Rule clarification

[UtahDan]

There may be a variety of reasons many people don’t participate fully -- lack of interest, life responsibilities etc. I don’t want to waste my time spelling them all out. However, we know that some people specifically choose not to participate in the religion forum. Principally because not all perspectives or opinions are equally respected in said forum and in fact more often than not the more controversial and inflammatory opinions are esteemed while balance is eschewed.

I think this last sentence is wrong, but I recognize there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this. If people chose not to participate in certain threads or parts of this site because it doesn't involve their view getting a high five, that is up to them. But so far you and I don't disagree too much.

Many A very tiny number of posters who have been here a significant amount of time but for one reason or another won't conform to the ethos of the group here simply can’t participate fully because they have not been granted access to the invite-only Speakeasy. In contrast much of the discussion on this board happens inside that forum -- or at least some of the more intimate and meaty discussions happen in that forum.

I changed that to reflect reality from my perspective. That is not what we have been talking about though, is it?

I could go on and it could be argued that it’s simply the way message board’s function. But in my personal experience a select few of the committee and hierarchy here perpetuate said atmosphere to their utmost advantage. As a result what we currently have happening on the board is, in the words of a member of the committee who shall remain anonymous;

“that the group pressures individuals to adopt the forum's point-of-view instead of just letting people have their own opinions … I'm pretty frustrated with this place right now … more and more it seems like the board harps on just one or two topics, with only the usual suspects chiming in with their usual responses.”

I apologize in advance to the person for sharing info from a private message.

By "perpetuate the atmosphere" what we are talking about is that some people like the atmosphere (right or wrong) and want to keep it that way? It would be natural for someone who liked that atmosphere to do that, of course.

None of what you say here is really different than what others have said. I disagree with it because my actual experience with members of the EC, as opposed to guess work about what they think or do, is that they want a welcoming atmosphere in the Foyer where all views can be be expressed. Some people feel that they don't want to express certain views because they might get challenged. They don't want anything other than pats on the back and high fives on certain topics. I can respect that desire, but, of course, without a very, very heavily moderated board there is no way to keep views from being challenged and people are free to talk or not talk about what they want to.

Someone else has much more eloquently described the foyer as having a "mainstream" which is pretty liberal for most LDS. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way, I think that is probably a correct observation. But where you derail, IMO, is by saying that you are "prevented" from participating. That is simply not true. If what you mean is that you want to be able to say everything you want without any negative comment, fine. Since that is not an environment that can be provided here, that choice is yours to make. But lets try to recognize the fact that this is a message board that is not heavily moderated and not moderated at all as to view points. There are lots of very mainstream LDS message boards that are. This is not one and will never be.

My problem with you is that you act like this basic reality of how this board works, which simply is, is a plot perpetrated by an evil cabal of EC members for the purpose of running the conservative LDS view into the ground. That truly has no foundation in reality and, again, has nothing to do with anyone being "prevented" from doing anything. I can't prevent you or anyone from saying anything they might want to, as long as it doesn't break the rules, even if I want to.

I know I have said a lot, but I want to try to focus you on the idea that the atmosphere that you dislike is a result of our inaction, not a result of our action. But we can't take action to change it without having something fundamentally different here.

[Non Sequitur]

There may be a variety of reasons many people don’t participate fully -- lack of interest, life responsibilities etc. I don’t want to waste my time spelling them all out. However, we know that some people specifically choose not to participate in the religion forum. Principally because not all perspectives or opinions are equally respected in said forum and in fact more often than not the more controversial and inflammatory opinions are esteemed while balance is eschewed.

Is that your beef? That your opinions are not esteemed and respected? That not enough people agree with you? You can't possibly be serious.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Is that your beef? That your opinions are not esteemed and respected? That not enough people agree with you? You can't possibly be serious.

[tooblue]

Is that your beef? That your opinions are not esteemed and respected? That not enough people agree with you? You can't possibly be serious.

You presuppose I have a beef? Come on sequiter -- seriously? Dan and I are supposed to be having a discussion. You seem to want to make it about me -- I'm not talking about me. Interject something of value or step out.

[SoCalCoug]

I think this last sentence is wrong, but I recognize there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this. If people chose not to participate in certain threads or parts of this site because it doesn't involve their view getting a high five, that is up to them. But so far you and I don't disagree too much.




I changed that to reflect reality from my perspective. That is not what we have been talking about though, is it?



By "perpetuate the atmosphere" what we are talking about is that some people like the atmosphere (right or wrong) and want to keep it that way? It would be natural for someone who liked that atmosphere to do that, of course.

None of what you say here is really different than what others have said. I disagree with it because my actual experience with members of the EC, as opposed to guess work about what they think or do, is that they want a welcoming atmosphere in the Foyer where all views can be be expressed. Some people feel that they don't want to express certain views because they might get challenged. They don't want anything other than pats on the back and high fives on certain topics. I can respect that desire, but, of course, without a very, very heavily moderated board there is no way to keep views from being challenged and people are free to talk or not talk about what they want to.

Someone else has much more eloquently described the foyer as having a "mainstream" which is pretty liberal for most LDS. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way, I think that is probably a correct observation. But where you derail, IMO, is by saying that you are "prevented" from participating. That is simply not true. If what you mean is that you want to be able to say everything you want without any negative comment, fine. Since that is not an environment that can be provided here, that choice is yours to make. But lets try to recognize the fact that this is a message board that is not heavily moderated and not moderated at all as to view points. There are lots of very mainstream LDS message boards that are. This is not one and will never be.

My problem with you is that you act like this basic reality of how this board works, which simply is, is a plot perpetrated by an evil cabal of EC members for the purpose of running the conservative LDS view into the ground. That truly has no foundation in reality and, again, has nothing to do with anyone being "prevented" from doing anything. I can't prevent you or anyone from saying anything they might want to, as long as it doesn't break the rules, even if I want to.

I know I have said a lot, but I want to try to focus you on the idea that the atmosphere that you dislike is a result of our inaction, not a result of our action. But we can't take action to change it without having something fundamentally different here.

[tooblue]

I think this last sentence is wrong, but I recognize there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this. If people chose not to participate in certain threads or parts of this site because it doesn't involve their view getting a high five, that is up to them. But so far you and I don't disagree too much.

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.

I changed that to reflect reality from my perspective. That is not what we have been talking about though, is 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.

By "perpetuate the atmosphere" what we are talking about is that some people like the atmosphere (right or wrong) and want to keep it that way? It would be natural for someone who liked that atmosphere to do that, of course.

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.

None of what you say here is really different than what others have said.

In the name of the liberal view perhaps you should listen.

I disagree with it because my actual experience with members of the EC, as opposed to guess work about what they think or do, is that they want a welcoming atmosphere in the Foyer where all views can be be expressed. Some people feel that they don't want to express certain views because they might get challenged. They don't want anything other than pats on the back and high fives on certain topics. I can respect that desire, but, of course, without a very, very heavily moderated board there is no way to keep views from being challenged and people are free to talk or not talk about what they want to.

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?

Someone else has much more eloquently described the foyer as having a "mainstream" which is pretty liberal for most LDS. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way, I think that is probably a correct observation. But where you derail, IMO, is by saying that you are "prevented" from participating. That is simply not true. If what you mean is that you want to be able to say everything you want without any negative comment, fine. Since that is not an environment that can be provided here, that choice is yours to make. But lets try to recognize the fact that this is a message board that is not heavily moderated and not moderated at all as to view points. There are lots of very mainstream LDS message boards that are. This is not one and will never be.

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.

My problem with you is that you act like this basic reality of how this board works, which simply is, is a plot perpetrated by an evil cabal of EC members for the purpose of running the conservative LDS view into the ground. That truly has no foundation in reality and, again, has nothing to do with anyone being "prevented" from doing anything. I can't prevent you or anyone from saying anything they might want to, as long as it doesn't break the rules, even if I want to.

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.

I know I have said a lot, but I want to try to focus you on the idea that the atmosphere that you dislike is a result of our inaction, not a result of our action. But we can't take action to change it without having something fundamentally different here.

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.

[YOhio]

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.



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, 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.



In the name of the liberal view perhaps you should listen.



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?



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.



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.



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.

[byu71]

I'm lost, but that is my fault as my attention span isn't that good. However, I do want to commend both of you for spending so much time and writing so much, passionately arguing your points.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'm lost, but that is my fault as my attention span isn't that good. However, I do want to commend both of you for spending so much time and writing so much, passionately arguing your points.

[woot]

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.



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, 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.



In the name of the liberal view perhaps you should listen.



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?



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.



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.



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.

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.

[RobinFinderson]

TooBlue, I don't really understand what you are saying.

Can you summarize your view in a brief outline? Much thanks.

[tooblue]

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 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.

For the last time -- this isn't about me. You have missed the entire point of the post in trying to make it about me.

Aren't you really saying that not all people are create equal, and therefore not all people should be respected?

The fact is respect is both earned and given -- and so-called smart people should have enough life experience to understand such a basic principle of human interaction.

[JohnnyLingo]

TooBlue, I don't really understand what you are saying.

Can you summarize your view in a brief outline? Much thanks.

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.

[RobinFinderson]

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?

[woot]

For the last time -- this isn't about me. You have missed the entire point of the post in trying to make it about me.

Aren't you really saying that not all people are create equal, and therefore not all people should be respected?

The fact is respect is both earned and given -- and so-called smart people should have enough life experience to understand such a basic principle of human interaction.

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.