Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.
 

This thread is not a complaint.

It as a simple way for the people of CG to monitor the kinds of things that get censored here. as a check against the POTENTIAL abuse of the TWO mods.

If you are aware of an example of CG censorship, please write a non-offending description of the censored post below. If you are aware of someone else's post getting censored, mention it, to the best of your memory (I doubt that grapevine is going to come forward with ALL of his racist posts, but it would be good to have mention of a few here, to simply sample the flavor of the censoring trends of CG).

Discussion about early LDS temple ceremony.

A couple of days ago, I included a post that allegedly quoted from an early LDS temple ceremony from the last centuray. The text included portions of the ceremony that fall outside of the covenant of secrecy. In general terms, this was a religious post that intended to illicit responses to early LDS oaths of vengence and violence in the LDS temple ceremony.

Fallout to the Discussion about early LDS temple ceremony.

Talking with AA after the deleted post, I refered to the fact that in spite of AA's opinion about what can and can not be discussed here, most of the discussion about the early LDS temple ceremony remained. Only the allegedy quoted portions got deleted.

A mod then deleted this post. I assumed it was 'a mod with a sense of humor,' and reposted my comment. The latter comment remains.

This seemed to be an example of a mod flexing his muscle for 'fun?'

While I was on CG the other night, Mrs. myboynoah noticed Archaea's avatar and said she didn't approve. I felt compelled to close my eyes.

Does that count?

I had to block the server referenced by Archaea's avatar. My ten-year-old daughter kept walking by the computer and yelling "Mom! Dad's looking at an inappropriate website again!"

I'll change it when I summon up the energy to find another photo worth having Mike crop for me.

My avatar served its once humorous purpose.

I'm just not creative enough to find something else expressing any novel thoughts, not that the original one did that.

But far be it from me to drive men away from their wives.

Yeah, I hate it when my 10-year-old serves as my conscience. He is so exacting and leaves me absolutely no wiggle room.

Sheesh, isn't that the truth? My daughter is definitely the sheriff of the house, bless her heart.

By the way, what exactly is the "foundation pour l'aphabetization"?

Censored for temple talk again:

Ute4Ever asked why I wanted to talk about the temple. I responded that I was more interested in people's response to an older version of the ceremony, that contains some material that I found to be startling and violent. Some aspect of those posts gets censored some times, and not at other times. Archaea... care to share your reasons?

Here's one hint: Some of us are older.

The temple is theatre used to teach principles. The theatre isn't important it's the principles taught that are.

Without the Spirit, the intellect alone cannot understand it. So discussing it intellectually is meaningless. This is not a blind faith thing.

The temple is most excrutiatingly difficult, yet beautiful thing to explore, but only members harboring the Spirit, who also investigate deeply the Gosple can hope touch upon its depths.

Discussing differences in temple ceremony is inappropriate as it's (a) forbidden, and (b) a usesless exercise for somebody without the Spirit and intellect atuned to its message. I dare say most members who attend only get the temple at a very superficial level.

Re: Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.
 

Censorship is not an appropriate or interesting subject unless the topic under discussion involves government limiting or controlling or banning speech. Social norms limit or control the content of speech all the time. For example, and educated, cultured person would not attend a socil event attended by peers and make some of the remarks grapevine makes about blacks or he'd find himself left off the guest list next time or ostracized. Nor would he make rude and insensitive remarks to his host. Somebody may kick a guest out of his house for being an ass and nobody would cry "censorship." You write a letter to the New York Times complaining about an article, and the paper doesn't publish it. Is that censorship? Hypersensitivity about censorship in a purely private environment is always amateurish. I'm not even sure the term "censorship" applies in a purely private setting. Maybe the word necessarily connotes government involvemnt.

Frankly, is there any purpose to this thread except to try to circumvent censorship? If not that, then to say that by deleting posts discussing deleting posts, one can accurately say we are becoming more like cougarboard?

Re: Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.
 

When my posts are deleted, that is certainly censorship. You might find that it is appropriate censorship, but some people were 'protected' from reading my posts, and that definitely meets the minimum standard.

This thread is not intended to cry foul about censorship. It simply exists to document its existence. I tend to think that most people on this list have no problem with my 'temple talk' getting shut down. I'm not listing it seeking sympathy. But some day, the level of censorship might reach a level that other find unacceptable. If that day ever comes, I hope this thread might be a useful document to help all to understand how the board started at A and ended at B. You can debate the meaning of censorship all you want. As it pertains to THIS thread, it simply means that a post was deleted by a moderator. So, if Grape uses a raciist term, and his post gets shut down, that is 'censorship,' even if it is something we all agree should happen. This thread isn't going to stop censorship. It is just going to make transparent the NATURE of censorship on this board.

The thread might even have a positive effect on the cesors, if they know that their actions will be made public. I wrote a post that neither quoted anything from the temple nor used any questionable language. It DID point out the fact that other posts of mine remained on the board in spite of AAA's wish that they would be taken of. Archaea (presumably) erased the post, perhaps to flex his muscles? Perahps to be funny? If the board things there is a problem with censorship to 'flex one's muscles,' then maybe making that kind information public is a good idea.

Transparency is generally a good thing in the control of abuse/potential abuse.

In all of the posts I try to remove the 'offending' parts that got the post censored in the first place. Accountability is good for all. If a person is censored for making a personal attack, or for using racist language, then it raises the persons accountability when a reference to that censorship is kept in the public record.

If this list ultimately consists of a bunch of justifiable cases of 'censorship,' then it will only serve to bolster the legitimacy of the mods as fair judges. If it reveals that the mods are heavy handed, or out of line, then the thread will serve an important purpose in exposing that.

It would be ironic if the thread itself was censored.

Can you find me any place that says that talking about what goes on in the temple is 'forbidden?'

I have been to the temple quite a bit, and I know what is forbidden and what is not forbidden as far as the script is concerned. If LDS culture shys away from talking about those things, it is fine if the mods of this board choose to support that culture. Some prophets have suggested that members don't talk about the temple ceremony, but those same prophets have also suggested that members don't talk about many subjects that are visited frequently on this board. The actual covenant of secrecy is very specific, and NOTHING that I have ever written about on this board has ever violated that covenant.

I have the oldest spirit on the board. Stop counting in earth years pal. You are still wet behind the ears.

It translates as "Literacy Foundation" and is headquartered in Montreal. It exists to counter illiteracy in Quebec. You can read more here (it even has an English link):

http://www.fqa.qc.ca/

Given that the French maintain the Académie française to "defend the French language" (since 1635, mind you), I first thought the Fondation pour l'alphabétisation might be a sister organization established in the 1600s to defend the alphabetization of the French language. But alas, to my disappointment, such is not the case.

Along those lines, Chirac recently walked out of a EU meeting because the French representative, a leading English-educated steel baron, gave his presentation in English.

To the barricades!

Re: Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.
 

[quote="Robin"]You don't suppose there's any chance the moderators don't spend twenty four hours a day following behind you to clean up any messes you leave behind, do you?

Re: Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.
 

[quote="All-American"]When there is a thread about what we can talk about regarding the temple, and some posts disappear, and other don't, I assume at least one of the two mods is following the thread. So yes, I do expect some method to their madness.

Thanks for the notice, Johnny.

Dewey Defeats Truman.

My rant here about how a CB post of mine was deleted was in turn deleted. I fail to see how this was in any way against the CG rules, as doing so is a common past time among y'all.

Yet another instance of dicator-like behavior by the CG mods. Or maybe just one. Whoever it was.

You are more like CB than you care to admit.

At least at CB they give you a reason why your post was deleted.

Here? No such courtesy.

How uncivilized.

You've clearly announced that you have no intentions of behaving with civility on this board. If you don't think others are playing nice with you, given the premise under which you are posting, you'll be hard pressed to find somebody who will feel sorry for you.

Things are lax enough on this board that if a post is deleted, the reason is fairly self-evident.

You should be a little more specific. For example, (if this pertained to you) you might write, 'my post contained a somewhat graphic description of what one of the mods might do with a certain farm implement if he were ever to come across the passed out body of MikeWaters' grandmother. I suspect the post was deleted because said implement, unless used with a level of skill that the moderator probably lacks (as he was not raised on a farm) might cause Mike's grandmother some discomfort when she finally awoke from her stupor.'

This thread is supposed to be a history of censorship on this site. In most cases the reason for the censorship will be obvious. But if one day we find that posts are being censored, and the reasoning would make el Jefe blush, then we will be able to turn to this thread and read a history of how we arrived at that point.

Write the HISTORY of your deleted post. Don't just say, "I had a post deleted, this place is just as bad as CB."

A. I am not looking for someone to feel sorry for me. No matter how many times I say it, you still refuse to believe that I really don't care what you think. It makes me think most of you here have inferiority complexes and base their sense of self-worth on other CougarGuard posters.

B. My point is that there are a few here who have no intention of behaving civily on CB, yet the courtesy of explanation regarding deleted posts is given them. No such courtesy is given here, even to one who is not well-liked (admittedly by his own design).

True. The sad thing is, my post wasn't anything offensive or vulgar or whatever. I merely said that I had a post deleted over at CougarBoard. The post was about how much of a freaking whiny hypocritical crybaby MikeWaters is and I'm glad 16 people got to read it before it was gone.

I actually read it as someone whiney calling out someone else for being whiney.

That's fine. You can read whatever you want into my posts. I'm not going to stop you.

All I can do is post what I think in as clear a way as I can.

J.L. You are probably better liked here than your pride will allow you to admit. But I have to agree with you... I am surprised at how thin some people's skin can be over here.

And yet, you are still here?

What is the motivation for somebody to speak to an audience whose opinion does not matter to him? Is he practicing for the opportunity to someday converse with someone whose opinion DOES matter to him? Is he merely enamoured with the sound of his own voice? Or does he gain as much pleasure from seing one embrace his own ideology as he does from watching others wallow below him in a state of inferiority, such that he is indifferent to their state?

As much as Robin has antagonized board members here, he at least attempts to represent views he holds to be important. I may rarely agree with what he says, but I can at least respect his attempts to discuss them with civility. You, on the other hand, have no interest in participation, but seem rather to be aroused by your own presence.

Why the interest in other people's motivation? Everyone is here for a slightly different nuanced version of the same reason -- we like to read and blather about the kinds of subjects that get posted here, and we enjoy the quirky collection of personalities that the site has drawn (like moths to a zapper-light?).

Lingo is one of the quirky personalities that, for whatever reason, has decided to pitch a tent in this campground. I doubt I am alone when I say that I am glad that he is here, even though we agree on next to nothing. I like Lingo like I like mustard on my turkey sandwich. I might not ever pull a jar of Dijon out of the fridge and plow through it like it was yoplait, but on a SANDWICH it is perfect.

We should spend more time making people feel like they are at home. Too many good people have already felt like they needed to pack up camp and pitch their tent elsewhere. There have been some unfortunate losses.

You're probably right. Sorry, Lingo; I was out of line.

so why do you think mike's post was whiney? You're reading whatever you want into his posts as well.

It's okay, AA. No worries.

It's just the ol' "I hate how a private individual runs their own website and I bitch about it as much as I can" routine.

And you're right. I do read what I want into those posts, though you must agree that my take is most likely right on.

Mike is free to refute that as he wishes.

and yet, here you are bitching about how mike runs his site occasionally. I'm just saying you're the kettle calling the pot black.
but really....it isn't likely spot on. In fact it's far off. I'm not judging one point of view over the other, I've learned with message boards not to read into anything more than the words on the computer screen. Any "reading" into posts and your going to be wrong 99% of the time

If we take Lingo's word, his post was deleted because it said that Mike is too whiney? I don't think that would be a very good reason to delete a post here. Was there anything more to it than that?

I added a note when the post was deleted explaining why it was deleted. I can see it when I look at it.

You all can't?

Lingo is an act. He pretends to not care what anyone thinks about him. However if that were true, he wouldn't put nearly as much time and effort into it.

This has all been very diverting. Thanks for the laughs, and pass the popcorn. ;)