is, or reject it. We can tell you why it didn't pass, we may even make
suggestions about how to fix it so that it would pass, but we can't, and
won't, do it for you. It's your baby, you change the diaper.
> Wasn't s.r.m. started because Mormons did not want to see the
> temple endowment printed? That's my recollection. I don't
> recall any discussion about minor irritations needing to be
> expunged. It seems that Mormon sensitivities have increased
> since the original debate about the formation of s.r.m.
I don't remember much input from you on news.groups., Duwayne, but that
could simply be my very poor memory. However, the purpose of the
moderated newsgroup was to foster CIVIL discourse. So far we are
managing that, and if we are stepping on toes to do it, we are at least
stepping on toes evenly.
You may not think so, but believe me, *I* know the ratio of LDS/
anti-LDS posts that get rejected, and it looks like a dead heat to me.
<snip>
> According to my memory, s.r.m. was founded because Mormons said
> they were offended by people who post the Mormon temple
> ceremonies. They were also offended by flames. Now, I can
> understand why Mormons would not appreciate me saying that Joseph
> Smith was clueless about relativity (that's the part I had to
> remove to get the article posted to s.r.m.). I don't, however,
> consider that a flame.
Well, we did. We would have considered it a flame had you called the
Pope "clueless", too. You really need to understand that you can't bring
your own rules to another persons' playground, Duwayne. We were not
rejecting that phrase because it was disrespectful to JOSEPH SMITH, but
because it was disrespectful of the religious beliefs of others. We
would have been just as ticked off had you referenced Mohammad or Mother
Anne.
> After all, everyone in the early 1800's
> was clueless about relativity (in fact, one of the moderators
> made a point of saying that).
Yes; and that was the point.
> I also expect that Mormons would
> not appreciate me saying Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
Probably not. (G) However, as a simple statement, it would have had no
problems at all passing moderation, referencing as it does YOUR beliefs,
not mocking ours.
> It
> seems, however, that the level of censorship and control on
> s.r.m. is far greater than what Mormons said they wanted when
> they argued for creation of the newsgroup.
If you say so. However, I believe that you will find "the level of
censorship and control" is actually less than on,
say...soc.christian.religion.
> The problem here is that Mormon sensibilities seem to get higher
> and higher until you just about have to agree with everything
> they say, or get out. This whole fiasco about censorship on
> s.r.m. reminds me of a Mormon priesthood class I attended about 5
> years ago. The teacher was explaining that storing a 2-year
> supply of food would be just as important for today's Mormons as
> following Noah was for the "Saints" in that day. To make his
> point, he argued that prophecy predicts that in the last days
> there would be massive hail storms over the entire earth, and
> that these storms would destroy all crops. He further said the
> hail would be as large as bowling balls.
>
> Well, I'm a physicist and I've done a little work with hail
> storms and such. I told the teacher that (if he really was
> expecting hail the size of bowling balls) he should build an
> underground cement bunker because hail that size would smash his
> house (and his store of food) to smithereens. The teacher, of
> course, was offended that I did not just believe everything he
> said. He accused me of distracting from the lesson and told me
> to "ether be quiet or leave." Well, I suppose you could say I
> was distracting the lesson, but my comments were relevant just
> the same. The teacher, no doubt, felt justified in limiting the
> discussion, but I doubt that the broader issues of truth were
> really supported by his decision.
And your point here is? Your story is not relevant to srm---and believe
me, your comment on the size of hail in the last days would have been
accepted on the group; if, that is, you were faster to post your
information than any of the LDS engineer types whose fingers would burn
the keyboards entering it. (G)
Diana
Daniel Vieira
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
: Complain complain moan moan. Wah wah wah... I just feel so bad for
: all these critics that just can't manage to post on SRM. Personally
: I think the reason they feel they are being censored is because they
: have no ability to think in any courteous way beyond their own warped
: personal view.
Hmm..nice analysis. If this is the best you can come up with, I for one
really want nothing to do with you or your attitude.
: You think in your minds "Why in the world should I be courteous? These
: are mormons! They don't deserve it!" And then guess what happens!?
: YOu get moderated... Well I just feel so sorry for you. Especially, I
: feel sorry for the stench of your bigotry.
You know, Raymond, not everyone fits into your category of "bigots." I
can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
demeaning of LDS faith or belief. Sure there may be times that a poster
-- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith. A couple of the posts
that were returned to me were for emotional responses that were better off
being left unposted -- fine I can deal with that. But I have several
posts returned for flimsy reasons. And these were always responses to LDS
posters who sure seemed to be able to be a lot more "direct",
"misinformed", and even "rude" than I was allowed to be. And the fact
that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
case.
: I have had an amazingly large number of posts rejected, because I
: tend to tell it how I see it and the moderators see no reason why
: I should have my posts should get through to contend with the
: wienie type critics who squeak trolls through the group. But you
: don't see me complaining... In fact I am sure that the moderators
: have a backlog of my responses when I am told I am going overboard,
: and I bet that none of them are rude or whiney. Because quite frankly
: I know that I need to be moderated occasionally to avoid conflict.
If it were being done fairly at all times for all posters I would have no
trouble with this policy. But several times LDS posters were allowed to
get away with a lot more than I was. Others have said the same thing. I
don't think that *all* of us can be wrong.
: If SRM doesn't work for you, tough cookies. We had a vote on it, it
: passed. The critics were given their chance to voice their apall at
: the charter. They couldn't come up with anything but trolls. Much
: of which was bullcrap about how we LDS are trying to take over the
: universe, and other paranoia. So go back to your cacophony here in
: ARM and whine and moan all you like. None of you so-called "critics"
: have anything good to offer, just complaints and sad excuses of why
: you can't engage people in civil dialogue. And frankly it makes me ill...
Your so called "Christian" attitude seems to be lacking. I wonder if the
Lord Jesus is proud of you for this little diatribe. What about being an
example for those who need to reach to a higher level?
: See ya in SRM... :)
Doubtful for at least me.
: PS. WEre this post to be posted in SRM, I would fully expect it to
: be rejected. It is not at all civil, and it never was intended to
: be. Sometimes you critics with the minds of children deserve a
: swift kick in the behind... too bad all I can do is post a note... :)
What it actually shows is that you are all too capable of falling to the
same low level you accuse others of. Sad Raymond, very sad.
Gloria Deo,
Hedgehog
In article <5fv39q$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Daniel Vieira,
dvi...@primenet.com writes:
>When I first heard about s.r.m., I thought the moderation was going to be
>used to keep trolls, *real* flames, and non-topic posts from being
>admited.
Where is the dividing line between "real flames" and acceptable material?
Is calling someone "clueless" a flame? Does calling someone "clueless"
lead to productive discussion?
>What I see is much more liberty being given to LDS posters in
>what and how they post, and at least greater scrutiny being given to
>non-LDS posters in return.
Why do you see it in "us" versus "them" terms? Doesn't this say a lot
about yourself?
How do you know whether LDS posters have posts rejected? For example, do
you happen to know if I voted to reject a post from an LDS poster because
it unfairly slammed on Jehovah's Witnesses?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <3320C4...@erols.com> wilt, wf...@erols.com writes:
> If one is not using disrespectful
>language - and the posting has some bearing on the LDS faith - it
>should be posted without regard to your likes or dislikes.
>
>It would appear you reject postings simply as an exercise in power.
>__Not__ due to the content - but your subjective view of what constitutes
>a "clue." With all due respect, your arrogance is showing -
So you'd say calling someone "clueless" is disrespectful and a marker of
arrogance.
By the way, Duwayne's post was initially rejected specifically on the
grounds of disrespectful language. Specifically, his use of the word
"clueless".
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
>post for "calling Mr. Dibble ignorant and then not allowing him to make a
>public reply."
Indeed. I see no reason to allow you to call someone else in a public
forum ignorant and then allow them no opportunity to reply.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <jkrobert-ya023080...@news.doit.wisc.edu> Jason
Roberts, jkro...@students.wisc.edu writes:
>wrote:
>
>> In article <jason.roberts-0...@144.92.156.145> Jason Roberts,
>> jason....@mail.admin.wisc.edu writes:
>> >No one
>> >forced you at gunpoint to be a moderator.
>
>> How do you know?
>
Well, I can hardly be any more explicit when some lunatic is holding a gun
on me. Sheez! :)
Actually I can come up with a better response. Just as we are
volunteers, so too are you s.r.m.-users volunteers. By posting to s.r.m.
you are voluntarily agreeing to abide by the charter. No one's holding a
gun to _your_ head. Right?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Craig Anderson
Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5g2uem$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> I
> can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
> demeaning of LDS faith or belief.
I don't know that I could completely agree with your statement, having seen
and read all of your posts here and on srm.
> Sure there may be times that a poster
> -- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
> things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
> anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith.
Again, I'm not sure that I would agree. No, I'm not going to go searching
through DejaNews to find statements you've made that I think contradict
your statement. It's just a general impression from what I've read from
you.
> But I have several
> posts returned for flimsy reasons. And these were always responses to
LDS
> posters who sure seemed to be able to be a lot more "direct",
> "misinformed", and even "rude" than I was allowed to be.
What's interesting, folks, is that pretty much _everybody_ thinks that
everyone else is more "direct", "misinformed" or "rude" than they are. I
think it's just human nature. The way everybody else views what you say and
do is usually a bit different than we view ourselves.
> And the fact
> that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
> case.
And several LDS as well (including me), so your "point" is irrelevant.
Craig
Raymond Bingham
Roberts, jkro...@students.wisc.edu writes:
>It could be much better, but it could also be much worse.
Why is this strangely reminiscient of when I was a referree of
soccer games. For some strange reason no one is every happy with
referrees. I used to ref soccer games, and it seemed like the
coach and players of the losing team would ALWAYS be upset about
the reffing. Soccer is a very intense game, because it is
relatively low scoring and requires a lot of work to score a
point. It is almost an unwritten law that the refs be treated
like dirt because of it.
ARM is a high scoring forum. You can say anything you like, you
can trash things without any responsibility whatsoever into what
you have said. SRM is a lowscoring game, in which making points
is structured by the rules of the game.
If you are on the losing team it is only natural you are going
to whine about the reffing. Its that unwritten law again.
So if you hate the moderators, perhaps you had best learn the game,
how to play by the rules, start scoring some points, rather than
always remaining a loser.
>Btw, *did* someone hold a gun to the moderation teams heads?
Yeah. An electron gun, you know in the monitor's cathod ray tube... :)
PS. I had another post rejected today... Did I deserve it? You
bet. Do I get upset and cry to mommy? No way... I get up, accept
that there's a penalty shot against me, and try again. That's
how the game works.
Edward K. Watson
In article <5g2uem$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, dvi...@primenet.com says...
<snip>
>You know, Raymond, not everyone fits into your category of "bigots." I
>can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
>demeaning of LDS faith or belief. Sure there may be times that a poster
>-- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
>things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
>anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith.
As a Mormon who's dealt with Dan, I can attest to the veracity
of his statement.
A couple of the posts
>that were returned to me were for emotional responses that were better off
>being left unposted -- fine I can deal with that. But I have several
>posts returned for flimsy reasons. And these were always responses to LDS
>posters who sure seemed to be able to be a lot more "direct",
>"misinformed", and even "rude" than I was allowed to be. And the fact
>that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
>case.
I don't know the particulars with Dan but I, a Mormon have had my
posts rejected due to what the moderators perceived as offensive
language.
<snip>
>If it were being done fairly at all times for all posters I would have no
>trouble with this policy. But several times LDS posters were allowed to
>get away with a lot more than I was. Others have said the same thing. I
>don't think that *all* of us can be wrong.
You know, I hardly bother with srm anymore since it seems so sanitized
unlike the gory arm. But this is where the action is, so I'm staying in arm.
<snip>
>Your so called "Christian" attitude seems to be lacking. I wonder if the
>Lord Jesus is proud of you for this little diatribe. What about being an
>example for those who need to reach to a higher level?
I try to abide by this standard as well but admit that I do get annoyed
at those who repeatedly insist a false position despite being thoroughly
disproven.
>: See ya in SRM... :)
>
>Doubtful for at least me.
And moi.
Ed:-)
Peggy Rogers
On 10 Mar 1997, Daniel Vieira wrote:
> Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
<snip Raymond's remarks>
> You know, Raymond, not everyone fits into your category of "bigots." I
> can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
> demeaning of LDS faith or belief. Sure there may be times that a poster
> -- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
> things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
> anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith. A couple of the posts
> that were returned to me were for emotional responses that were better off
> being left unposted -- fine I can deal with that. But I have several
> posts returned for flimsy reasons. And these were always responses to LDS
> posters who sure seemed to be able to be a lot more "direct",
> "misinformed", and even "rude" than I was allowed to be. And the fact
> that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
> case.
It's true that Raymond was letting off steam here (which he wouldn't be
allowed to do on s.r.m.) and being very naughty. As far as I'm concerned,
Dan, you have been one of the best and most useful non-LDS people on
these LDS newsgroups. Your attitude is generally calm and respectful,
and you bring us a lot of insights about what Catholics really think
and believe about things.
It's difficult to draw the line, I'm afraid, when threads start
drifting into mean-spiritedness. Moderators are human, and mistakes
are made--both in acceptances and rejections. On the other hand, you
really have no way of knowing how many messages to s.r.m. from faithful
Latter-day Saints are returned for "flimsy reasons." I expect this
happens often enough on both sides. But if you look at the s.r.m.
statistics for January, at
http://www.netins.net/showcase/gershom/jan.html
You'll find that out the the top ten posters, five of them are non-
LDS, and a couple of those get rather hostile at times. That indicates
to me that "censorship" of non-LDS views is not a motivating factor
here.
Jeff Shirton
Diana Newman <b...@utah.uswest.net> wrote:
>> I think you misread my response, Geoff... College professors and news
>> editors make *minor* changes. The s.r.m. moderators are far different
>> by comparison
>
>Yes. The moderators make no changes whatsoever.
I never said they did, Diana. But they (you, actually) have the power to
control the content by 100%. Yes, not only do you demand changes to the
content (sometimes on the order of 100% change, which was my *point*, after
all...) but you're right, in that you don't make the changes yourself, but
you make us do the work.
Yes, Diana, you are right, and you moderators don't make any "changes
whatsoever", but my point remains intact, nonetheless.
(Btw, I thought you were finished "bothering" with this thread, as far
as I was concerned?)
> They return your post
>and YOU get to make the changes, should you wish to do so.
Right. And should you wish to have your post approved for propagation to
the group, you *must* make the changes, and sometimes to the order of
100%.
> You don't need to change anything,
No, of course not. But if we don't, it's not going to get "approved",
is it?
>You know, you are under no compulsion to post to SRM, Jeff. We aren't
>holding your puppy for ransom or anything. Consider it a magazine of
Right.
You would much rather I (and others like me) don't post there at all.
But since you don't wish to appear as if you're prejudicial, you invite
all to respond, only you reserve the right to "reject" any posts you
wish. Works out the same way in the end, but it makes you look better,
right?
>sorts: if you want to post to SRM, structure the post so that it will be
>accepted.
I do, Diana, I do. I structure my posts (for the most part) according to
the charter of the newsgroup. But even when I do so, they get rejected,
because it's the *practice* of the moderation which is at issue, not the
objective standards as written. And then there's always all the rude and
insulting posts by Mormons towards non-LDS which get "approved", despite
their lack of conformity to the "charter". In fact, I'm about to post
a very good example of this latter situation, a rude and insulting posting
by an LDS, which despite its lack of conformity to the charter, got
"approved" for posting. It will appear in this same thread. (You won't
comment on it, of course, since you moderators won't do that, but it will
be a good example for all readers here how you aren't doing your jobs
(since the poster in question is frequently insulting to non-LDS, and a
great many of his insulting and attacking and otherwise "discourteous"
posts get "approved" on your "s.r.m." group.)
>You have, btw, had far more posts accepted than rejected. (just thought
>you might like to be reminded of that small detail)
Only because I alter mostly all of my rejected posts so that there's no
possible way that you can "reject" them and still maintain any semblance
of fairness, but I'm still being censored.
>> Since I have read all my posts which were rejected, and since you have read
>> *none* of my posts which were rejected, what makes you think that
>> "politeness" had to do with anything?
>
>ahem.
Do you have something in your throat, Diana, or are you just being rude?
>I *HAVE* read most of your posts which have been rejected. Care to ask
>me the same question?
My question was directed at Geoff. He was commenting on posts that he
could not possibly have seen, which makes any opinion of his on them
invalid and irrelevant (unless, of course, he was privy to read them,
in which case that would put the ethics of the moderators in question.
That didn't happen, now, did it?
>> Again, since you were not privy to any of my rejected posts, on what basis
>> do you have for "evaluating" that my "attitude" was the problem?
>
>Common sense? Having a history of reading your posts to ARM, and perhaps
>personal corespondance, to go by?
I have had *no* "personal correspondence" with Geoff.
And as for my posts to ARM, they are separate and distinct from my posts
to SRM, so how are they relevant in this discussion?
Admit it, Diana, Geoff has no basis for his derogatory remark towards me,
as he has read none of my posts in question, them all having been rejected
and therefore not available to the public eye.
>Nahhhh, couldn't be as simple as that.
Nope. You're dealing with a red-herring here, Diana.
>> The problem was not "politeness",
>> and the problem was not "attitude".
>
>You may certainly think as you wish about this matter, Jeff.
As may you, Diana.
>> The problem was the identity of the poster. I am critical of the LDS church.
>> that is my identity.
>
>Really? I suggest you talk to James and Petibasci if you think that
>simply being critical of the LDS church gets you banned from SRM.
Of course, I don't "think" any such thing, Diana, but thanks for offering
that "straw-man" anyway. (You will notice that even *I* don't think that
I'm yet banned from SRM, since you approved a post of mine there two or
three days ago...
>No, Jeff; that isn't the problem.
I beg to differ. And the evidence speaks for itself. Such as the
"approved" post which I will share with the readership here.
>diana
Jeff Shirton
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>Where is the dividing line between "real flames" and acceptable material?
If you don't know, Hedgehog, then perhaps that's an indication that you
should be a "moderator"?
> Is calling someone "clueless" a flame? Does calling someone "clueless"
>lead to productive discussion?
My answers would be "yes" and "no", respectively. But judging from the
amount of posts you've sent calling others "clueless", obviously you
would disagree with me on those answers.
>>What I see is much more liberty being given to LDS posters in
>>what and how they post, and at least greater scrutiny being given to
>>non-LDS posters in return.
>
>Why do you see it in "us" versus "them" terms? Doesn't this say a lot
>about yourself?
Not really. We didn't create the "us vs. them" distinction. We're
simply observing a practice already put into motion. That we wish to
*remove* the "us vs. them" distinction says a lot about us, however,
IMO...)
>How do you know whether LDS posters have posts rejected? For example, do
I don't recall him ever saying that LDS posters have never had posts
rejected. But I for one am getting tired of this straw-man argument
of yours.
We've seen:
- posts by LDS which were approved (since they appeared on s.r.m.)
even though they obviously didn't stand up to the charter;
- posts of our own which have been rejected, even though they
conformed to the charter, or at the very least far more
"courteous" than posts by LDS which were "approved".
Any further posts by LDS which were "rejected" are in fact quite irrelevant
to the issue.
>you happen to know if I voted to reject a post from an LDS poster because
>it unfairly slammed on Jehovah's Witnesses?
I personally believe you, Hedgehog. However, it is quite irrelevant.
It still doesn't solve the blatant bias of the s.r.m. moderation panel.
>Hedgehog
Jeff Shirton
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>dvi...@primenet.com writes:
>>Hedgehog said that he saw no reason to admit my
>>post for "calling Mr. Dibble ignorant and then not allowing him to make a
>>public reply."
>
>Indeed. I see no reason to allow you to call someone else in a public
>forum ignorant and then allow them no opportunity to reply.
"Indeed".
Hedgehog would rather have thousands of s.r.m. readers knowingly
misinformed than to have one invididual corrected.
Such is the "standard" of at least one of the moderators of s.r.m.
"Indeed".
Jeff Shirton
The moderators of s.r.m. seem to think that they are doing at least an
adequate job of moderating their newsgroup, and they seem intent on
defending their abilities, and denying that there are any problems going
on in that regard. Despite the experience and testimony, they continue
to deny that there is a problem.
I have in the past stated my experience of them not only rejecting posts
of my own which conform to their "charter", but also of them repeatedly
"approving" of posts by LDS, even though such posts *don't* come anywhere
close to conforming to their so-called "charter".
The following is from an "approved" post to s.r.m. from Raymond Bingham,
with a number of comments which are "discourteous" (a reason for posts
to be rejected from s.r.m.), not to mention containing blatant ad hominems
and personal attacks. Raymond is one of the more frequent attackers of
critics of the LDS church, and continues to have his attacks "approved"
for the newsgroup, usually by Hedgehog, but this last time, to my
disappointment, by David Bowie, the moderator which I found to be the
most fair (relatively speaking).
For convenience, I will first quote excerpts from the offending post,
interspersed with my comments, followed by the posting intact so that
interested readers can check the context, etc.
> I was making a general comment on the nature of some antimormons in
> general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as many
> people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they may.
I wonder, would the average person find the above comments to be:
a) "courteous"?
b) "neutral"?
c) "discourteous"?
If "c)", it should have been rejected by the moderators.
The moderators also have this big thing about addressing the issues,
rather than addressing the person.
> Thus you have created a strawman.
Such a comment addresses the person, and not the issue. When I have made
comments like that, they have always been rejected on that basis. But we
see that when an LDS makes them (as he does here), and when they are
directed at a non-LDS rather than an LDS, then there is no problem in
such a comment being "approved".
> of the Bible! If one receives a witness as to the truthfulness of
> the Book of Mormon it is valid despite the dirt you can dish out about
> how Joseph Smith occasionally in his life consumed an alcoholic beverage.
If I were to make a comment such as "the dirt you can dish out", I would
have had my post rejected for "discourteousness" (as I have in fact had
posts rejected for similar comments). Such is an instance of a "personal
remark", and non-LDS are not allowed to make them on s.r.m., although
obviously LDS are (as evidenced by this post by Raymond being "approved").
The moderators have suggested to me that I am too "sensitive" to
personal attacks. And perhaps that's true.
But if it is, then so too are the moderators "too sensitive", so much so
that they have to "reject" similar comments when non-LDS make them (or
even reject articles *without* such offending comments), while continuing
to "approve" them as long as there's an LDS in the signature line.
Jeff Shirton (VE3OJS) McMaster University Shir...@McMaster.CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He didn't sound like a baseball player. He said things like 'Nevertheless,'
and 'If, in fact.' " -- Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
------------------- Entire message follows -----------------------------
From ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com Tue Mar 11 18:59:19 EST 1997
From: ra...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.mormon
Subject: Re: Rewriting History?
Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:26:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
References: <5e7j03$i...@q.seanet.com> <5ekaiq$6...@q.seanet.com> <5f23se$r...@q.seanet.com> <5ffgnu$f...@q.seanet.com> <5fkn5s$g...@q.seanet.com>
I uncovered clues pointing to James (enginee...@mindspring.com) having written:
>(Message sent to Raymond and to s.r.m.)
>Raymond Bingham wrote:
>
>> If I was an antimormon (not saying that James is) I would do my best
>> to look credible. Anything that is blatant will be disregarded by
>> most sensible people, thus those of the anti persuasion will typically
>> try to look as rational as possible.
>How are we to interpret the above passage. Are you suggesting that
>I am rational and credible, or just trying to appear so? I would
>really like to know your viewpoint.
I was making a general comment on the nature of some antimormons in
general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as many
people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they may.
Comments into what I personally think of you are off topic and would
never pass moderation. (As evidenced by the fact that this is a
revised article... :)
>> >EG the loss of 116 pages of the BoM which was then never re-translated.
>> >I have found that some mormons are not aware of that.
>>
>> I find very few LDS that AREN'T aware of this story. In particular
>> because the Book of Mormon makes brief reference to it.
>Where in the Book of Mormon does it make reference to it?
The words of Mormon makes commentary that Mormon was commanded to add
the plates of Nephi untouched, even though he had already abridged the
record of that history. The Lord told him that he did so for his own
purposes.
That leads one to wonder where is the abridgement. It is only natural
to know that this is what we call the Book of Lehi, which was lost
among the 116 pages... I am not aware of a single adult member of the
church who is not aware of this story. (And there are quite a few who
are completely clueless, but still know this story...)
Only this last saturday we had a church sponsored activity. In it
we discussed the early history of the church and the very incident
that you seem to want people to believe LDS are not aware of. No
one there, to my knowlege, was receiving this presentation as if it
was the first time they had heard this story. In fact the discussion
lead me to believe all in the group had heard the story.
Thus you have created a strawman.
>> >And yes you can
>> >state that it is not important, however JS did consider it important
>> >enough to put it into a preface of the 1830 BoM.
>>
>> It's STILL referenced in the BoM. (See Words of Mormon, further there
>> is reference in the D&C) Seems that even rational critics are good at
>> constructing stawmen.
>Talk about strawmen! I read the Words of Mormon, it takes a few
>seconds, it's around two pages long and there is no mention of
>the lost manuscript. There is no dicussion of Martin Harris or
>the missing 116 pages there. You are correct that the D&C 3
>mentions the story, but then missionaries do not distribute the
>Doctrine and Covenants to potential converts. I wonder why????
It is not necessary. If we are to believe what God revealed. There
are a number of things that people are not told upon conversion,
but what they are told is to obtain a sureness through the Holy Ghost.
Do we have to research the beard color of Moses in order to believe
in the Bible? What if <GASP!!!!> Moses had no beard? The historical
story, while interesting doesn't affect the divine nature of the
Book of Mormon anymore than Moses's beard affects the truthfulness
of the Bible! If one receives a witness as to the truthfulness of
the Book of Mormon it is valid despite the dirt you can dish out about
how Joseph Smith occasionally in his life consumed an alcoholic beverage.
[snip]
>> My point was that there is an obvious bias in EVERY collection no
>> matter what the aparent intent toward neutrality. I think it foolish
>> to hold people to an imaginary standard of neutrality (and even a bit
>> dishonest), when there simply exists no such thing.
>There is a difference between a collection of historical references
>and altering historical references. For instance, if one were to
>come across a source document that states, "I Joseph Smith am NOT
>a prophet. [signed] Joseph Smith". This would certainl have
>historical value. However, if the LDS Church changes the
>document, and rewrites this in it's published form, "I
>Joseph Smith am a prophet. [signed] Joseph Smith." then
>there is an obvious problem, the document loses a significant
>amount of its historical and usable content by altering it.
>Simply put, I think the LDS Church selectively rewrote history
>in reference to Joseph Smith's drinking alcohol at the local bar
>on June 1, 1844.
Just because you comment on this so much we had a lesson in
Elder's quorum about the word of wisdom and I mentioned this
to the group. I stated that while the Word of Wisdom were
revealed by Joseph Smith it wasn't until Brigham Young got the
saints to SLC that the revelation were fully implemented in
a form that was expected to be lived. Some people thought it
was interesting historical information, but guess what!? It
didn't destroy anyone's witness as to the truth they had experienced
because they had lived the word of wisdom. We have testimonies
of these things, not because of some strange attempt by the
church to make it all that much more pallitable but because
we have received revelation from God that it is right and true
and good.
I have received witness from God that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
He restored the Gospel in its fullness and despite critics have
his name for evil, I will publish him as good. For I know the
things of God, not because of any study of my own but because
of the grace of Christ that is willing to let a sinner such as I
in on this wonderful wonderful truth. God lives. Christ is the
Savior of the World and his prophest live today. They witness of
truth and they present doctrines for the whole world. We are not
expected to have a PHD in History in order to believe. All we
require is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and faith enough
to ask of God.
I love the church not because it has done a wonderful job of
propaganda, but because God has revealed to me that it is the
way in which I may work and learn and excercise faith as to my
own salvation. These things I testify of in Christ's beloved
name.
Best regards
--
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
*****************************************************************
* The internet needs a lobotomy to recover from its lobotomy. *
*****************************************************************
--
Daniel Vieira
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
: In article <5fv39q$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Daniel Vieira,
: dvi...@primenet.com writes:
: >Hedgehog said that he saw no reason to admit my
: >post for "calling Mr. Dibble ignorant and then not allowing him to make a
: >public reply."
: Indeed. I see no reason to allow you to call someone else in a public
: forum ignorant and then allow them no opportunity to reply.
You obviously weren't reading my post properly, which I think is a big
reason that moderation is problematic. I said that he was showing
himself as ignorant on Catholic matters, which I think if you had read
his post with an objective eye you would have least seen if not replied
to. I then suggested that if he wanted to continue the conversation of
Catholic belief, that part of the conversation should go to e-mail since
it was well out of the scope of s.r.m. He could respond however he
wanted.
I seem to remember you trying to goad me into a discussion on dulia and
latria on s.r.m. Interesting that you as a moderator were going on about
an off-topic issue, and it was *me* that had to cut it and invite that
part of the discussion over to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic. You
never did come over, did you? Were you really interested in discussing
Catholic devotional practice, or or just try to whitewash Catholic belief
in light of the LDS doctrine you seem to take great pleasure in upholding,
even though you say you disagree with it? Is this "good" moderation?
You say there is no problem?
Daniel Vieira
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
: In article <5fv39q$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Daniel Vieira,
: dvi...@primenet.com writes:
: >When I first heard about s.r.m., I thought the moderation was going to be
: >used to keep trolls, *real* flames, and non-topic posts from being
: >admited.
: Where is the dividing line between "real flames" and acceptable material?
: Is calling someone "clueless" a flame? Does calling someone "clueless"
: lead to productive discussion?
In my book, a "real flame" is when a person is being insulting about a
person's character or person. Just calling someone "clueless" is a flame.
Saying something like "given the nature of your arguement, you seem to be
clueless about Catholic Doctrine" may or may not be. I think a "flame"
has to be looked at in it's context. I said Thomas Dibble was "ignorant"
because he was making outrageous comments about Catholicism and bandying
them as fact. He *is* ignorant of Catholic Doctrine and Belief. I didn't
just say something like "you are an ignorant idiot" -- I was pointing out
where his ignorance lied and that he was making himself look foolish. I
don't think it was a flame -- perhaps I could have worded it better, but I
was reacting somewhat from emotion.
: >What I see is much more liberty being given to LDS posters in
: >what and how they post, and at least greater scrutiny being given to
: >non-LDS posters in return.
: Why do you see it in "us" versus "them" terms? Doesn't this say a lot
: about yourself?
Gee I don't know Hedgehog. Let's see -- first, there are mostly LDS
moderators who, as many of us have said, seem to be giving an unfair slant
to LDS posters. Then there is you, who is so sympathetic to the LDS cause
that I wonder why you aren't LDS yourself. There is the fact that I have
had posts returned for flippant reasons. I don't know *why* I would
consider it in these terms.
And I really don't care what your opinion of me is anyway.
Let me ask you something -- why are you so concerned about what we say
about the moderation? If we are so wrong about this, why not just keep
doing the "good job" you guys do and ignore us silly folk who are sitting
here "whining?"
: How do you know whether LDS posters have posts rejected? For example, do
: you happen to know if I voted to reject a post from an LDS poster because
: it unfairly slammed on Jehovah's Witnesses?
I don't care what LDS posts have been rejected. You guys aren't reading
this properly: it isn't what is *not* being allowed on s.r.m, it is what
*is* being allowed and how LDS seem to be getting the long end of the
stick in debates. I have said it, Jeff has said it, others have said it.
But since I hardly read s.r.m. since what is on there is not very
interesting to me nowadays, in the end I don't really care *what* goes up
and what doesn't. You guys can create your sterile world if you want.
Craig Anderson
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote in article
<5g40dd$n...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
> Why is this strangely reminiscient of when I was a referree of
> soccer games. For some strange reason no one is every happy with
> referrees. I used to ref soccer games, and it seemed like the
> coach and players of the losing team would ALWAYS be upset about
> the reffing. Soccer is a very intense game, because it is
> relatively low scoring and requires a lot of work to score a
> point. It is almost an unwritten law that the refs be treated
> like dirt because of it.
Deja vu. Being a soccer coach and the father of two soccer refs I can
easily empathize with what you've said here. And as I mentioned elswhere,
it always seems that it's the other guy who's getting off scott free while
we are the innocent victims being unduly restricted.
Craig
Hedgehog
In article <3324EF...@erols.com> wilt, wf...@erols.com writes:
>My comment was directed
>towards __your__ use of the term "clueless" -- as it seemed to be
>intended to degrade the position of another.
Yes! And it is for this reason that posts submitted to s.r.m. which use
the word "clueless" are examined and in some cases rejected. I would
argue that words which "seem to degrade the position of another" are
potentially flames. And _thats_ why Duwayne's post was rejected.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Petibacsi
Hey Raymond!
I see your logic hasn't improved since the last time we talked. :)
I turn over your example:
If you go to alt.atheist.moderated and I would be the moderator with a
very
healthy bias against you, you would start to whine about it of course.
Would it mean that you were in the losing team? Of course not.Your
whining
would be justified, but it doesn't say anything about being right or wrong
on the discussed question.
Petibacsi
Craig Anderson
> : >What I see is much more liberty being given to LDS posters in
> : >what and how they post, and at least greater scrutiny being given to
> : >non-LDS posters in return.
>
> : Why do you see it in "us" versus "them" terms? Doesn't this say a lot
> : about yourself?
>
> Gee I don't know Hedgehog. Let's see -- first, there are mostly LDS
> moderators who, as many of us have said, seem to be giving an unfair
slant
> to LDS posters. Then there is you, who is so sympathetic to the LDS
cause
> that I wonder why you aren't LDS yourself.
Interesting, since I at one time was ready to give up on s.r.m. because it
seemed exactly the _opposite_ to me; that is, it seemed to me that the
non-LDS were being given wide leeway to say derogatory things about us but
my responses were being rejected. And it seemed to come from several
non-LDS being given more leniency than the LDS.
So I still hold to the idea that everyone just sees it from their own point
of view and pretty much everybody feels the opposite side of the fence is
being given more latitude than they are. Perhaps everybody should stop
fussing about it and just get on with posting again, realizing that it all
evens out in the end.
Craig
Craig Anderson
Jeff Shirton <shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote in article
<5g4tro$c...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
<snip of whining about srm moderators and the post by Raymond>
I notice that Raymond states:
> Comments into what I personally think of you are off topic and would
> never pass moderation. (As evidenced by the fact that this is a
> revised article... :)
It would appear that the article you quoted had already been revised at
least once to get past moderation. IMHO, it was an ok post, and didn't
warrant exclusion.
Craig
David Bowie
Once upon a time, jkro...@students.wisc.edu (Jason Roberts) wrote:
: In article <5fs3lk$l...@paleale.wanet.net>, Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
: wrote:
: > In article <jason.roberts-0...@144.92.156.145> Jason Roberts,
: > jason....@mail.admin.wisc.edu writes:
: > >No one
: > >forced you at gunpoint to be a moderator.
: > How do you know?
: Is this the best you guys can come up with?
Jason, chill.
In fact, *everyone* on this thread should chill.
I mean, really--lighten up. s.r.m.'s a moderated discussion group.
It's not like the summit meetings of the Trilateral Commission go on
there or anything.
David, who knows the difference between *.r.m. and real life<tm>
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
David Bowie
Once upon a time, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:
<snip>
: I have had an amazingly large number of posts rejected, because I
: tend to tell it how I see it and the moderators see no reason why
: I should have my posts should get through to contend with the
: wienie type critics who squeak trolls through the group...
FWIW, this sentence alone would have gotten this post rejected--and for
good reason, IMO.
<snip>
David "Distance moderating" Bowie
David Bowie
Once upon a time, shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Jeff Shirton) wrote:
: Diana Newman <b...@utah.uswest.net> wrote:
: >Jeff Shirton wrote:
<snip>
: >> No, I did not save all my
: >> rejected posts, and all the rejection notices.
: >I did, at least a majority of them. You REALLY want me to post them?
: I have nothing to hide, Diana. I am on the side of truth.
: One day you will know that, one way or another.
Then do you want her to post them? Give us a yes or no?
: >However, I'd be willing to place them in evidence if you don't mind my
: >quoting your public AND PRIVATE (to me) mail.
: Well, actually, your position is that you *didn't* say what I claimed you
: said. You have admitted to not saving all of my messages to you (only
: the "majority" of them), and so there is no way you can demonstrate that
: you did not say what I know you said, is there?
: So posting what you do have would not only be a breach of netiquette, but
: a pointless exercise (not to mention a waste of bandwidth).
It's not a breach of netiquette if you give her permission to post your
e-mail to her. So consider your bluff called--will you give her
permission to post it? Yes or no--yes and she can post it, no and
there's no reason to believe that you really want any *real* evidence
entered in this discussion.
<snip>
: > Would you like to moderate your own
: >statement above considering that I do indeed have those, verbatim?
: No, Diana. I have no need to "moderate" any of my statements, as they
: are correct as written. I may not have the emails themselves, but I
: have an *excellent* memory, your insinuendos notwithstanding.
Memories, even excellent memories, are notably fallacious--one tends to
consistently cast oneself as the hero. Diana is offering proof--will
you allow her to post it.
<snip>
David, who doesn't bluff
David Bowie
: >Where is the dividing line between "real flames" and acceptable material?
: If you don't know, Hedgehog, then perhaps that's an indication that you
: should be a "moderator"?
Funny, but the concept of a "rhetorical question" exists in my mind. I
suppose it must not be a universal concept, eh?
<snip>
: >How do you know whether LDS posters have posts rejected? For example, do
: I don't recall him ever saying that LDS posters have never had posts
: rejected. But I for one am getting tired of this straw-man argument
: of yours.
: We've seen:
: - posts by LDS which were approved (since they appeared on s.r.m.)
: even though they obviously didn't stand up to the charter;
Produce (copies of) some, or references to them that will allow us all
to look at Deja News and see whether your characterization is correct.
: - posts of our own which have been rejected, even though they
: conformed to the charter, or at the very least far more
: "courteous" than posts by LDS which were "approved".
Produce (copies of) some.
<snip>
David, who notes that both sides are producing a lot of rhetoric but
very little if any evidence
David Bowie
: >Jeff Shirton wrote:
: >> Since I have read all my posts which were rejected, and since you have read
: >> *none* of my posts which were rejected, what makes you think that
: >> "politeness" had to do with anything?
: >ahem.
: Do you have something in your throat, Diana, or are you just being rude?
This reply goes to Jeff, but it's not directed solely at him--rather,
it's directed at *everyone* on this thread--namely, that if one insists
on finding sometihng rude in everything someone says, even a simple
"ahem" to signal surprised disagreement, that person really ought to
look at whether s/he is detached enough from the argument to ever learn
anything from it.
Like it said, not just directed at Jeff--there are several people on
this thread who demonstrate this problem.
<snip>
David "ahem" Bowie
David Bowie
Once upon a time, shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Jeff Shirton) wrote:
: Wilt makes a very good point.
: I thought the entire premise behind moderation was to control:
: - courtesy;
: - topicality;
: ... rather than "correctness" or "accuracy". If that is the case, then
: whether someone (or their post) is "clueless" (to use the repeated term
: in Hedgehog's latest tirade) is completely irrelevant as far as "moderation"
: is concerned.
: Or am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong when someone is clueless to the point that they cross
the line of acceptable limits on topicality and/or courtesy.
: Personally, I liked the fact that one of the s.r.m. moderators presumed to
: "correct" an acceptable title for Song of Solomon ("Song of Songs"), yet
: I've never seen a moderator correct the common LDS reference to the book of
: "Revelations". <g>
(Mote. Beam. :-/ )
The moderator in question was yelled at (mildly) by the rest of us
(particularly me, i suppose, since Song of Songs is my own preferred
term for the book). (And i for one think we'd all have an easier time
of it if we'd just call the Book of Revelation the Apocalypse, and just
have done with it. :-] )
David, who notes that part of the problem may be that many people
somehow wrongly assume only their side gets rejected from s.r.m.
David Bowie
<snip>
: The following is from an "approved" post to s.r.m. from Raymond Bingham,
: with a number of comments which are "discourteous" (a reason for posts
: to be rejected from s.r.m.), not to mention containing blatant ad hominems
: and personal attacks...
Finally! Someone's posting some real evidence!
It's about time.
: ...Raymond is one of the more frequent attackers of
: critics of the LDS church, and continues to have his attacks "approved"
: for the newsgroup, usually by Hedgehog, but this last time, to my
: disappointment, by David Bowie, the moderator which I found to be the
: most fair (relatively speaking).
Well, as the one who approved this one, allow me to explain...
: For convenience, I will first quote excerpts from the offending post,
: interspersed with my comments, followed by the posting intact so that
: interested readers can check the context, etc.
I've snipped the full article for bandwidth--i figure that it's
available in the post this one replies to as well as on s.r.m., so it's
nicely available.
: > I was making a general comment on the nature of some antimormons in
: > general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as many
: > people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they may.
: I wonder, would the average person find the above comments to be:
: a) "courteous"?
: b) "neutral"?
: c) "discourteous"?
: If "c)", it should have been rejected by the moderators.
Definitely not (a), which instantly put it into a "borderline" category
in my head--but also not (c) for reasons i'll go into in detail below.
Therefore, it was (b)--neutral (see belw before gasping in disbelief,
please :-] )--and was postable. To make a decision on this one, i had
to look at who it was addressed at--and Raymond made it claer that his
point was addressed to *some* anti-Mormons, not anti-Mormons as a group,
and not to any particular individual or set of individuals. That, in my
mind, makes it postable.
Or, to put it another way, if Raymond had posted the above bit about,
say, Jeff Shirton or James or someone similar, it would have been
rejected out of hand (as, in fact, the original rendition of the quoted
post was, for that very reason). If he had said that about anti-Mormons
as a general class without defining the term narrowly (which definition
he achieved through the use of judicious qualifiers in the approved
post), it would have been rejected. If he had said that about
con-Mormons in general, or even about con-Mormons who post to *.r.m.
generally, it would have been rejected.
But, when it comes down to it, the sentence as written was
passable--just as the following hypothetical one would have been:
I was making a general comment on the nature of some Mormons in
general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as
many people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they
may.
: The moderators also have this big thing about addressing the issues,
: rather than addressing the person.
: > Thus you have created a strawman.
: Such a comment addresses the person, and not the issue...
Please explain how this addresses the person rather than the issue.
This deals directly with the method of argumentation used, and therefore
there is no problem with it. Frankly, i'm surprised that this was
floated as a criticism of this article.
: ...When I have made
: comments like that, they have always been rejected on that basis. But we
: see that when an LDS makes them (as he does here), and when they are
: directed at a non-LDS rather than an LDS, then there is no problem in
: such a comment being "approved".
Provide examples of posts of yours that were rejected for such reasons.
And note there's a difference between "You have created a strawman" and
stuff like "You always resort to creating strawmen" or "Why must you
always use strawmen?"
: > of the Bible! If one receives a witness as to the truthfulness of
: > the Book of Mormon it is valid despite the dirt you can dish out about
: > how Joseph Smith occasionally in his life consumed an alcoholic beverage.
: If I were to make a comment such as "the dirt you can dish out", I would
: have had my post rejected for "discourteousness" (as I have in fact had
: posts rejected for similar comments). Such is an instance of a "personal
: remark", and non-LDS are not allowed to make them on s.r.m., although
: obviously LDS are (as evidenced by this post by Raymond being "approved").
I took this as an impersonal "you." You may disagree, but it does not
appear that even James (who wrote the post Raymond's was replying to)
did not take this personally. It was a judgment call, and you may
disagree with the judgment, but that just means we disagree--*not* that
you are inherently correct in your claim.
: The moderators have suggested to me that I am too "sensitive" to
: personal attacks. And perhaps that's true.
More so, it appears that you are willing to read personal attacks into
items that are not personal attacks.
<snip>
As i've said before, if you think the moderators are being horrid and
breaking the charter, take it to news.groups, where such appeals can be
aired. It should be interesting watching you get laughed off the group
(as happened to Jon Noring a few months ago).
David "Lighten up!" Bowie
Jeff Shirton
Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> Comments into what I personally think of you are off topic and would
>> never pass moderation. (As evidenced by the fact that this is a
>> revised article... :)
>
>It would appear that the article you quoted had already been revised at
>least once to get past moderation.
Yes, Craig, it obviously was. My response is, "So what?"
If a post which is "approved" for posting contains, say, 90% discourteous
content, does it make anyone feel better if they later learn that the
first draft was actually 95% discourteous, but "revised"?
It still shouldn't have been approved, for the obvious reasons I already
pointed out.
> IMHO, it was an ok post, and didn't warrant exclusion.
Then we disagree, don't we? (And you're LDS, right?)
>Craig
Jason Roberts
> Once upon a time, jkro...@students.wisc.edu (Jason Roberts) wrote:
> : In article <5fs3lk$l...@paleale.wanet.net>, Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
> : wrote:
> : > In article <jason.roberts-0...@144.92.156.145> Jason Roberts,
> : > jason....@mail.admin.wisc.edu writes:
> : > >No one
> : > >forced you at gunpoint to be a moderator.
> : > How do you know?
> : Is this the best you guys can come up with?
> Jason, chill.
No need for me to chill.
Go back and follow the entire thread. (At very least read my gaffe and
subsequent posts.) You will see that this was a very light-hearted reply in
context. Check it out.
> In fact, *everyone* on this thread should chill.
Present company included! :)
Jason Roberts
Bill Braskey Fan Club
Daniel Vieira
Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
: > can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
: > demeaning of LDS faith or belief.
: I don't know that I could completely agree with your statement, having seen
: and read all of your posts here and on srm.
: > Sure there may be times that a poster
: > -- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
: > things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
: > anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith.
: Again, I'm not sure that I would agree. No, I'm not going to go searching
: through DejaNews to find statements you've made that I think contradict
: your statement. It's just a general impression from what I've read from
: you.
Whatever. I am not anti-LDS. What I am very interested in is defending
the True Faith and the stream of misinformation that seem to come from LDS
on topics like the Trinity, heresies, the "Apsotasy", etc. I am sure
that you take exception when some dope writes things concerning the LDS
Church that are unfounded, and worse yet, have been dealt with over and
over. Same applies on this side of the fence. I'm not at all into trying
to defame Smith's character or ridicule the LDS Church or what have you.
I just get uspset when the Traditional Church is misrepresented in a
careless why, much as I am sure you get upset when your Church is
misrepresented. Sorry if you don't like me correcting LDS. Since most of
my corrections don't get posted on s.r.m. anyway, why not just stay over
there and you won't have to deal with me?
: What's interesting, folks, is that pretty much _everybody_ thinks that
: everyone else is more "direct", "misinformed" or "rude" than they are. I
: think it's just human nature. The way everybody else views what you say and
: do is usually a bit different than we view ourselves.
I disgree. Thomas Dibble was allowed to mangle the Catholic Faith, and I
was not allowed to reply. Another poster made very direct (but not really
rude) statements directed towards me, and I was not allowed to reply. I'm
sure that Jeff can give more examples, as can others.
: > And the fact
: > that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
: > case.
: And several LDS as well (including me), so your "point" is irrelevant.
Whatever.
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Daniel Vieira (dvi...@primenet.com) having written:
>Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>: You think in your minds "Why in the world should I be courteous? These
>: are mormons! They don't deserve it!" And then guess what happens!?
>: YOu get moderated... Well I just feel so sorry for you. Especially, I
>: feel sorry for the stench of your bigotry.
>You know, Raymond, not everyone fits into your category of "bigots." I
>can speak only for myself -- I do not post anything that is knowingly
>demeaning of LDS faith or belief. Sure there may be times that a poster
>-- sometimes LDS and sometimes *anti-LDS* -- raises my ire and I write
>things that come more from emotion than logic. But I have not written
>anything in which I try to downtrod the LDS faith. A couple of the posts
>that were returned to me were for emotional responses that were better off
>being left unposted -- fine I can deal with that. But I have several
>posts returned for flimsy reasons. And these were always responses to LDS
>posters who sure seemed to be able to be a lot more "direct",
>"misinformed", and even "rude" than I was allowed to be. And the fact
>that several non-LDS posters have said the same thing makes a pretty good
>case.
If you don't feel that you fit this category then fine, don't react to
the post. Obviously you feel some pang of guilt, because you feel inclined
to post this note. Are you afraid that in your little tirade you will
be confused with Don, Jeff, James and Peter who are active antimormons, who
have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their integrity for the
"greater good" of hurting the LDS cause?
If you feel the need to distinguish yourself from these, then obviously
I must have hit some of these do-badders right on the money...
And since when have you been treated so unfairly that you couldn't
resubmit your article after massaging the rhetoric? The rules that apply
to me, apply to you. When I receive a rejected post, sometimes my pride
wells up and I say "I wasn't half as bad as so and so." but then I take
ahold of my infinite patience and resubmit. Ironically, EVERYTIME I have
resubmitted I have actually been more pleased with the resubmitted article
than I was with the original.
By being forced to be more creative and expressive in my assertions I
am able to communicate my points better. Instead of breaking into a
barrage of personal attacks, I am able to communicate my points better.
But no... You view it as a personal afront. A personal attack on you,
because the moderators express concern that the thread you are partecipating
in may be degrading into an off topic flame!? How about trying to take
things less personally and perhaps a bit more rationally... not only will
you benefit with communicating your point better, but you will come to
appreciate the moderators and the hardwork and service they perform for
us all.
>: I have had an amazingly large number of posts rejected, because I
>: tend to tell it how I see it and the moderators see no reason why
>: I should have my posts should get through to contend with the
>: wienie type critics who squeak trolls through the group. But you
>: don't see me complaining... In fact I am sure that the moderators
>: have a backlog of my responses when I am told I am going overboard,
>: and I bet that none of them are rude or whiney. Because quite frankly
>: I know that I need to be moderated occasionally to avoid conflict.
>If it were being done fairly at all times for all posters I would have no
>trouble with this policy. But several times LDS posters were allowed to
>get away with a lot more than I was. Others have said the same thing. I
>don't think that *all* of us can be wrong.
Ahh... but you have ***NO*** idea how many LDS posters have been
given the same moderation intervention. You speak ignorantly. You
and your group of complainers have created a wonderful stawman which
is that you are being persecuted. Guess what... You have no idea
the amount of soul searching that goes on between the moderators to
uphold the charter.
>: If SRM doesn't work for you, tough cookies. We had a vote on it, it
>: passed. The critics were given their chance to voice their apall at
>: the charter. They couldn't come up with anything but trolls. Much
>: of which was bullcrap about how we LDS are trying to take over the
>: universe, and other paranoia. So go back to your cacophony here in
>: ARM and whine and moan all you like. None of you so-called "critics"
>: have anything good to offer, just complaints and sad excuses of why
>: you can't engage people in civil dialogue. And frankly it makes me ill...
>Your so called "Christian" attitude seems to be lacking. I wonder if the
>Lord Jesus is proud of you for this little diatribe. What about being an
>example for those who need to reach to a higher level?
Try taking out the Beam, Dan. If you had half a clue you would
retract all the criticism you have made about the moderators and
praise them for having the integrity they do.
Part of being Christian is sticking up for your friends. I consider
the moderators my friends, because they do what they say and out of
no thanks to the many hundreds who use the group everyday. You have
absolutely no idea into the amount of work is required to maintain,
create and uphold this newsgroup. And you are an ingrate... a very
unChristian like quality. You and your kin owe the moderators of
SRM an apology, and until that apology comes, I, for one, will voice
an opinion that is in great contrast to yours...
Best regards,
Craig Anderson
> Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >It would appear that the article you quoted had already been revised at
> >least once to get past moderation.
>
> Yes, Craig, it obviously was. My response is, "So what?"
The point, since you seem to be missing it, is that a change had been made
to the post to get past moderation, and it did. Obviously, someone found it
offensive originally, but it had been sufficiently edited so as to qualify
for posting. Your finding offense in it still seems to indicate that you
are more easily offended than most.
> If a post which is "approved" for posting contains, say, 90% discourteous
> content, does it make anyone feel better if they later learn that the
> first draft was actually 95% discourteous, but "revised"?
>
> It still shouldn't have been approved, for the obvious reasons I already
> pointed out.
IMHO, you have a great tendency to see offense in nearly everything posted
toward you. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately labelled as rude
and discourteous and their remarks as ad hominem attacks. From what I can
see, you tend to see offense when none is intended nor given.
Craig
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Peggy Rogers (kro...@xmission.xmission.com) having written:
>On 10 Mar 1997, Daniel Vieira wrote:
>> Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>It's true that Raymond was letting off steam here (which he wouldn't be
>allowed to do on s.r.m.) and being very naughty. As far as I'm concerned,
>Dan, you have been one of the best and most useful non-LDS people on
>these LDS newsgroups. Your attitude is generally calm and respectful,
>and you bring us a lot of insights about what Catholics really think
>and believe about things.
Peggy, you amaze me with your ability to remain calm. I am put in my
place by your good example. I admit to being very defensive of the
moderator's efforts not because they are perfect but because I have at
least somewhat a concept of the amount of work involved in keeping
the site going, and I hate to see this type of service overlooked by a
few complainers, who have no clue.
I guess one of the reasons why I think SRM is a great group is because,
as one poster put it, SRM is sanitized such that it is no longer a real
trial to read it everytime you sit down at the computer screen. I
applaud those who are willing to work within those parameters, and
I seriously question those who are unwillin to live within those
set boundaries.
If you look at SRM, you will see that it does adhere very well to its
moderation charter, which is exactly the purpose of the moderators. Thus
rather than complaining, if it isn't your cup of tea, the complainers
should form their own group, not try and change a group that is 100%
functional as is.
Best regards,
PS. I will try to be a good boy now... :)
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Jeff Shirton (shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) having written:
>Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>>Where is the dividing line between "real flames" and acceptable material?
>If you don't know, Hedgehog, then perhaps that's an indication that you
>should be a "moderator"?
Ahhh... the umpire syndrome in its finest form. "If I were umpire
I could do so much better job at officiating this game."
Ever since I first met Jeff he has been erecting himself as a false
martyr and crying foul. Why does it not surprise me that he uses
this tactic here?
Best regards,
Jeff Shirton
David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Well, as the one who approved this one, allow me to explain...
You mean, allow you to make excuses... <sigh>
>I've snipped the full article for bandwidth--i figure that it's
>available in the post this one replies to as well as on s.r.m., so it's
>nicely available.
No problem.
>Therefore, it was (b)--neutral (see belw before gasping in disbelief,
>please :-] )--and was postable. To make a decision on this one, i had
>to look at who it was addressed at--and Raymond made it claer that his
>point was addressed to *some* anti-Mormons, not anti-Mormons as a group,
>and not to any particular individual or set of individuals. That, in my
>mind, makes it postable.
In other words, on s.r.m., you are allowed to slam others:
- as long as you're LDS;
- and as long as you are vague and non-specific.
That's a standard that I could never live by.
>Or, to put it another way, if Raymond had posted the above bit about,
>say, Jeff Shirton or James or someone similar, it would have been
And I bet that you think that that makes a difference, don't you David?
As long as those being attacked are unknown, then it's okay to attack them.
That's reprehensible, in my book.
>But, when it comes down to it, the sentence as written was
>passable--just as the following hypothetical one would have been:
>
> I was making a general comment on the nature of some Mormons in
> general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as
> many people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they
> may.
Not only would I never make any kind of ad hominem attack like that on
s.r.m., David, but were I a moderator, I would never allow anyone to make
such a personal attack, whether to non-LDS, or to LDS (as above).
You keep thinking that you s.r.m. moderators are so fair, and keep going
on about how Hedgehog holds some sort of high standard that is unreacable
my most, but I always see that my standards seem to leave all yours
(including Hedgehog's) in the dust.
>: The moderators also have this big thing about addressing the issues,
>: rather than addressing the person.
>
>: > Thus you have created a strawman.
>
>: Such a comment addresses the person, and not the issue...
>
>Please explain how this addresses the person rather than the issue.
You're kidding, right?!
"You" (who they are)
"have created" (what they did)
"a strawman" (the object of their creation.
It addresses the person from *every* single *word*!
And this is something I have learned from the moderators of s.r.m.!!
(It's too bad that they don't follow what they presume to teach others).
As the moderators of s.r.m. have taught me, the above is a personal attack,
and addresses the person, rather than the issue (unless, of course, it is
written by an LDS, which it was, in which case it is perfectly acceptable)
<sigh>.
The way to re-word that, so that it addresses the issue, not the person
(as taught to me by s.r.m. moderators) would be to say something of the
effect, "the above statement does not accurately reflect LDS beliefs,
here's why:..."
I'm surprised that David does not know this.
At least, this is the standard that the s.r.m. moderators have held me to.
I have to wonder why LDS posters are not held to the same standard that
non-LDS posters, such as myself, are held to?
>And note there's a difference between "You have created a strawman" and
>stuff like "You always resort to creating strawmen" or "Why must you
>always use strawmen?"
Yes, there is a difference, David.
No, the difference is not significant, David. Not IMO.
>: If I were to make a comment such as "the dirt you can dish out", I would
>: have had my post rejected for "discourteousness" (as I have in fact had
>: posts rejected for similar comments). Such is an instance of a "personal
>: remark", and non-LDS are not allowed to make them on s.r.m., although
>: obviously LDS are (as evidenced by this post by Raymond being "approved").
>
>I took this as an impersonal "you." You may disagree, but it does not
That's right. Make it "impersonal". One of the biggest problems with
the Internet and why there is so much "bashing" going around, is because
the bashers don't realize that there are real, living, breathing, humans
at the end of their responses, and all they see or realize is that they
are responding to words on a screen. Because the internet by nature is
so "impersonal", this makes it easy not to show courtesy and respect.
So David naturally takes this as an "impersonal 'you'", so that the
bashing can be justified.
>: The moderators have suggested to me that I am too "sensitive" to
>: personal attacks. And perhaps that's true.
>
>More so, it appears that you are willing to read personal attacks into
>items that are not personal attacks.
Yep, you keep saying that... Perhaps to try to convince yourself, you
keep saying that...
>David "Lighten up!" Bowie
Frankly, I'm really getting tired of this "Lighten up!" motto of yours.
You may think religion and salvation and God are some big cosmic joke,
but I beg to differ. And the blatant partiality that you and the other
three are imposing on s.r.m. is not something that can be waved off with
a pointless, "Lighten up!".
>David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Jeff Shirton
David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>: I have nothing to hide, Diana. I am on the side of truth.
>: One day you will know that, one way or another.
>
>Then do you want her to post them? Give us a yes or no?
I have nothing to hide, David. I am on the side of truth.
One day you will know that, one way or another.
But I believe that Diana has stated that she does not want to post them
anyway. At any rate, I would not trust her to post them in context.
So if *you*, David, insist on having them posted, then I will invite
Diana to email them to me, and once I have determined that they are
intact and not out-of-context, then I will post them.
Does that sound fair?
>: So posting what you do have would not only be a breach of netiquette, but
>: a pointless exercise (not to mention a waste of bandwidth).
>
>It's not a breach of netiquette if you give her permission to post your
As I mentioned above, David, not only is it a breach of netiquette, but:
- it is a pointless exercise;
- it is a tremendous waste of bandwidth.
May I ask why you ignored these two factors when "daring" me to give her
permission to post my emails?
>Memories, even excellent memories, are notably fallacious--one tends to
>consistently cast oneself as the hero. Diana is offering proof--will
>you allow her to post it.
Diana has already demonstrate to me that she is not trusted to report
things in context. So I will not give her permission to quote emails
of mine when they may also be used out of context. However, as above,
we may be able to work out a solution, if you can demonstrate that the
exercise would be of some value, and not a complete waste of bandwidth.
>David, who doesn't bluff
Even those who don't bluff are sometimes mistaken, David.
Raymond Bingham
>The following is from an "approved" post to s.r.m. from Raymond Bingham,
>with a number of comments which are "discourteous" (a reason for posts
>to be rejected from s.r.m.), not to mention containing blatant ad hominems
>and personal attacks. Raymond is one of the more frequent attackers of
>critics of the LDS church, and continues to have his attacks "approved"
>for the newsgroup, usually by Hedgehog, but this last time, to my
>disappointment, by David Bowie, the moderator which I found to be the
>most fair (relatively speaking).
Just for everyone's information, since Jeff had his "rebirth" into
news and came back from obscurity of ARM, SRM was created. Since that
time Jeff has written a number of messages all centered on some
obsession of his to make me look as if I were purposefully targetting
him and his precious perception of nonLDS critics. While I readily
admit to having very little tolerance for antimormons, I do not have
a specific agenda, and Jeff's paranoia is almost enough to make one wonder
about his mental stability.
Tell us the truth Jeff, (if you are capable of it). What irks you most
about SRM is that the charter and group was passed and completed in the
6-8 month period in which you were aloof from the internet. And thus
you had no say in the establishment of the group. Now you find yourself
bound by rules you didn't actively partecipate against.
If you don't like the way the group is run, you should pay the price that
we have paid. Create a charter (there's still room for a talk.religion.mormon)
and debate the value of its creation for 6 months straight. Oh and while
you are doing that, you will face the bombardment of many attempts of those
who will discredit your attempts on trolls and misinformation. Then if you
can garner enough support you can be your own moderator. WOuldn't that be
just swell for you?
>For convenience, I will first quote excerpts from the offending post,
>interspersed with my comments, followed by the posting intact so that
>interested readers can check the context, etc.
Well let's go and look at these quotes, shall we?
>> I was making a general comment on the nature of some antimormons in
>> general, and their attempts to appear credible so they may dupe as many
>> people into believing the lies and bias they publish as they may.
>I wonder, would the average person find the above comments to be:
> a) "courteous"?
> b) "neutral"?
> c) "discourteous"?
>If "c)", it should have been rejected by the moderators.
It was a neutral comment. The fact that there exist "some" antimormons
that publish lies and bias is a fact. Even James, to whom I was responding
will recognize this as truth.
Note the quantifiers "general comment", "some", "in general"... These are
clues to the fact that I was making a comment about how some antis try to
feign credibility. (Others have no qualms about credibility or lack thereof)
(but I digress... :) They are quantifiers meaning that there are exceptions
and cases which do not apply. If one is hypersensitive, then perhaps they
would take this to apply to themselves, but most people can read it and
live with it, without freaking out and calling the moderators blatant
hypocrites.
>The moderators also have this big thing about addressing the issues,
>rather than addressing the person.
>> Thus you have created a strawman.
>Such a comment addresses the person, and not the issue. When I have made
>comments like that, they have always been rejected on that basis. But we
>see that when an LDS makes them (as he does here), and when they are
>directed at a non-LDS rather than an LDS, then there is no problem in
>such a comment being "approved".
If you had looked at the two paragraphs above you would see how I dispelled
the main thrust of Jame's argument. My conclusion was one sentence and it
was not directed at James, it was directed at the argument. The fact that
he wrote the argument is hardly the subject of flames...
In fact in the thread before James accused me of creating a strawman! And
I just countered, though I don't recall me throwing a tizzy fit because the
moderators decided to let James's post through to the group. I guess I must
be more mature, but I welcomed the opportunity to clarify what I meant.
>> of the Bible! If one receives a witness as to the truthfulness of
>> the Book of Mormon it is valid despite the dirt you can dish out about
>> how Joseph Smith occasionally in his life consumed an alcoholic beverage.
>
>If I were to make a comment such as "the dirt you can dish out", I would
>have had my post rejected for "discourteousness" (as I have in fact had
>posts rejected for similar comments). Such is an instance of a "personal
>remark", and non-LDS are not allowed to make them on s.r.m., although
>obviously LDS are (as evidenced by this post by Raymond being "approved").
If you had read my entire passage you would see that I was establishing a
precept. If you have a witness from God, it doesn't matter what anyone(you)
can dish out (dirt), you still believe in the truth from God. This was not
a comment on James either, nor was it a comment about what James dished
out. It was a worstcase scenario... Saying "No matter what you come up with
(in this case dirt was used as worst case) I won't change my opinion,
because God told me otherwise". Although I personally feel James tends to
slant his arguments toward sensational "dirt" (used in a tabloid sense)
(for example, "Joseph Smith's Drinking Addiction/Habit"), the issue is a
statement into MY nature not James's. The you could have been addressed
to anyone, and it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the sentence. Thus
out of my post (which was a couple pages) you have collected three short
sentences. All three of which are perfectly fine to any rational non-warped
moderator.
>The moderators have suggested to me that I am too "sensitive" to
>personal attacks. And perhaps that's true.
I think you have proven quite well that given the context of my message
you are hypersensitive to this. Further because of personal exchanges
that we have had, it is aparent that you seem to have an axe to grind
against certain partecipants of the group.
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton <shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>>: I have nothing to hide, Diana. I am on the side of truth.
>>: One day you will know that, one way or another.
>>
>>Then do you want her to post them? Give us a yes or no?
No, David, I do not want her to post them. And although I have already
explained why in my previous message, I will be more pedantic about it
this time so that even *you* will see that it would be a waste of time,
a pointless exercise, and therefore a waste of bandwidth.
I will remind you, David, that the entire issue deals with what I have
claimed (and still do claim) that Diana said to me in private email,
and that Diana denies saying.
Diana claims to have "the majority" of our correspondence, which means
that she does not have all of it. Upon her rereading through all of
her correspondence, she will either find that she actually *did* say
that (and had forgotten about it), and apologize to me, or she will not
find record of that, which means that it was contained in one of the
(non-"majority") of emails that she did not save.
A typical scenario would have her posts 1000's of lines of dialog between
us, and the offending statement not being there. So what would that prove?
Nothing.
Since she did not possess the entire record of our communications, it
"proves" exactly nothing, and is nothing more than a pointless exercise
wasting much bandwidth.
>>Memories, even excellent memories, are notably fallacious--one tends to
Yes, you attack my position, even without knowing what the truth is.
Tell me, David, whose "memories" are going to be more trustworthy?:
- those of someone who glibly writes a message once through, sends it off,
and doesn't twice about it? Or:
- those of someone who is in receipt of a message which surprises him
enough that he re-reads it through two or three times just to make
sure he understands her correctly, and then reads it once *more* as
he responds to her?
>>consistently cast oneself as the hero. Diana is offering proof--will
>>you allow her to post it.
How exactly is Diana "offering proof", David?
How can she prove absence of something when she doesn't possess the
entire record?
Please explain that to me.
Daniel Vieira
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
: If you don't feel that you fit this category then fine, don't react to
: the post. Obviously you feel some pang of guilt, because you feel inclined
: to post this note. Are you afraid that in your little tirade you will
: be confused with Don, Jeff, James and Peter who are active antimormons, who
: have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their integrity for the
: "greater good" of hurting the LDS cause?
*My* little tirade? I have no guilt. I was responding to the
childishness of your post.
: If you feel the need to distinguish yourself from these, then obviously
: I must have hit some of these do-badders right on the money...
How I saw your childish post has nothing to do with any possible
guilty feeling of others.
: And since when have you been treated so unfairly that you couldn't
: resubmit your article after massaging the rhetoric? The rules that apply
: to me, apply to you. When I receive a rejected post, sometimes my pride
: wells up and I say "I wasn't half as bad as so and so." but then I take
: ahold of my infinite patience and resubmit. Ironically, EVERYTIME I have
: resubmitted I have actually been more pleased with the resubmitted article
: than I was with the original.
Wrong. As I said -- and you are obviously skipping over the parts of my
posts in this thread where I have said this -- there were posts returned
for reasons that were obvious: rude remarks, overquoting, possible flame.
I can deal with these. No problem. It's when LDS get to make outrageous
statements about MY faith, or when they get to make pointed remarks TOWARD
me, and I can't respond, or have my post returned because I see a post
going off topic and suggest that we possible go to e-mail to avoid
breaking charter, that I get frustrated. I don't care how many LDS posts
get returned. They can return 90% for all I care. As I have stated over
and over, the problem is not what is not going up, but what IS being
allowed up and who gets to have "questionable" posts cleared more often.
Actually I will say one thing -- I have scanned s.r.m. over the past few
days, and have found that the problem is getting better. Probably because
all the posts I saw were about as interesting as an Art film dubbed into
Hindi. But if that's the kind of group people want, I could care less.
See, I have taken care of the problem for myself -- I just don't post
there anymore, so nothing is getting bounced!
: By being forced to be more creative and expressive in my assertions I
: am able to communicate my points better. Instead of breaking into a
: barrage of personal attacks, I am able to communicate my points better.
That's good.
: But no... You view it as a personal afront. A personal attack on you,
: because the moderators express concern that the thread you are partecipating
: in may be degrading into an off topic flame!? How about trying to take
: things less personally and perhaps a bit more rationally... not only will
: you benefit with communicating your point better, but you will come to
: appreciate the moderators and the hardwork and service they perform for
: us all.
It is not a personal attack on me. Can you please get off your high
horse for a second and possibly *listen* rather than coming to the defense
of your LDS friends? My point has been this -- I have seen a
disproportional amount of "questionable" LDS posts being allowed up.
That's it. All I am asking for is fairness -- if non-LDS posts that are
"questionable" are not going to be allowed up, then the same
"questionable" LDS posts should not be. That is *all* I am asking for.
: >If it were being done fairly at all times for all posters I would have no
: >trouble with this policy. But several times LDS posters were allowed to
: >get away with a lot more than I was. Others have said the same thing. I
: >don't think that *all* of us can be wrong.
: Ahh... but you have ***NO*** idea how many LDS posters have been
: given the same moderation intervention. You speak ignorantly. You
: and your group of complainers have created a wonderful stawman which
: is that you are being persecuted. Guess what... You have no idea
: the amount of soul searching that goes on between the moderators to
: uphold the charter.
<groan> You STILL don't get it. It is not what is *not* being allowed on,
but *what* is and *by whom.*
I would say that, except for Hedgehog who does not add the balance that
the charter calls for, they do a decent job. I am just suggesting that
they could do a *better* job of making sure that fairness is handed out on
both sides. Why is this so wrong to ask for?
: >: If SRM doesn't work for you, tough cookies. We had a vote on it, it
: >: passed. The critics were given their chance to voice their apall at
: >: the charter. They couldn't come up with anything but trolls. Much
: >: of which was bullcrap about how we LDS are trying to take over the
: >: universe, and other paranoia. So go back to your cacophony here in
: >: ARM and whine and moan all you like. None of you so-called "critics"
: >: have anything good to offer, just complaints and sad excuses of why
: >: you can't engage people in civil dialogue. And frankly it makes me ill...
: >Your so called "Christian" attitude seems to be lacking. I wonder if the
: >Lord Jesus is proud of you for this little diatribe. What about being an
: >example for those who need to reach to a higher level?
: Try taking out the Beam, Dan. If you had half a clue you would
: retract all the criticism you have made about the moderators and
: praise them for having the integrity they do.
Ah...so being critical of a percieved problem is "unChristian"? Perhaps
if I couched my words in immature ranting like yours I would be more
"Christian?" I am not going to retract what is really simply a complaint
about unfairness to satisfy you.
: Part of being Christian is sticking up for your friends. I consider
: the moderators my friends, because they do what they say and out of
: no thanks to the many hundreds who use the group everyday. You have
: absolutely no idea into the amount of work is required to maintain,
: create and uphold this newsgroup. And you are an ingrate... a very
: unChristian like quality. You and your kin owe the moderators of
: SRM an apology, and until that apology comes, I, for one, will voice
: an opinion that is in great contrast to yours...
Hmmm....I should be thankful for not being allowed to respond due to being
"questionable", even when the posts I am responding to are just as if not
more "questionable?" The moderators of s.r.m. are helping to bring out my
best side?
No apology coming from me. Actually, I am doing them a favor by not
posting there anymore. One less "whiner" to deal with, right?
Daniel Vieira
Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
: It's true that Raymond was letting off steam here (which he wouldn't be
: allowed to do on s.r.m.) and being very naughty. As far as I'm concerned,
: Dan, you have been one of the best and most useful non-LDS people on
: these LDS newsgroups. Your attitude is generally calm and respectful,
: and you bring us a lot of insights about what Catholics really think
: and believe about things.
Thank you, Peggy. *Generally* calm and respectful. Not always -- I will
freely admit that I have my negative, loud, abrasive moments as well.
: It's difficult to draw the line, I'm afraid, when threads start
: drifting into mean-spiritedness. Moderators are human, and mistakes
: are made--both in acceptances and rejections. On the other hand, you
: really have no way of knowing how many messages to s.r.m. from faithful
: Latter-day Saints are returned for "flimsy reasons." I expect this
: happens often enough on both sides. But if you look at the s.r.m.
: statistics for January, at
As I have said, what I see as a problem is that have been more
"questionable" posts allowed on by LDS than by non-LDS. I don't think the
problem is a severe as Jeff sees it, but I think it is enough to make note
of.
: You'll find that out the the top ten posters, five of them are non-
: LDS, and a couple of those get rather hostile at times. That indicates
: to me that "censorship" of non-LDS views is not a motivating factor
: here.
It's not censorship at all. Censorship is when no dissenting voice is
allowed on at all. That is not the case. I just think that there some
LDS have been allowed more freedom of expression than others. I don't
disregard the work done by the moderators that is good and positive. If
the balance is tilted to 100% fairness, I wouldn't even need to make any
kind of a statement. I don't mind hostile non-LDS posts being rejected,
as long as the same kind of posts are being rejected from the LDS camp on
the same proportion.
Hedgehog
In article <3326ff37....@news.erols.com> David Bowie,
dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>Once upon a time, shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Jeff Shirton) wrote:
>: If you don't know, Hedgehog, then perhaps that's an indication that you
>: should be a "moderator"?
Thanks, Jeff. I think that's the first time that you have actually
agreed that I should be a moderator. Or did you mean to type
"shouldn't"? It's funny how a person can intend to type one thing and
then type something that actually means the opposite. Just like
Duwayne's "clueless" remark.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <5g5jj2$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Daniel Vieira,
dvi...@primenet.com writes:
>invite that
>part of the discussion over to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Sorry, I don't have access to that group. Perhaps you could try posting
it to soc.religion.christian.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <3326f942....@news.erols.com> David Bowie,
dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>I mean, really--lighten up. s.r.m.'s a moderated discussion group.
>It's not like the summit meetings of the Trilateral Commission go on
>there or anything.
Actually there a re a lot of secret communiques from the Trilateral
Commission on s.r.m. but you need the code book to crack them. :)
Peace,
Hedgehog
Daniel Vieira
David Bowie asked for "evidence" to be posted that would substantiate
claims made about s.r.m. Here is a bit for people to ponder:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From dvi...@primenet.com Mon Feb 3 23:10:25 1997
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:10:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com>
To: SRM Moderators <srm-...@srm.npl.com>
Subject: Re: S.R.M. Post Returned (Ref: 8358)
In-Reply-To: <1997020320...@bengali.npl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970203...@usr02.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, SRM Moderators wrote:
> You submitted an article to soc.religion.mormon, a moderated
> newsgroup that uses a combination of automated and human moderation
> to enforce the charter. After review, your submission is being
> returned to you for the reasons listed below. The text of your
> article follows this notice.
>
> Rejected by 2 Moderators.
>
> Moderator #1 = Diana.
> Comment = This is marginally over the line, Dan. Please consider
revising it a bit to lose the personal orienation--that last line, for
instance. .
>
> Moderator #2 = Hedgehog.
> Comment = .
-----
Y'know, this is getting to the point of the absurd. The poster to which I
direct this response is allowed to essentially dictate what he imagines I
believe and make insinuations of my faith that I find at best ignorant and
at worst somewhat insulting, and yet his post is allowed to be put up. I
post a simple response, with many salient points that I think are worth
discussing, and you reject it. Interesting that the LDS poster is allowed
to make "personally oriented" remarks, while my simple response is shut
down.
I will not rewrite this. Rather, in defense your charter, I am sending it
to him direct, with an explaination that it doesn't seem to pass muster,
even though his own post, which in my mind at least is just as "personally
oriented" was allowed to be put up.
I have sent the chunk of the post in question back to you, with the parts
that the original poster wrote that are just as "personally oriented" as
any remark I made highlighted with 2 stars (**) for your own critique. I
also included my own responses below the two parts.
I can understand moderation to keep posts on topic, to keep flames away,
and to spark genuine conversation. I do not understand why certain things
are allowed to pass by certain posters, and yet a response is shut down.
It makes me wonder what this charter is actually for.
Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > All we are owed is death and utter exile from the presence of God,
>
**
> : and you worship a God such as this? Next thing you will be telling me
> : is that only those who even hear of Christ are those chosen to be
> : those who receive his grace. A God that is a respector of persons,
> : simply marvilous.
**
>
> Nice that you can put words in my mouth. Sorry, I'm not a Calvinist. God
> extends the same mercy to everyone, and we make the choice to accept or
> reject the Divine Grace.
>
**
> : I don't see how anyone can worship a God as cold and distant as you
> : have just described. It's no wander that you believe that the God you
> : worship is without body, parts or passions. The heart of such a being
> : must truely be cold indeed.
**
>
> I worship a God without "body, parts, and passions?" Hey, thanks for
> pointing that out! I didn't know that as a Catholic I subscribe to the
> Westminster Confession.
>
> Why don't you *ask* me what I believe rather than dictating my beliefs to
> me?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The response I received (which I didn't save, unfortunately) was that
"moderation has to start somewhere, and it is often eaiser to see charter
violations in responses to posts than in the original posts." Beyond the
fact that this statement makes no sense, Diana pretty much rejected this
post for the last line. Is it wrong to ask an LDS to ask what I as an
individual believe? I see this very line up all the time in LDS posts.
Yet when I am not given the same consideration, and simply ask for it, I
am rejected. Why?
Really, this is no big deal in and of itself. If the charter said I was
out of line, ok. But the original poster was more so, and yet his post
was allowed up. This is what I am getting at: the LDS fellow gets in a
few "zingers" while my response is returned. If his post had been
rejected, would there be anything to complain about? Nope.
Dan
---
Jeff Shirton
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Just for everyone's information, since Jeff had his "rebirth" into
You mean, "just for everyone's *mis*information.
For that is what you are offering, Raymond, *mis*information.
>news and came back from obscurity of ARM, SRM was created. Since that
>time Jeff has written a number of messages all centered on some
>obsession of his to make me look as if I were purposefully targetting
>him and his precious perception of nonLDS critics. While I readily
>admit to having very little tolerance for antimormons, I do not have
>a specific agenda, and Jeff's paranoia is almost enough to make one wonder
Ad hominem attack.
>about his mental stability.
Ad hominem attack.
>Tell us the truth Jeff, (if you are capable of it). What irks you most
Ad hominem attack.
>about SRM is that the charter and group was passed and completed in the
>6-8 month period in which you were aloof from the internet. And thus
False statement. I don't really care that I didn't participate in the
creation of the newsgroup. All I ask is that the moderators conform to
their own charter, and that they show impartiality wrt religious affiliation.
For as a number of us have pointed out so far, this is not currently
happening.
>you had no say in the establishment of the group. Now you find yourself
>bound by rules you didn't actively partecipate against.
I couldn't care less.
>If you don't like the way the group is run, you should pay the price that
>we have paid. Create a charter (there's still room for a talk.religion.mormon)
talk.religion.mormon has existed for years, Raymond.
>and cases which do not apply. If one is hypersensitive, then perhaps they
Ad hominem attack.
>would take this to apply to themselves, but most people can read it and
>live with it, without freaking out and calling the moderators blatant
>hypocrites.
Ad hominem attack.
You ignore, of course, the fact that for every criticism I have made of
the moderators (or anyone else for that matter) I have supported my view
with examples.
>If you had read my entire passage you would see that I was establishing a
Ad hominem attack.
Twice you imply that I hadn't read your post.
In point of fact, I had. And I disagree with you.
Which demonstrates more *mis*information you are offering.
>Best regards
The signature you (and some others) offer after being so discourteous
is the height of irony. "Best regards" indeed...
>* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
>* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
--
Hedgehog
In article <3324EF...@erols.com> wilt, wf...@erols.com writes:
>My comment was directed
>towards __your__ use of the term "clueless" -- as it seemed to be
>intended to degrade the position of another.
So you admit that "clueless" is a term that can be used to degrade the
position of another. When Duwayne uses "clueless" to refer to a revered
religious leader then perhaps it is legitimate for a moderator to return
the submitted post and question the use of the word "clueless"?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Jeff Shirton
Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> >It would appear that the article you quoted had already been revised at
>> >least once to get past moderation.
>>
>> Yes, Craig, it obviously was. My response is, "So what?"
>
>The point, since you seem to be missing it, is that a change had been made
>to the post to get past moderation, and it did. Obviously, someone found it
No, Craig, I am *not* missing that point. I am well aware of that point,
and I am also well aware that that point is irrelevant. I am sorry that
you cannot see that.
>> It still shouldn't have been approved, for the obvious reasons I already
>> pointed out.
>
>IMHO, you have a great tendency to see offense in nearly everything posted
>toward you. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately labelled as rude
>and discourteous and their remarks as ad hominem attacks. From what I can
>see, you tend to see offense when none is intended nor given.
Why must you post such erroneous misinformation, Craig?
What you write above is obviously false. You have absolutely no basis
on which to make such statements. There is a *big* distinction between
disagreeing with people and people being rude or discourteous.
For example, your post above was not what I would consider "rude". Yet
you disagree with me. David Bowie is another person who disagrees with
me a great deal, but I find very little in his statements that I would
consider "rude" or "discourteous".
And then there are certain "anti-Mormons", who while they hold beliefs
similar to my own, write in a way that I would find difficult to label
as anything *but* "rude" and "discourteous".
No, Craig, you are way off-base with your remarks.
>Craig
Jeff Shirton
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>be confused with Don, Jeff, James and Peter who are active antimormons, who
According to the definition of at least a few LDS here, I am not an
"antimormon".
>have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their integrity for the
I don't feel that I have sacrificed any "integrity" at all, and in fact
feel that I have far more integrity than you, or any of the s.r.m.
moderators.
>And since when have you been treated so unfairly that you couldn't
>resubmit your article after massaging the rhetoric?
I have.
> The rules that apply to me, apply to you.
No, they don't, Raymond. That's the *point*.
There is a double standard in town, in which posts of yours (and other LDS)
get "approved", while posts of similar tone when submitted by non-LDS are
"rejected".
>ahold of my infinite patience and resubmit. Ironically, EVERYTIME I have
>resubmitted I have actually been more pleased with the resubmitted article
>than I was with the original.
Well, that's the difference, isn't it?
When you get an article rejected, it's because of blatant rudeness, and
you feel better after being forced to be more civil. Naturally.
Yet when one of us non-LDS gets a post rejected for *content*, and have
to remove (non-emotional) content in order to get it approved, we *aren't*
"more pleased", because we have been censored. We are unable to get
certain topics or points of fact communicated.
It's not the same, Raymond. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
>>If it were being done fairly at all times for all posters I would have no
>>trouble with this policy. But several times LDS posters were allowed to
>>get away with a lot more than I was. Others have said the same thing. I
>>don't think that *all* of us can be wrong.
>
>Ahh... but you have ***NO*** idea how many LDS posters have been
>given the same moderation intervention. You speak ignorantly. You
<Big sigh> For the UMPTEENTH time, the problem is largely based not on
what is rejected, but what is *approved*! It doesn't *MATTER* what posts
by LDS are rejected, we see the personal attacks and off-topic remarks by
LDS which are *APPROVED* for posting, which is blatant partiality when
compared to posts by non-LDS which are rejected.
>Try taking out the Beam, Dan. If you had half a clue you would
>retract all the criticism you have made about the moderators and
>praise them for having the integrity they do.
What "integrity" would that be, Raymond?
>Part of being Christian is sticking up for your friends. I consider
>the moderators my friends, because they do what they say and out of
That may explain why you get such personal attacks posted to the group,
while non-LDS such as myself get posts rejected based on uncomfortable
content. It may also explain why Hedgehog tried to coerce me into being
his "friend" since it would be worth my while in trying to get posts
approved, and why Diana told me that I should treat her better since she
was a moderator.
>no thanks to the many hundreds who use the group everyday. You have
>absolutely no idea into the amount of work is required to maintain,
>create and uphold this newsgroup.
Of course, Raymond, you have "absolutely no idea" whether Dan (or anyone
else, for that matter) knows that or not. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?
No matter how much work it is, if they can't do the job properly, they
should step down and give the job to someone who *can*.
>* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
>* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
Jeff Shirton
David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>: >ahem.
>
>: Do you have something in your throat, Diana, or are you just being rude?
>
>This reply goes to Jeff, but it's not directed solely at him--rather,
>it's directed at *everyone* on this thread--namely, that if one insists
>on finding sometihng rude in everything someone says, even a simple
>"ahem" to signal surprised disagreement, that person really ought to
Excuse me, but since when does "ahem" "signal surprised disagreement"?!
"Ahem" is very obviously a vocal reaction, and in my 33 years of experience
I have never *ever* heard anyone "ahem" to politely "signal surprised
disagreement". The reason was always either they were clearing their
throat, or they were being very rude. Now perhaps I was simply raised
to recognize a civilized standard of etiquette that some of you are
unfamiliar with, but that has been my experience.
>look at whether s/he is detached enough from the argument to ever learn
>anything from it.
Well, perhaps if you can't see that by the "ahem" (and by the tone of the
surrounding context of the remark) that rudeness was present, then perhaps
you aren't detached enough from the argument, or perhaps you don't have a
firm enough grasp on reality, to be able to evaluate the situation
appropriately (which is not a good trait for a moderator).
>David "ahem" Bowie
Jeff Shirton
David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>David, who notes that part of the problem may be that many people
>somehow wrongly assume only their side gets rejected from s.r.m.
I think I've found part of the problem of the s.r.m. moderation panel.
Simply put, they don't bother reading anything from anyone who disagrees
with them.
I have personally pointed out to the s.r.m. moderation panel more than
once that I was never claiming that LDS "never" got posts rejected.
Yet David Bowie still makes the above comment.
Dan Veira has posted that the issue is not what posts are rejected, but
rather what posts have been *approved*.
Yet David Bowie still makes the above comment.
I have seconded Dan's observation that the main problem is posts by LDS
which get approved when they shouldn't have been, rather than any
straw-man argument that we claim "LDS never get posts rejected".
Yet David Bowie still makes the above comment.
David, on what basis do you make "note" of the idea that non-LDS seem to
think that LDS never get posts rejected (which I believe to be false)?
And were you aware of the number of us who explicitly pointed out to you
that this was *not* the issue?
>David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
wilt
Alert!
My comment (in context -- horrible concept there) refered to __your__ use
of "clueless" in determining whether or not a posting should be
accepted on srm. __Your__ subjective position should not be a
determining factor. To do so is to abuse your postition as a
moderator.
If a post is in anyway pertinent to the LDS faith, and does not contain
discourteous language - then it should be posted. __Not__ based on your
view of "clueless" --
wilt
Hedgehog
In article <5g5j26$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Daniel Vieira,
dvi...@primenet.com writes:
>I think a "flame"
>has to be looked at in it's context.
And is the context just the single post or is it the thread as a whole?
I ask this not so much because of your own posts, Daniel, but because of
Duwayne's. He way over-reacted to something that was originally intended
as humor.
>I said Thomas Dibble was "ignorant"
>because he was making outrageous comments about Catholicism and bandying
>them as fact.
Do you want the moderators to reject posts if they are not factual?
>He *is* ignorant of Catholic Doctrine and Belief.
The funny thing is that most Catholics believe that most other Catholics
are woefully ignorant of their faith.
>I didn't
>just say something like "you are an ignorant idiot" -- I was pointing out
>where his ignorance lied and that he was making himself look foolish. I
>don't think it was a flame -- perhaps I could have worded it better, but I
>was reacting somewhat from emotion.
OK, let's say some person posts that Catholics celebrate Christmas and
Easter on the same day. I can respond either like this...
"Catholics celebrate Christmas on December 25 and they celebrate Easter
in the spring."
or I can respond...
"Jane, you ignorant slut, are you too stupid to realize that Christmas is
in December and Easter is in the spring."
The same factual content, but one is a great deal more rude.
Re: "Us" vs "them"
>Gee I don't know Hedgehog. Let's see -- first, there are mostly LDS
>moderators who, as many of us have said, seem to be giving an unfair slant
>to LDS posters.
Whoa! s.r.m. isn't a football game. It's not like each side is scoring
points and whoever scores the most witticisms wins. It's a group for
discussion and learning. Why see it as if it is a sporting event? (Or a
battle?)
>Then there is you, who is so sympathetic to the LDS cause
>that I wonder why you aren't LDS yourself.
Well, as a moderator, it seems worthwhile to try to explain to the
non-LDS posters what the LDS position is. I am not there to strike blows
against the LDS faith. Once again, why see it as a battle?
The fact is that you will spend the rest of your life in a world filled
with religions that from your own point of view seem downright strange.
Why not exercise a little tolerance and understanding?
>There is the fact that I have
>had posts returned for flippant reasons.
Flippant? Care to give an example? In the specific case you brought up
earlier, your post was rejected because you called someone ignorant and
then wanted to take it to e-mail. I don't see why that needs to go on in
s.r.m. Call him ignorant in e-mail if you want. Explain the facts on
the newsgroup if you want. But don't ship your insults to the public
forum and promise meaningful discussion in a private forum.
>I don't know *why* I would
>consider it in these terms.
But why are the Mormons your enemies? Why should you rejoice at their
misfortunes and gnash your teeth at their good fortune? Aren't they, if
not brothers and sisters in Christ, at least fellow creatures loved of
God?
>And I really don't care what your opinion of me is anyway.
And I think _that_ is more than half your problem. You don't care that
you are coming across in a negative light and so you view the rejection
of your messages as punishments. Actually, Catholics are portrayed in a
better light if they are not shown as sniping angry insult-mongers.
Right?
>Let me ask you something -- why are you so concerned about what we say
>about the moderation?
Because it is so grossly dishonest. Why are _you_ so concerned about
someone else's ignorance of Catholicism?
>If we are so wrong about this, why not just keep
>doing the "good job" you guys do and ignore us silly folk who are sitting
>here "whining?"
If that's what you want. I always thought it was good for a moderator to
be responsive, but if _you'd_ rather that I ignore your belly aching,
you've got it. Have a nice life!
>: How do you know whether LDS posters have posts rejected? For example, do
>: you happen to know if I voted to reject a post from an LDS poster because
>: it unfairly slammed on Jehovah's Witnesses?
>
>I don't care what LDS posts have been rejected.
Then why do you care if yours got rejected?
>You guys aren't reading
>this properly: it isn't what is *not* being allowed on s.r.m, it is what
>*is* being allowed and how LDS seem to be getting the long end of the
>stick in debates.
They wouldn't have a long stick if your posts were polite and on topic.
Insulting other people isn't a powerful weapon that you should be
striving for. Insulting others will just make you look unchristian.
>I have said it, Jeff has said it, others have said it.
Ah! So you _do_ want me to care about what you and Jeff and others say.
Well, which is it, Daniel, do you want me to care enough to talk to you
and listen to you or not?
>But since I hardly read s.r.m. since what is on there is not very
>interesting to me nowadays, in the end I don't really care *what* goes up
>and what doesn't.
Then I see no reason to discuss the policy with you if you don't care.
>You guys can create your sterile world if you want.
And you can have your germ-filled world if that's what you want. I
really don't see what the problem is. I have an idea for you Dan: try
starting soc.religion.catholic. Try your own hand at running a moderated
newsgroup. I dare you! How soon do you think it will be before the
anti-Catholic bigots are calling you a censor?
Have fun!
Hedgehog
Peggy Rogers
Okay, I'm going to tackle this one in an attempt to clarify the way in
which this entire endless thread arose. It all started out with Duwayne
Anderson, who, in a post to s.r.m., mentioned that Joseph Smith was
"clueless about relativity"--a statement with which it difficult to
quarrel. Hedgehog judged that this use of "clueless" was discourteous.
Indeed, if Duwayne had written, "It's clear to me that Joseph Smith
had no understanding of Eisteinian relativity," the post would have
passed with no difficulty. But the word "clueless," as has been
frequently demonstrated in these subsequent exchanges, is perceived
in current 'net culture as an insult. At least that's what Hedgehog
thought.
Duwayne agreed with this evaluation--at least to the extent that he
revised the message, leaving out "clueless" and resubmitted it to
the newsgroup, where it was then posted.
With that in mind, let us look at the following:
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, wilt wrote:
> Hedgehog wrote:
> >
> > In article <3324EF...@erols.com> wilt, wf...@erols.com writes:
> > >My comment was directed
> > >towards __your__ use of the term "clueless" -- as it seemed to be
> > >intended to degrade the position of another.
This from wilt. It seems to me that wilt is refering here to Hedgehog's
casual throwing around the word "clueless" here on a.r.m. in ways that
seem insulting. Hedghog replies:
> > So you admit that "clueless" is a term that can be used to degrade the
> > position of another. When Duwayne uses "clueless" to refer to a revered
> > religious leader then perhaps it is legitimate for a moderator to return
> > the submitted post and question the use of the word "clueless"?
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Hedgehog
But when wilt writes back:
> Shame on you Hedgehog -- you are better than that one --
> Strawman Alert!
>
> My comment (in context -- horrible concept there) refered to __your__
> use of "clueless" in determining whether or not a posting should be
> accepted on srm. __Your__ subjective position should not be a
> determining factor. To do so is to abuse your postition as a
> moderator.
he seems to be refering to Hedgehog's judging the word "clueless" to be
discourteous in the first place.
>
> If a post is in anyway pertinent to the LDS faith, and does not contain
> discourteous language - then it should be posted.
Percisely!
> __Not__ based on your view of "clueless" --
But whose view of "clueless" should he use, if not his own?
It seems to me that Hedghog's vew of "clueless" has been vindicated
here, rather than being shown to be incorrect. Are you arguing, wilt,
that whether or not it is an insulting word depends on the context?
or have I misunderstood you yet again?
| We all begin with simple rules, only to
Peggy Rogers | discover that almost any rules can have
kro...@xmission.com | valid exceptions, or be in conflict with
| another, equally valid rule. --J. Martin
David Bowie
: >David, who notes that part of the problem may be that many people
: >somehow wrongly assume only their side gets rejected from s.r.m.
: I think I've found part of the problem of the s.r.m. moderation panel.
: Simply put, they don't bother reading anything from anyone who disagrees
: with them.
<wide-eyed innocence>
Really? I would have thought that the sentence-by-sentence replies
you've gotten would demonstrate your posts had been read.
</wide-eyed innocence>
Seriously, might i suggest that the feeling works both ways--and both
sides may well be right, just as both sides may well be wrong?
: I have personally pointed out to the s.r.m. moderation panel more than
: once that I was never claiming that LDS "never" got posts rejected.
: Yet David Bowie still makes the above comment.
I was referring to "many people," not to you personally--that is, i was
making a *general* comment. If you were to see some of the mail the
s.r.m. moderation committee gets, you would understand the sentiment i
raised in what you quote above--it is sadly true.
<stuff refrained with "Yet David Bowie still makes the above comment">
: David, on what basis do you make "note" of the idea that non-LDS seem to
: think that LDS never get posts rejected (which I believe to be false)?
: And were you aware of the number of us who explicitly pointed out to you
: that this was *not* the issue?
Please note that i did not restrict my statement to non-LDS thinking
that LDS never get posts rejected--i deliberately phrased the statement
so that it cut both ways (and *you*'re saying that you think the
moderators don't read things that disagree with them?--go figure).
Please note also that it was a general statement--yes, it was tagged at
the end of a reply to a post of yours, but just because i write a post
in reply to a post of yours does not mean every word in it must apply to
you. This is USENET, not e-mail.
David "Who knows the difference" Bowie
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
David Bowie
Once upon a time, shir...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Jeff Shirton) wrote:
: David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >: Diana wrote:
: >: >ahem.
: >: Do you have something in your throat, Diana, or are you just being rude?
: >This reply goes to Jeff, but it's not directed solely at him--rather,
: >it's directed at *everyone* on this thread--namely, that if one insists
: >on finding sometihng rude in everything someone says, even a simple
: >"ahem" to signal surprised disagreement, that person really ought to
: Excuse me, but since when does "ahem" "signal surprised disagreement"?!
In most every short story, novel, or play i've read that's been the
general reason for throwing an "ahem" into a bit of dialogue.
: "Ahem" is very obviously a vocal reaction,...
<note: mid sentence split>
As is, for that matter, *any* reaction involving words or sounds emitted
through the human vocal tract. BFHD.
: ...and in my 33 years of experience
: I have never *ever* heard anyone "ahem" to politely "signal surprised
: disagreement". The reason was always either they were clearing their
: throat, or they were being very rude. Now perhaps I was simply raised
: to recognize a civilized standard of etiquette that some of you are
: unfamiliar with, but that has been my experience.
Perhaps you simply need to travel in different social circles, or to
read different books. (semi-:-] )
Basically, i disagree with you, because my experience has apparently
been vastly different than yours. (Although i do remember that in your
previous incarnation on a.r.m. you used to through *sigh* around quite a
bit, and when people told you it was rude you'd say it wasn't. Is it
then too much to allow Diana's *ahem* as non-rude--or is that a nicety
only extended to *sigh*?)
: >look at whether s/he is detached enough from the argument to ever learn
: >anything from it.
Please note snips in the future.
: Well, perhaps if you can't see that by the "ahem" (and by the tone of the
: surrounding context of the remark) that rudeness was present, then perhaps
: you aren't detached enough from the argument, or perhaps you don't have a
: firm enough grasp on reality, to be able to evaluate the situation
: appropriately (which is not a good trait for a moderator).
Might i suggest that it is not possible for anyone personally involved
in a discussion such as this one to be completely detached from the
argument? Or is your claim that you are detached enough from the
argument to make valid claims, while those against you are not? (And
yes, that's a serious, not a rhetorical, question.)
David "Undetachd" Bowie