Documented examples of CougarGuard censorship.

[Archaea]

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

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).

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.

[All-American]

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?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

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?

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.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

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

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

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by homeboy

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

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!

[All-American]

[quote="Robin"]

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?

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?

[Robin]

[quote="All-American"]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.