Rule clarification

[woot]

Tooblue, I still don't really understand your point.

You have seemed to champion an intuitive approach to ideas, opinions, and belief, rather than a fact-based approach. You have shared your ideas and sometimes folks have debated with you using their fact-based approach to life, and you have pointed out that fact-based experience isn't perfect, and they have pointed out that while not perfect, fact-based reality provides a common and useful way of evaluating ideas, and you have argued that it still isn't the only way, and then they wondered what they were supposed to do with your counter-factually based opinion, and you now seem to be saying that they should simply respect it.

Is that what you are saying?

That's a very nice summary, and matches closely my perception of the situation.

[UtahDan]

It is an issue of respect for all opinions. Your flippant reference to high fives is indicative of said lack of respect. It seems to be a common occurrence that when someone posts something these days they indicate to exute/hallu to not poop in their thread. Many posters just don't post in multiple forums in place of saying; "posterx, postery, posterz, posterq, posterb don't poop in this thread". Because posterx, postery, posterz, posterq, posterb can defame, mock and denigrate with immunity in the name of remaining liberal. And what does liberal mean? favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. You mean referring to a religious leader as senile is liberal? Baseless accusations of miss-use of fast-offering funds is liberal? You mean ... the reality is you and Lebowski want liberalism in the Glen Beck style. Not in a good faith effort to promote progress or reform. That's what is being balked at -- not a lack of high fives.

My use of "high fives" is not intended to be flippant. When I say liberal, I'm not talking about mocking or denigrating though certainly that does happen. I'm not sure I can easily put my finger on what that does mean precisely, but I suppose it is, in general, not a whole lot different than what FARMS and others do. For example, the idea that the garden story is an allegory, or that the flood may not be a literal event, or the idea that the BOM might have a limited geography, or the idea that Joseph might have translated primarily with a seer stone, or the idea that Joseph was a polyandrist, or the idea that the priesthood ban was a mistake policy rather than a revealed doctrine...none of these views are "traditional" and would (and are) rejected by more conservative/traditional church members. Our mainstream is more accepting of ideas of this nature and open to hearing others. That is all I really meant. None of that is denigrating or insult, though as I have said before, there certainly are insults and denigrations that occur.

But lets be clear, tb, this is not what I or anyone on the EC intends, it is simply the state of things that has developed naturally. Do you have a suggestion as to how it could be made otherwise without very robust moderation that would be oriented toward a conservative viewpoint? While I accept your characterization of how things are as a legitimate view point, I reject your accusation that it has been orchestrated by Jeff or myself and ask for what evidence of this there is. I further ask what you think we could do to change it?

Convenient change that is not representative of reality. The reality is you have a private forum filled with many poster but within which only a few posters truly participate. Those same posters post even less outside the forum. We can argue the reason but a lack respect for all opinions is one of them. Furthermore, you conveniently ignored the salient point that not everyone here is permitted to participate fully by virtue of the fact of the speakeasy's existence.

So you are against the existence of the SE, duly noted. Also, you keep saying and implying that people are unable to participate. What you really mean is that they don't want to expose their ideas to being challenged. That is fine, I get it. And I am perfectly serious when I tell you that if you don't want your ideas exposed to disagreement, that a composition tablet or even a nice bound journal can be had virtually anywhere. Again, even if I am inclined to agree with you that the tone could be more cordial (which I actually agree is the case) I'm at a loss to know that the solution is, other than for people to either be part of the solution by pushing back or alternatively not participating. There is no perfect world here on this issue, tb. There is never going to be support here for moderating the Foyer for content. We can talk about how we might influence it, but that is all we can really say. You seem to just want it to be something it isn't. Again, what specifically would you have any of us do?

So, in other words you have begun to take the track DDD was on and further affirm my estimation that you are a my-way or high-way influence on the board. Which in fact undermines the notion that this is a lightly moderated board. Yes, the board is lightly moderated so long as one is willing to toe the line.

Doesn't your continued presence here undermine your argument that anyone has a "my way or the highway" approach? Maybe that is a poor choice of words on your part. Obviously no one is being shown the highway over their view point. If you mean that I, like everyone else, has an opinion that I share and that you don't find yourself agreement very often, okay. Are you saying that Lebowski and I and others should refrain form taking a side in religious discussion because we are so influential that it skews the debate? Seriously? This seems to be the trust of your argument as best I can tell. Should he and I not get to enjoy this board?

Just say what is on your mind! If you chose not to because you don't want to be challenged, as I keep saying, that is not my fault. Neither I nor anyone is omnipotent here, nor do we have the time to be, nor do we desire to be.

You intimate I am engaging in guess work. Wrong. My opinion is based on my personal experience with the same people. And what are you looking for here? Pats on the back maybe -- I see socal has obliged! So, how exactly are you are different? Ideas of all kinds need to be challenged -- like your ideas here. But I see others have chosen not to enter the 'discussion' and instead have made efforts to demean the legitimate concerns I have raised by trying to make them all about me? Is that the liberal view of issues you were talking about? Or is that the light moderation you were talking about?

Well, you certainly are guessing about what people's intentions are. If you think that you are drawing a reasonable inference from evidence that there is an intention on the part of the EC or its members to cleanse this forum of traditional thinking, I again ask you for your evidence. Some may have that agenda, but not the EC. As you consider that, I invite you to read my exchange with sooner in this thread:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=11265

I'm glad that you agree that ideas need to be exchanged and discussed. I'm not looking for anything here other than to try to persuade you that the characterizations you have made about me and others, and the notion that anyone is prevented from saying what is on their mind, are incorrect. I don't need any pats on the back nor does disagreement bother me in the least. Discussion is what this board is for.

You correctly note that some people view your concerns as having more to do with your personality than they do with authentic problems that exist here. I'm not going to address that, there is no point. Still, if I wanted to simply insult you and focus on you, I could have. I have not. What I'm trying to do is look past your assertions that I find to be personality driven and address the underlying factual assertions you are making. We may have a different view of what the facts mean, but perhaps we can move toward agreement about what they are. Perhaps not. Insulting you is truly not my objective here.

You are so certain this is a liberal place and so certain it lies outside the mainstream you fail to recognize the fact that the banal negativism of this message board is in fact not the liberalism you hope to engender. What you are really saying is you don't want the negative philosophy, agnosticism or skepticism of this board challenged in a negative way. For that is the environment that exists here -- not the liberal view of religion and politics you profess to esteem.

You have put a lot of words and ideas into my mouth that don't belong there. I have told you what I meant by liberal above, and maybe that will clear up some of your confusion. I don't agree with your characterization of what the mainstream is, but even accepting that you are correct, the idea that I or anyone on the EC would seek to discourage that viewpoint being challenged is the opposite of the truth. In fact, I and others have been very encouraging in private of many conservative posters to post more and let their influence be felt. I encourage you to do the same, tb. I have exerted not a small amount of energy on this front. You didn't know this, I assume. I hope that knowing it will change your perspective.

The above is a completely baseless accusation. I do not consider the EC evil. Once again, to be perfectly clear, I am talking about respect for all opinions and not merely those that perpetuate the banal negativism that exists here.

So you withdraw your assertion you made in the previous paragraph that I and others don't want a "negative" view of the church challenged? That is good to hear. But let me ask you again how you envision your idea of "respect for all opinions" being enforced. Let us imagine you share a deeply felt traditional view and someone expressed a very cynical, disrespectful view of what you have said. In your perfect world, what is the next step that I or Jeff or the EC collectively should take? If your request is simply that moderators be more encouraging of respect, then that is a criticism that I can accept. That is something that I and many others have privately said is something we could, and should do. I hope that this is a responsibility that every one will accept. If, however, your ideal next step involves moderation in the sense of editing or imposing a penalty, I again say that this is not that kind of board.

It is precisely a result of inaction and overt action. The silent majority is the inaction, while the minority hierarchy is the overt action. Your last statement betrays and contradicts your entire argument. If this is truly a liberally motivate board then fundamental change would be enthusiastically embraced.

But what inaction or action, specifically, are you talking about? Until you move beyond a generality it is hard for me to address your comment. What would you like to see done, or not done? Your last statement I truly don't understand, but again maybe you have misunderstood what I meant by liberal. Regardless, what change do you advocate? I think you have explained your complaints at length. I have done my best to listen. Do you have a solution you would like for every one to consider?

EDIT: Wow this is long. SU is proved right again.

[UtahDan]

I'm a late comer to this thread, but it seems to me that opinions worthy of respect get respect here, and those that aren't, don't. Granted that is somewhat subjective, but it's possible that many of the opinions of you and others hold have been deemed unworthy of respect. I find that if one of my opinions is deemed thus, it is up to me to present reasoning. If I do my best and it is still not getting respect, maybe the problem is with the opinion rather than the people rejecting it. This doesn't always apply, and I certainly wouldn't expect this to work on CB, which is why I stopped visiting that forum a long time ago. I think people around here are sufficiently smart and reasonable for this to be true, however. If you present good justification for your opinions, we will respect them. If you don't, we won't. Not all opinions are created equal, and not all opinions should be respected.

As evidence of what you are saying, and this is not an exhaustive list, but pelagius and LAUte are fairly traditional in their views and, rightly, command universal respect around here. Even if you don't agree with them, their reasoning and approach demand it. Nevertheless, people shouldn't be treated with disrespect. Ideas on the other hand, IMO, are fair game.

[tooblue]

I should have known better than to engage you again. My points stand regardless of who we're talking about. I didn't even make it about you. I made it about "you and others" and also about me. So everybody. Also, I do not share your thinking that people are equal to their opinions, and don't understand the point of bringing that idea into this. You think all opinions should be respected; I don't. Simple as that.

If you don't want to continue the discussion that's fine. My intent was not to be disrespectful. In many regards in this thread I have been defending posters such as you -- and yes I have been one of the biggest offenders in regards your opinions.

It is clear that you don't share my opinion, however your manner of interaction should not be the norm here and in fact often is protected under the guise of liberalism when in fact it is anything but liberal.

[tooblue]

If I understand correctly, toolblue's point is that CUF is not as open-minded a place as it thinks it is, and that certain viewpoints are promoted and respected far more than others.

I apologize if this is not entirely correct. I was trying to be succinct.

It's a succinct understanding.

[tooblue]

As evidence of what you are saying, and this is not an exhaustive list, but pelagius and LAUte are fairly traditional in their views and, rightly, command universal respect around here. Even if you don't agree with them, their reasoning and approach demand it. Nevertheless, people shouldn't be treated with disrespect. Ideas on the other hand, IMO, are fair game.

it's convenient to think we can parse ideas from people -- that's the game of lawyers ;-) The reality is we are human and it doesn't happen especially in a forum where banal negativism is esteemed.

[UtahDan]

it's convenient to think we can parse ideas from people -- that's the game of lawyers ;-) The reality is we are human and it doesn't happen especially in a forum where banal negativism is esteemed.

Solution?

[woot]

If you don't want to continue the discussion that's fine. My intent was not to be disrespectful. In many regards in this thread I have been defending posters such as you -- and yes I have been one of the biggest offenders in regards your opinions.

It is clear that you don't share my opinion, however your manner of interaction should not be the norm here and in fact often is protected under the guise of liberalism when in fact it is anything but liberal.

What exactly is my manner of interaction? I tend not to suffer fools and don't sugarcoat my opinions, but I do try hard to justify them and enjoy engaging the opinions of other when I deem them to be worthy of consideration. What more do you expect? I think your disapproval of my methods stems from the fact that your opinions tend to be based on feelings rather than facts, and therefore I tend not to respect them. It should be obvious that I don't treat the opinions of most on this forum in the same way.

[tooblue]

What exactly is my manner of interaction? I tend not to suffer fools and don't sugarcoat my opinions, but I do try hard to justify them and enjoy engaging the opinions of other when I deem them to be worthy of consideration. What more do you expect? I think your disapproval of my methods stems from the fact that your opinions tend to be based on feelings rather than facts, and therefore I tend not to respect them. It should be obvious that I don't treat the opinions of most on this forum in the same way.

Feelings are fact. They are as real as the sky is blue. But that's an aside. A banal negativism is esteemed here under the guise of liberalism at the expense of sincere discussion.

What's more you intimate that by default I should respect your opinions because they are supposedly dealing in facts. That is arrogant and equally insufferable.

[tooblue]

Solution?

Ask the members -- they have some ideas. I think LA is making a good faith effort again in the Religion forum right now. It might take some time until people are participating more fully.

[woot]

Feelings are fact. They are as real as the sky is blue. But that's an aside. A banal negativism is esteemed here under the guise of liberalism at the expense of sincere discussion.

What's more you intimate that by default I should respect your opinions because they are supposedly dealing in facts. That is arrogant and equally in sufferable.

Yes, you've made your opinions about feelings vs. facts clear. The point is that you are generalizing my style of interaction based only on how I deal with you. I make no apology that I don't respect opinions that are refuted by evidence. I also don't respect the opinion that evidence doesn't matter when formulating opinions. The point is that the majority of posters on this forum do respect facts, so I don't interact with them in the same way that I interact with you.

This perspective of yours makes it extremely hard to interact with you in any intelligent way. How should I respond to your posts? You say something that is not in accordance with the facts, so my only option is just tell you how much I respect it? How should the discussion proceed? I can't use facts in the debate, since they hold no sway with you, and it's well known that one cannot be reasoned out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, so what then? This is largely why you've built up a reputation here that it's pointless to engage you in discussion, since you don't change your opinions in accordance with evidence or argument. Why then have the discussion in the first place?

[RobinFinderson]

Just a thought on Tooblue's counter-factual approach to life. I think many artists share Tooblue's way of experiencing life, and I think that many people who experience life this way are frequently drawn to the arts. Just as intuition is a subconscious distillation of experience, the relationship of the art object to its maker is often not entirely consciously understood. Unlike an argument presented on an internet message board, the art object, as a reflection of the artist's mind, can be appreciated or despised in the same visceral way that the object was created and presented. To experience raw emotion in the presence of a work is one legitimate way to experience art, and the entire business of making, presenting, and reacting to art is to some extent, the legitimization of this Tooblue way of being. Unfortunately for Tooblue, I don't think that this way of expressing works so well in this sort of forum.

[tooblue]

My use of "high fives" is not intended to be flippant. When I say liberal, I'm not talking about mocking or denigrating though certainly that does happen. I'm not sure I can easily put my finger on what that does mean precisely, but I suppose it is, in general, not a whole lot different than what FARMS and others do. For example, the idea that the garden story is an allegory, or that the flood may not be a literal event, or the idea that the BOM might have a limited geography, or the idea that Joseph might have translated primarily with a seer stone, or the idea that Joseph was a polyandrist, or the idea that the priesthood ban was a mistake policy rather than a revealed doctrine...none of these views are "traditional" and would (and are) rejected by more conservative/traditional church members. Our mainstream is more accepting of ideas of this nature and open to hearing others. That is all I really meant. None of that is denigrating or insult, though as I have said before, there certainly are insults and denigrations that occur.

But lets be clear, tb, this is not what I or anyone on the EC intends, it is simply the state of things that has developed naturally. Do you have a suggestion as to how it could be made otherwise without very robust moderation that would be oriented toward a conservative viewpoint? While I accept your characterization of how things are as a legitimate view point, I reject your accusation that it has been orchestrated by Jeff or myself and ask for what evidence of this there is. I further ask what you think we could do to change it?



So you are against the existence of the SE, duly noted. Also, you keep saying and implying that people are unable to participate. What you really mean is that they don't want to expose their ideas to being challenged. That is fine, I get it. And I am perfectly serious when I tell you that if you don't want your ideas exposed to disagreement, that a composition tablet or even a nice bound journal can be had virtually anywhere. Again, even if I am inclined to agree with you that the tone could be more cordial (which I actually agree is the case) I'm at a loss to know that the solution is, other than for people to either be part of the solution by pushing back or alternatively not participating. There is no perfect world here on this issue, tb. There is never going to be support here for moderating the Foyer for content. We can talk about how we might influence it, but that is all we can really say. You seem to just want it to be something it isn't. Again, what specifically would you have any of us do?




Doesn't your continued presence here undermine your argument that anyone has a "my way or the highway" approach? Maybe that is a poor choice of words on your part. Obviously no one is being shown the highway over their view point. If you mean that I, like everyone else, has an opinion that I share and that you don't find yourself agreement very often, okay. Are you saying that Lebowski and I and others should refrain form taking a side in religious discussion because we are so influential that it skews the debate? Seriously? This seems to be the trust of your argument as best I can tell. Should he and I not get to enjoy this board?

Just say what is on your mind! If you chose not to because you don't want to be challenged, as I keep saying, that is not my fault. Neither I nor anyone is omnipotent here, nor do we have the time to be, nor do we desire to be.



Well, you certainly are guessing about what people's intentions are. If you think that you are drawing a reasonable inference from evidence that there is an intention on the part of the EC or its members to cleanse this forum of traditional thinking, I again ask you for your evidence. Some may have that agenda, but not the EC. As you consider that, I invite you to read my exchange with sooner in this thread:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=11265

I'm glad that you agree that ideas need to be exchanged and discussed. I'm not looking for anything here other than to try to persuade you that the characterizations you have made about me and others, and the notion that anyone is prevented from saying what is on their mind, are incorrect. I don't need any pats on the back nor does disagreement bother me in the least. Discussion is what this board is for.

You correctly note that some people view your concerns as having more to do with your personality than they do with authentic problems that exist here. I'm not going to address that, there is no point. Still, if I wanted to simply insult you and focus on you, I could have. I have not. What I'm trying to do is look past your assertions that I find to be personality driven and address the underlying factual assertions you are making. We may have a different view of what the facts mean, but perhaps we can move toward agreement about what they are. Perhaps not. Insulting you is truly not my objective here.



You have put a lot of words and ideas into my mouth that don't belong there. I have told you what I meant by liberal above, and maybe that will clear up some of your confusion. I don't agree with your characterization of what the mainstream is, but even accepting that you are correct, the idea that I or anyone on the EC would seek to discourage that viewpoint being challenged is the opposite of the truth. In fact, I and others have been very encouraging in private of many conservative posters to post more and let their influence be felt. I encourage you to do the same, tb. I have exerted not a small amount of energy on this front. You didn't know this, I assume. I hope that knowing it will change your perspective.




So you withdraw your assertion you made in the previous paragraph that I and others don't want a "negative" view of the church challenged? That is good to hear. But let me ask you again how you envision your idea of "respect for all opinions" being enforced. Let us imagine you share a deeply felt traditional view and someone expressed a very cynical, disrespectful view of what you have said. In your perfect world, what is the next step that I or Jeff or the EC collectively should take? If your request is simply that moderators be more encouraging of respect, then that is a criticism that I can accept. That is something that I and many others have privately said is something we could, and should do. I hope that this is a responsibility that every one will accept. If, however, your ideal next step involves moderation in the sense of editing or imposing a penalty, I again say that this is not that kind of board.



But what inaction or action, specifically, are you talking about? Until you move beyond a generality it is hard for me to address your comment. What would you like to see done, or not done? Your last statement I truly don't understand, but again maybe you have misunderstood what I meant by liberal. Regardless, what change do you advocate? I think you have explained your complaints at length. I have done my best to listen. Do you have a solution you would like for every one to consider?

EDIT: Wow this is long. SU is proved right again.

When I have more time I will address some of your comments. But one idea in regards to the Speakeasy might be to allow any group of members to create their own 'private forum'. And for what it's worth I think the EC would entertain such requests seriously.

[byu71]

I can't resist. I am going to get into this fray. I think this board has a liberal tilt to it.

CB has a conservative tilt to it.

The liberal tilt allows for more open discussion.

Neither tilt allows for anyones idea's to be universally accepted as brilliant.

[RobinFinderson]

When I have more time I will address some of your comments. But one idea in regards to the Speakeasy might be to allow any group of members to create their own 'private forum'. And for what it's worth I think the EC would entertain such requests seriously.

Is this really about the Speakeasy? I actually think you have a pretty good idea there. One way to resolve the feelings that excluded folks have about the SE would be to have a second SE-like forum that admitted all members of the board who remain active participants for a minimum of three months. Then members of the SE, who would also be members of the new forum, could choose which place to present their top-secret posts, and many of the SE threads that might benefit from the participation of the excluded would then be presented in the new forum. The SE could continue to exist exactly as it is, serving the needs of those who feel it is valuable, and a more egalitarian version of the SE would also exist, allowing some of us the benefit of having a slightly less public forum to present slightly-less-public appropriate posts.

Good idea Tooblue.