Hmph! Or, Bloody Mods.

Sparks

Okay, following Amp's advice, here's my complaint.
I'm a bit tired of people reading an unintended meaning into my posts at times. Fine, I can always type "No, that's not what I meant at all" easily enough... except when a mod comes along, reads what I've written and doesn't get what I meant. Then, this happens. Without any PM saying "Oi, this isn't on" or "Why did you mean such-and-such". Nope, first thing I know of this is a post that's both offensive and patronising, and which carries with it a penalty should I post back pointing out that what I wrote didn't mean what Amp thought it meant.
So I PM amp. As you're meant to... and I'm told that Amp's interpretation, incorrect as it is, is that only interpretation that counts. And that apparently, Article 40 of the constitution (the bit that says that your good name is to be protected from undue beatings), doesn't apply in here.
Now I get the reason for moderators. And I'm not saying that their powers need revoking. But I want to point out that it would be nice if people were jumped on for things they've actually done as opposed to what a mod think's they're trying to say.

And to point out that neither my first post, nor my second were intended as flames.
So there.
Yup, I feel better now...

DeVore

Yes, that was a little harsh. Mind you, with Neuro, Corinthian and Merc all lining up I can see why Amp wadded in before it got REALLY going. You may have been a drive-by casualty.

I wouldnt let it ruin your life all the same

DeV.

amp

I find it amazingly hypocritical that Sparks gets all humpty about me apparently missinterpreting what he was saying when this all started from him missinterpreting that neuropraxis was referring to Christianity and not necessarily religion or specifically the Roman Catholic church.

I got harsh with this one in particular because I felt that Sparks was trolling by saying:

Hmmm. One wonders if an organisation that has sheltered priests from charges of sexual molestation of children has any right to dictate the circumstances under which someone may or may not have sex...

I found this inflamitory and barely on-topic. Sparks then continued to disrupt the thread with off-topic remarks which eventually led to the locking of the thread and three people with temp bans. The only reason Sparks wasn't among them is that he heeded my warning.

I have never said that any part of the Irish Constitution does not apply to boards.ie. Sparks says it was an unjust attack on his good name. I say it was justified and therefore in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

Sparks was not a drive by casuality. In my opinion he was one of the main reasons the thread eventually had to be locked, thus denying other people to have the chance to debate the issue rationally, which he seemed to have no interest in.

Therefore Sparks is still on a yellow card and if he further goes against the Charter of Humanities I will ban him without warning.

Sparks

I got harsh with this one in particular because I felt that Sparks was trolling

Which I wasn't. As I explained to you within a few minutes of your post via PM.

I found this inflamitory and barely on-topic.

It was in fact directly relevant, because it countered the validity of the opinions put forward in the previous post. The fact that only one sect of Christianity is now in the papers for sexual molestation and abuse does not mean that the ethics of that church are not shared by the other sects.

Sparks then continued to disrupt the thread with off-topic remarks

No, I got a personal attack in the post following mine, and I replied to defuse what appeared to be a religious person believing that I had attacked them personally. Just because I chose to do so with humour does not mean that I'm attempting disruption.

Sparks says it was an unjust attack on his good name. I say it was justified and therefore in perfect harmony with the Constitution.

Which means that this effectively boils down to a question as to whose judgement is more sound, mine or yours. Since I'm not personally known to anyone here, this isn't a question that has a ready-made answer available. The fact that you did not attempt any form of initial query or warning before declaring your opinion on me in public and using your privilege as moderator to ban any rebuttal.

In my opinion he was one of the main reasons the thread eventually had to be locked, thus denying other people to have the chance to debate the issue rationally, which he seemed to have no interest in.

On the contrary, I posted a valid opinion, one I have held from childhood (that the RC church in particular, and any church made up of humans in general, has no particular special knowlege or ability that allows it to dictate morality to lay people). I posted it in counter to another valid opinion. And when I got a personal attack in response, I didn't respond in kind, but attempted to defuse the attacker - only to have you read me completely incorrectly and do what you did.

Therefore Sparks is still on a yellow card and if he further goes against the Charter of Humanities I will ban him without warning.

I think what you mean is "if I interpret his actions as going against the Charter", which frankly, is less than the standard of judgement that the inmates in Guantanamo receive!

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.