Am I banned from Christianity?

MadsL

My Access gone. My post gone. Any Christianity mod want to comment?
Could any mod check on this?

GuanYin

MadsL wrote:

My Access gone. My post gone. Any Christianity mod want to comment?
Could any mod check on this?

its part of justhalfs oppression campain to stamp out any opinion but his own from christianity.

he didn't even report it on the mod forum, along with his banning of keu for personal reasons of his.

And lets not go into his abuse of board susers in his own boards and refusal to rectify the issue.

Hopefully the admins will soon appoint a co-mod who can undo all Justhalfs poor modding actions, so never fear.

Hobbes

its a bit like a spanish inquisition.

Memnoch

such is the way of fanatics

Hagar

The word you're looking for is excommunication.

I feel better now, at least I'm not damned for all eternity.

CuLT

syke wrote:

its part of justhalfs oppression campain to stamp out any opinion but his own from christianity.

he didn't even report it on the mod forum, along with his banning of keu for personal reasons of his.

And lets not go into his abuse of board susers in his own boards and refusal to rectify the issue.

Hopefully the admins will soon appoint a co-mod who can undo all Justhalfs poor modding actions, so never fear.

koneko

It must work, look at how happy those children are.

Boston

You shall burn in hell fire my child.

mycroft

MadsL wrote:

My Access gone. My post gone. Any Christianity mod want to comment?
Could any mod check on this?

Maybe you should ask his forgiveness?

I'm pretty sure theres something about it in the bible, I think it's near the back.

therecklessone

mycroft wrote:

Maybe you should ask his forgiveness?

I'm pretty sure theres something about it in the bible, I think it's near the back.

Somebody please +rep this on behalf, I'm not allowed...

Crash

Hobbes wrote:

its a bit like a spanish inquisition.

NOE. NO MORE OF AMP POSTING "NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH FÚCKING INQUISITION"!!!1!!!


...please?

MadsL

This is why I am Banned

JustHalf wrote:

MadsL wrote:

Am I banned from Christianity? For what reason? Have you reported this to other Mods? Please give me some indication of what I have done wrong.

Banned for this:

MadsL wrote:

Yes. And burning in PC hell. "dirtiest bummer"? That's helpful. And not a single mod here pulled you up on this repulsive and offensive expression of gay men. Shame on you. But what else would I expect in this forum but intolerance.

my reply:

JustHalf wrote:

MadsL, you're banned for a week for both:

1: Being far too PC for your own good
2: Suggesting that merely allowing the phrase "dirtiest bummer" to be used in argument, in a way that makes sense in context (crikey, he was using it to make a stab at intolerance!) somehow means that I'm being an intolerant asshole.

Ban stays in effect for a week (until next Wednesday / Thursday). PM me, or whoever's mod of the forum then, to be unbanned.

Sorry for not PMing you with this notice, I thought you'd still be able to read the notice I put up on the board even though I'd banned you. My mistake.

Regards,
Dave

Being far too PC for your own good

I don't call objecting to gay men being called "dirty bummers" being PC, I call it being a grown-up member of society. Since when do we ban people around here for being PC? The poster just insulted some very close friends of mine, not to mention a significant portion of this community. Surely the Christianity forum would be the one place you would expect not to have to pull someone up on this. "Bummers" - I ask you.

Suggesting that merely allowing the phrase "dirtiest bummer" to be used in argument, in a way that makes sense in context (crikey, he was using it to make a stab at intolerance!) somehow means that I'm being an intolerant asshole.

How was it in context - I think the thinking ran along the lines of " God can forgive me even if I am the dirtiest bummer alive!"

somehow means that I'm being an intolerant asshole.

I don't know but "By their fruit you will recognize them" Matt 7:16. I never called you an asshole, I just pulled a poster up on offensive language that you seem to think is acceptable. Does it make you an asshole? Not in my book? Banning me and not PMing me? No. Leaving me banned for this...we'll see. I think you need some 'help' with the concept of mod tho'.

I had lots more to add to this discussion topic (this was my thesis topic - guess what I have a degree in Theology...) but I'm guessing that you will now ban me permanently, lets see how tolerant you really are.

or whoever's mod of the forum then

Is that a resignation?

Gordon

Ehh, whatever about the rights and wrongs but putting a PM up on public display is... not very pc.

amp

crash_000 wrote:

NOE. NO MORE OF AMP POSTING "NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH FÚCKING INQUISITION"!!!1!!!


...please?

:eek:



Didn't see that coming

MadsL

Ehh, whatever about the rights and wrongs but putting a PM up on public display is... not very pc.

Tough. I'm assuming that this mod will stand behind his words, I'm only quoting what is on the forum anyway. Everyone else can judge if he is running a forum - or his own little world. Given the number of complains it seems to be the latter.

JustHalf

MadsL wrote:

I don't know but "By their fruit you will recognize them" Matt 7:16. I never called you an asshole, I just pulled a poster up on offensive language that you seem to think is acceptable. Does it make you an asshole?

Here's your own words:

MadsL wrote:

And not a single mod here pulled you up on this repulsive and offensive expression of gay men. Shame on you. But what else would I expect in this forum but intolerance.

Check the last sentence there. True, you didn't use the word "asshole", but it's reasonable to infer a similar sentiment.

I'd already told people I was taking a zero tolerance view of people criticising me in the thread itself. If you'd just attacked the other poster's points, or even his choice of words, fine. But that's not all you did.

This is a one-week ban, as I've stated in the PM. You'll be unbanned on Wednesday / Thursday.

Giblet

JustHalf wrote:

I'd already told people I was taking a zero tolerance view of people criticising me in the thread itself.

Just because you say it doesn't make it right.

zoro

*edit* Uncalled for comment - my apologies

Zoro

MadsL

Youu have a zero tolerance approach to anyone criticizing you?
Catch 22
Wow :eek:

ecksor

JustHalf wrote:

Here's your own words:
Check the last sentence there. True, you didn't use the word "asshole", but it's reasonable to infer a similar sentiment.

Is it? Anyway, best to moderate the posts and not the thoughts.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

I'm curious as the admins opinion on the poor modding on christianity at the moment.

Whats the point in having a public forum, community or not, where people are banned on a whem because the mod doesn't like what they have to say and if they aren't banned they get abused by the mod and have their spiritual beliefs ridiculed and non-conformist christianity is oppressed.

Devore? Ecksor?

ecksor

I'm curious as to why the science mod is asking for me to explain myself to him.

GuanYin

ecksor wrote:

I'm curious as to why the science mod is asking for me to explain myself to him.

Can you show me where I asked you to explain yourself?

I said I was curious as to what your opinion is and then I asked you a question.

I put your (and Devores) username there because you two usually do the spokesperson role.

Suggesting I'm asking you to explain accountability is overstating the case totally.

ecksor

Well, if you're not looking for an explanation of what I'm thinking and doing then I have misunderstood the questions. I read all posts on this forum. I post if and when I feel it is appropriate.

GuanYin

ecksor wrote:

Well, if you're not looking for an explanation of what I'm thinking and doing then I have misunderstood the questions. I read all posts on this forum. I post if and when I feel it is appropriate.

Well unless I'm much mistaken, there is a big difference between asking a question about your actions.

I asked an admins opinion on JH's actions (which seem rather unjust)

I never asked you to explain your actions.

Perhaps its my poor english again but I would think they are two very different questions.

The Muppet

syke wrote:

Whats the point in having a public forum, community or not, where people are banned on a whem because the mod doesn't like what they have to say and if they aren't banned they get abused by the mod

Theres nothing new in that. It happens here from time to time when you get a pesonality clash between the various parties. The mod will usually win out unless he/she has seriously stepped out of line.

JustHalf

MadsL wrote:

Youu have a zero tolerance approach to anyone criticizing you?
Catch 22
Wow :eek:

Dude, I did restrict the scope of that considerably. For a start, I wrote "in the thread itself". I italicised it here for emphasis, so you wouldn't miss it.

I should probably clarify the "criticising me" phrase here. In the original post on the Christianity forum, I said "criticising my decisions". I'm hoping people can take the reasonable interpretation of that, which is "as mod" and not "in general, ever". I also restricted that, again, to "in this thread", meaning the thread on the Christianity forum.

If I really had a zero tolerance approach to anyone criticising me, both syke and NinjaBart would also be banned. They're not, because it was a fair criticism of my actions.

In an attempt to get things back on topic, I wrote:
"This is obviously off-topic. Take it to feedback if you want, but don't discuss it in this thread."

Keu then responded with her own criticism of me. As she was the wronged party, I thought I should give her some leeway. I responded to her criticisms in the thread and apologised to her. At the end of my post, I wrote:
"Take this argument to PMs or the Feedback forum please. You can even make another thread on this forum if you want, but I'm taking a zero tolerance approach to any more replies, criticising my decisions, in this thread. It's completely off-topic."

That's twice I gave warnings. Again, as Keu was the victim in this, I gave her some more leeway.

My patience ran out with Keu's last post, and yours was next. Banhammer.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Dude, I did restrict the scope of that considerably. For a start, I wrote "in the thread itself". I italicised it here for emphasis, so you wouldn't miss it.

I should probably clarify the "criticising me" phrase here. In the original post on the Christianity forum, I said "criticising my decisions". I'm hoping people can take the reasonable interpretation of that, which is "as mod" and not "in general, ever". I also restricted that, again, to "in this thread", meaning the thread on the Christianity forum.

If I really had a zero tolerance approach to anyone criticising me, both syke and NinjaBart would also be banned. They're not, because it was a fair criticism of my actions.

In an attempt to get things back on topic, I wrote:
"This is obviously off-topic. Take it to feedback if you want, but don't discuss it in this thread."

Keu then responded with her own criticism of me. As she was the wronged party, I thought I should give her some leeway. I responded to her criticisms in the thread and apologised to her. At the end of my post, I wrote:
"Take this argument to PMs or the Feedback forum please. You can even make another thread on this forum if you want, but I'm taking a zero tolerance approach to any more replies, criticising my decisions, in this thread. It's completely off-topic."

That's twice I gave warnings. Again, as Keu was the victim in this, I gave her some more leeway.

My patience ran out with Keu's last post, and yours was next. Banhammer.

But seeing as you implied the insult and not the poster, and the admins have told you that you mod the posts and not the thoughts, i hope you will rectify your latest poor modding decision and unban madsl.

keu

Keu then responded with her own criticism of me.

no I didn't you big fat liar.

(I did when it came to feedback..but thats what fedbacks for right?)

"I responded to her criticisms in the thread and apologised to her. At the end of my post, I wrote: take it to feedback" (or whatever)
and this was in response to syke when he/she pointed out your actions. You didn't apologise to me in the original thread, you asked me a question and I answered it, you didn't like my answer because it had to do with buddhism, there was nothing personal towards you in anyway at all, ever..nothing..I never criticesed you in christianity. (but I was stupid enough to go and post an apology AFTER the issue was brought up here in feedback, because i didn't want to get into an argument about it.

your a liar.

ecksor

He's not fat ...

sceptre

therecklessone wrote:

Somebody please +rep this on behalf, I'm not allowed...

Neither am I:(

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mycroft

ditto

Why thank you, I'm like totally feeling humungous love for one quote which basically rips off the theme of that Bill Hicks joke; "Hey buddy we're christians and we don't like what you said" Hicks, "Well forgive me"

But for those of you who want to show you appreciate me you can join the "Mycroft appreciation society"

For just €9.99 you'll recieve a letter welcoming you to the mycroft fan club which has been personally approved by my secretary

And thats about it........

amp

How exactly was it approved by your secretary? And what was she wearing?

Raphael

Amp.....i think you mean what was HE wearing

amp

Have you got pictures?

Raphael

<.<
>.>

Maybe...

MadsL

SO to be clear JustHalf, if I start a thread criticizing you that's OK. But if I respond to a poster using offfensive language and am critical of you as mod in the process - then that earns me a ban?

.../me struggles to get my head around your logic.

Also do you still feel that the poster's use of the phrase 'dirtiest bummer' was acceptable?

JustHalf

It's generally considered bad form to criticise a boards modding decisions on the board itself. That's what this forum is for. If someone started such a thread on the Christianity board I'd probably move it here, leaving a link on the board.

The fact of the matter is I twice said take your criticisms elsewhere, before you posted. The ban was "zero tolerance" (mentioned a few times too) in action.

I read the original posters post as making a jab at the very intolerance you also seem to be against. I think this is a reasonable interpretation. If the post was just "Homos are dirty bummers" I would have deleted it immediately.

bonkey

JustHalf wrote:

The ban was "zero tolerance" (mentioned a few times too) in action.
...
If the post was just "Homos are dirty bummers" I would have deleted it immediately.

<stir>

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't tolerate the sentence on its own, but because it was wrapped in a more cogent statement, you'll tolerate it.....under your policy of zero-tolerance.

</stir>

jc

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

<stir>

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't tolerate the sentence on its own, but because it was wrapped in a more cogent statement, you'll tolerate it.....under your policy of zero-tolerance.

</stir>

jc

Well of course, you're not meant to take the written word literally.......

Beruthiel

syke wrote:

Well of course, you're not meant to take the written word literally.......

you're not!? :eek:
well, hell!
that's got me confused

ecksor

I know, I'm confused too. I'm just about to wander out into the desert with my shovel to go for a dump, but when I get back I'm going to have some serious thinking to do.

GuanYin

Beruthiel wrote:

you're not!? :eek:
well, hell!
that's got me confused

Well thats hardly surprising, most creationists are from the older generation

ecksor wrote:

I know, I'm confused too. I'm just about to wander out into the desert with my shovel to go for a dump, but when I get back I'm going to have some serious thinking to do.

Don't you be talking to any burning bushes out there.....



Actually as an interesting aside I read a paper by a pharmacologist-priest who made a claim that one of the fungi commonly consumed for water and nourishment by desert nomads in the BC era was a potent hallucinogen which probably gave rise to incidences of talking bushes and birds and voices from above etc. He said its quite likely that many of these prophets were actually recounting true experiences and as a priest believed that perhaps these drug induced states allowed them to percieve God. Of course this is woolly scientific/religious thinking at best seeing as the native americans and old celtic tribes used drugs to contact their gods too, but its interesting none the less.

I'd probably like to discuss this on a board, but I'm not sure justhalf would let me away with a thread that suggests many of the bibles passages are the ancestoral equivilant to Jay and Silent Bob strikes back, being an account of the adventures of anti-social stoners and junkies.

JustHalf

bonkey wrote:

<stir>

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't tolerate the sentence on its own, but because it was wrapped in a more cogent statement, you'll tolerate it.....under your policy of zero-tolerance.

</stir>

jc

That's some stirring. Those two sentences referred to two seperate posts. It's not fair to mash them together like that.

aidan_walsh

Welcome to the world of little-league politics. Hope your stay is comfortable.

syke wrote:

Actually as an interesting aside I read a paper by a pharmacologist-priest who made a claim that one of the fungi commonly consumed for water and nourishment by desert nomads in the BC era was a potent hallucinogen which probably gave rise to incidences of talking bushes and birds and voices from above etc. He said its quite likely that many of these prophets were actually recounting true experiences and as a priest believed that perhaps these drug induced states allowed them to percieve God. Of course this is woolly scientific/religious thinking at best seeing as the native americans and old celtic tribes used drugs to contact their gods too, but its interesting none the less.

I'd probably like to discuss this on a board, but I'm not sure justhalf would let me away with a thread that suggests many of the bibles passages are the ancestoral equivilant to Jay and Silent Bob strikes back, being an account of the adventures of anti-social stoners and junkies.

Hmm... Interesting stuff...

pickarooney

At times like this we should remember these wise words:

"The phrase of the century is this: A closed mind remains empty. When you shut out everything that disagrees with your current worldview, you will learn nothing. An open mind is a key ingredient in learning, and all of us have things to learn."

WhiteWashMan

pickarooney wrote:

At times like this we should remember these wise words:

"The phrase of the century is this: A closed mind remains empty. When you shut out everything that disagrees with your current worldview, you will learn nothing. An open mind is a key ingredient in learning, and all of us have things to learn."

The key ingredient is just a *touch* of nutmeg.


an open mind gets filled with that old christian\god rubbish imvho