- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Kuppord Maized and Tom Haws are the same person. He sent me a cryptic email and has dropped hints. I get this vibe like Tom is kind of in a wierd state the past week or so. Just to let the other mods know, I sent him a PM asking that he pick one username or another. I will deactivate the other when he decides. It is a no-no to setup discussions secretly with oneself using multiple aliases, at least in my forum netiquette book. It is plain confusing, and is usually done by trouble makers in my experience. He also went over to NOM and posted some short thing about his aliases there and hanging out at StayLDS. I prefer NOT to advertise over there out of respect for Dathon. I got this vibe Dathon didn’t totally like us setting up an alt-NOM (his perception). He’s fine with it, and I have talked to him on the phone since then so he knows what is up. I still seems like a sensitive issue to me though.
Really? I thought Dathon was cool with StayLDS being different. Tom’s an interesting dude, here and there. It doesn’t surprise me. I agree, valoel – and with Hawk. I really like Tom, but I have sensed some deep conflict(s) that might not be religiously based. Announcing his alias, going by an apparently real name, reverting back to the alias . . . I agree we need to be aware of and try to control these things. “A weird state” is a good way to say it. Dathon is fine with StayLDS. He is such a really nice guy. I guess a better way to describe it is disappointment. Dathon really wants NOM to be middle ground. His ideal is for a place where the truly faithful and the non-believers can have exciting, reasonable discussions about Mormonism. Even from his position as a non-believer, he is constantly jumping in to smooth out the conversation and defend the Church as a “good” social institution. He will moderate people that get too much on to a rant against the Church. I got a vibe from him a few times that he wishes we would have set ourselves up as maybe a forum section at NOM. Does that make sense? Our existence, in a very small way, kind says he wasn’t successful keeping the more faithful people at his site. It was a very subtle vibe I got from him, a little bit of disappointment.
I really respect Dathon and the mission of NOM. I think it is a fantastic resource in the world of internet mormonism! *BUT* I don’t believe we could do what we do along side the more freshly angry and disillusioned people in the Church. I can only take NOM for limited time periods. At some point, I get tired of the same re-hashed criticism being barfed up over and over again like it’s something new. It’s not. Most of the things people bring up haven’t been breaking news for 100 years… It is new to the people who land at NOM. I understand that, and certainly have compassion for their shock. There are some really bitter people there that irritate me (Enginerd is one). I don’t mind them at NOM (in that context), but I also don’t want them in a discussion group making sighs and moans everytime we talk about something spiritual in our Church experience. I get it. I got it. I moved on.
I deactivated the “Kupord Maizzed” account. Tom is just Tom now. Good. Tom had a problem with my avatar, so I took it down. I’ll find another when I get a chance next week. Dathon’s disappointment I can see, but I will say, NOM is much more negative than this – our tones are quite different. I don’t think it’s realistic to make us a part of NOM. NOM often has the heart of FLAK without the swearing. There are many there who are truly in the grip of bitterness, using words like “cult” freely. It seems to me that OM is slightly better than NOM (because of no anonymity), and this is even better than that. We will need to be careful to avoid the NOM/OM pitfall. NOM has a ceiling of what it will allow in terms of belief. It may not be Dathon’s feeling, but the majority of the posters are on their way out, not back in. Bob Dixon (fellow OMer) seems to have completely off the rails over there, for instance. Although he still visits OM on good days.
I am very careful on NOM to not be too misaligned or I may as well not even go there. Valoel, you and I seem to strike a similar pose there, although you are a little more mystical, and I’m a little more of a smart a$$.
Tom is a fascinating mixture of openness to mysticism and . . . hard-core moralist. It doesn’t surprise me that he didn’t like your avatar, Hawk – even though I personally had no problem with it (my attempt at humor notwithstanding). Valoel, do you know if the idea of using his real name suddenly scared him when he realized how many people were visiting here – or is Tom Haws even his real name? I just got a hesitant vibe all of a sudden, and I couldn’t tell exactly what was causing it.
Dathon himself resigned his membership in anger — so I’m not sure how well NOM can straddle a middle line w/ him at the helm….even though I’m sure he’s a great guy (please don’t share this info). I think you really do have to be “in” or “out” in terms of commitment….I’ve met very few people (who care enough to be in the conversation) who aren’t either one or the other emotionally.
I think the best thing you can do at NOM is to be a Dathon or Sattva – non-believers who are at peace and want to help other get past the drama. But people there are definitely urging each other to move on with their lives, considering belief or hope as completely out of scope. Reconciliation is a bit of a dirty word over there, synonymous with “sell-out.” Re my hawk avatar, much as I like it (and seriously – there’s not that much cleavage – she’s no Wonder Woman!), she looks a little intimidating wielding that mace with a vengeance. Tom specifically said his wife and/or workplace would freak if he had that avatar on his screen. Is he in prison? Or the church office building?
I don’t think the avatar crossed the line. It was G rated, or near to it. It’s your call. It is important to be sensitive to people. It is also important not to change things at the drop of a hat. LadyWisdom tried something similar with me here. I’ve been blunt with her at other sites, which she does not like, and she made a comment about me need to change my avatar to a color version. The B&W image was “sinister” looking to her. I read that as her usual passive-aggressive manipulation attempts. I support you if you want to continue using the Avatar. Perhaps Tom should not surf the forums at work, if his work place is that sensitive to images. I doubt many of us should be surfing the forums during work regardless of the images
I think I can relate in general to Tom’s sensitivity to the opinions of people surrounding him — but I don’t understand what he saw wrong in that avatar.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.