The Rosie Lies Of 26th April 2007, 02:08 Pm Allowed On Cf, not all forums are created equal Options

[Clay]

everyone has been forgiven.... lets group hug and move on.....

[PeacefulBe]

Oh, shucks...... Missed that group hug by nearly two hours.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I'm disappointed in you, Daryl. I see that you were quick to judge me, too, and to come over here and complain about it. The PM that you got notifying you of the thread closure was an automatic PM sent by the system. That happens every time a thread is closed there.

Staff protocol at the time directed us to close threads when they became so contentious that we were getting too many reports to handle in a timely fashion. Those 3ABN threads were so fast-paced that we couldn't keep up with all of the posts and the reports. Threads also were often shut down permanently for this reason, if too many edits and post deletes would have been required in order to clean things up. Many people disagreed with such protocols, but that was the way the old system worked. We kept those threads open as long as we could deal with all of the reports, but they became overwhelming, and we were short-staffed. There was no theological bias involved, whatever some may think.

Also, I did respond to your PMs several times, but you failed to mention that here. You may not have liked my answers, but don't misrepresent me. It was a busy time, and I couldn't reply to everyone as quickly as they expected, nor was I obligated to.

The CF (or Foru.ms) system is different now, and you have been elected a mod in the SDA forum. You also have a part in making the new rules. I didn't have that option when I was a mod in the SDA forum. I had to follow the rules and protocols that were in place then. I did so even though I disagreed with some of them, and I did so fairly, regardless of whether I agreed with anyone's theological beliefs. I wish those who disagree with my theological beliefs would give me the courtesy of not making biased judgments against me. Your statements here really make me question whether you will be fair as a mod toward those who disagree with you because you are reading a bias into my actions where none exists. I hope I am wrong in this concern. Nevertheless, I am disappointed in you for being respectful to me over there and then coming over here and bad-mouthing me behind my back.

As I posted this way back in May, I did some checking. As it was christian73 who closed that 3ABN continued topic, I wasn't even referring specifically to Sophia7 when I posted this. I felt I should post this to set the record straight.

[Clay]

As I posted this way back in May, I did some checking. As it was christian73 who closed that 3ABN continued topic, I wasn't even referring specifically to Sophia7 when I posted this. I felt I should post this to set the record straight.

No, now you are obsessing over an issue that we have put to rest and moved on.... you need to do likewise....

[SOPHIA7]

As I posted this way back in May, I did some checking. As it was christian73 who closed that 3ABN continued topic, I wasn't even referring specifically to Sophia7 when I posted this. I felt I should post this to set the record straight.

Thank you for clearing that up, Daryl. I recalled that you had sent me some PMs at the time regarding that thread, so I thought that was what you were talking about here, especially since this had turned into a bash Sophia thread. I was quite upset the day that I came across all of this. I apologize for having drawn a mistaken conclusion in your case.

[SOPHIA7]

No, now you are obsessing over an issue that we have put to rest and moved on.... you need to do likewise....

Yes, we can move on now.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Yes, I also agree that we can move on now.

[lurker]

Just found this on the internet. http://tinyurl.com/ytz284

The 25 rules of disinformation. The link refrers to government coverups but I'm thinking about how it fit the discussion about 3ABN. Eerie! Was this list is being read and deliberately followed? Am I the only one who thinks the situation there still bears watching?


This post has been edited by lurker: Sep 14 2007, 10:45 AM

[daylily]

I just read the rules. It certainly seems to apply, doesn't it? I

[LaurenceD]

Just found this on the internet. http://tinyurl.com/ytz284

The 25 rules of disinformation. The link refrers to government coverups but I'm thinking about how it fit the discussion about 3ABN. Eerie! Was this list is being read and deliberately followed? Am I the only one who thinks the situation there still bears watching?

Heh Heh!

If you liked that one, you'll enjoy this site. I found a copy of this in the administration office at 3abm while cleaning. (just kidding)

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

(skip the UFO junk and scroll down to...)

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Part 1: General Debunkery

Excerpt:

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

[Ozzie]

Heh Heh!

If you liked that one, you'll enjoy this site. I found a copy of this in the administration office at 3abm while cleaning. (just kidding)

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

(skip the UFO junk and scroll down to...)

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Part 1: General Debunkery

Excerpt:

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

Looks like Danny and his cronies have been following this to the letter! I'd say it is more than circumstantial.

[LaurenceD]

Here's a couple more from that site...

<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "you have seen the evidence, even if others can't."

<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

<> Always refer to their statements as claims, which are touted, and to your own assertions as facts, which are stated.

<> In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

<> Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation.

[Whitey]

Well, say it again Clay....
"No, now you are obsessing over an issue that we have put to rest and moved on.... you need to do likewise...."

Speak about compulsive obsessions... ... mr.DFawcet wrote 27 sentences above in his #90 posting and used the word "there" 17 times.
Needle stuck in the record's goove, eh?

[GRAT]

Well, say it again Clay....
"No, now you are obsessing over an issue that we have put to rest and moved on.... you need to do likewise...."

Speak about compulsive obsessions... ... mr.DFawcet wrote 27 sentences above in his #90 posting and used the word "there" 17 times.
Needle stuck in the record's goove, eh?

At least he used the correct "there" each and every time.

[PeacefulBe]

Heh Heh!

If you liked that one, you'll enjoy this site. I found a copy of this in the administration office at 3abm while cleaning. (just kidding)

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

(skip the UFO junk and scroll down to...)

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
Part 1: General Debunkery

Excerpt:

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

LaurenceD,

I'll admit that I was "mildly" amused by this one particular offering from the link you supplied:

"<> Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides. "

But, frankly, I was quite disappointed that you, who in the past have shown tendencies towards such a high level of intelligence and discernment in many areas of this saga, would even think to bring this obviously stilted work of drivel into this discussion! What were you thinking?! Do you have any idea how potentially demeaning your careless submission might be to this investigatory endeavor we have been sacrificially participating in for these past years? Did you even think about the far-reaching ramifications of exposing the carefully crafted methods at play here? Again I must ask you, what were you thinking, LD? This, by far, rises to the worst case of apples-and-oranges logic I have ever seen from you.