toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[Sum1sGruj]

Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

I remember way back in school, a kid got into a fight. He got roughed up pretty bad, but because the other guy wasn't so popular, people still try to say that the roughed up kid won.
I think it's sad that this doesn't actually leave a person after high school. 'Adults'- they get married, have careers, known in church, *living the facade*, and then they get on the internet and act like complete children.

Everyone knows the unfair bias around here- a particular group of posters don't get banned and they are twice as rude and ban-worthy then most others who have ever gotten banned every single day. This thread asks a question as if the problem is the frequency and not this damnable bias that pretty much ruins the experience for other posters.

 

[serpentdove]

[Joey A.] "He was too much of a pest! And he was..."

Others are saying he wasn't a Christian. If that's true (and I didn't know enough about him to form an opinion) then I am not interested in defending him. I thought he was probably banned for the many questions and the multiple sock puppet accounts.

In general, people shouldn't be banned for being a pain in my opinion. There's no point in discussing it. We don't make the rules (Pr 19:12).

"...Rusha is not Christian; however, she has never been a pest, she has the balance it takes to be a good moderator."

Rusha's a moderator. :BRAVO:

 

[Town Heretic]

...Everyone knows the unfair bias around here- a particular group of posters don't get banned and they are twice as rude and ban-worthy then most others who have ever gotten banned every single day. This thread asks a question as if the problem is the frequency and not this damnable bias that pretty much ruins the experience for other posters.

My first day here I was shouted at by Knight and neg repped by a few of the old guard and I didn't "...fall upon the thorns of life" and bleed all over everyone. There's a stated bias in play, but it's not the grotesque monster in the closet you're hollering about and if you stand your ground and demonstrate you have a sense of humor you'll do fine and find your own circle of friends here, whether they're part of the inner circle or not.

Heck, I had a stalker here who received a POTD for doing a bit of it once. :chuckle: And no, I didn't start a thread about it. You're wound too tightly. Relax. Show people you can laugh at yourself as quickly as you can decry "injustice"...on the internet. lain:

 

[bybee]

My first day here I was shouted at by Knight and neg repped by a few of the old guard and I didn't "...fall upon the thorns of life" and bleed all over everyone. There's a stated bias in play, but it's not the grotesque monster in the closet you're hollering about and if you stand your ground and demonstrate you have a sense of humor you'll do fine and find your own circle of friends here, whether they're part of the inner circle or not.

Heck, I had a stalker here who received a POTD for doing a bit of it once. :chuckle: And no, I didn't start a thread about it. You're wound too tightly. Relax. Show people you can laugh at yourself as quickly as you can decry "injustice"...on the internet. lain:

Good advice! I hope he/she takes it because he has shown some wit!

 

[serpentdove]

[I must have misunderstood.] "You misunderstood your own writing?"

I understand my writing. I don't understand your writing. I don't know what you meant by this.

You say I do understand. You also say that the administrators "didn't buy it". After all these posts, why haven't you just explained what it means. lain:

"...[Y]ou were the one who speculated that it was my financial contributions that influenced the mods. Peculiar."

Is that true? I don't know. Your odd statement seemed to indicate that that is what you believe. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

"As a rule, if you don't know what it is you're saying you should either stop saying it or run for Congress."

You don't write clearly.

"...[Y]our last response, the one that ended with an infraction, wasn't in connection with anything written about or to you. And here's another expression of your enjoyment in reading my highlights [link]

That was my response to you. I also responded to others who actually did want :noway: to address the issues each: based on your highlights.

[link]

This describes your style--the let me-tell-you-every-detail-of-my-day-bore. This is the purpose of your Observation thread. You are a gossip (2 Thess 3:11) It's similar to Barbie's inaccurate summations but he does not provide links whereas you do.

[link]

You are a control freak. :Commie:

It is a trait of the Left (Eccl 10:2). To deny this about the Left is to deny reality.

"Is it that you don't know the difference between the truth and a lie, know but don't care..."

"Make it an infraction worthy offense to post more than twice in a row outside of a thread you create.” ~ Town Heretic link
“Have you ever considered removing the non subscribers ability to delete posts?” ~ Town Heretic link

"Go look for the moderate designation. Because that's what my actual position should look like."

Ask the administrators to provide a "moderate" option.

"I don't want to argue points being argued in the threads referenced..."

You don't have to. The administrators sided with you.

"If you want to take up a point then take it up in the thread where it's being argued."

The point had already been made in the thread referenced. You bring a new point up when you make :yawn: a fallacious argument in your Observation thread.

You have it arranged so that others cannot refute your charges. :Shimei:

"Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

"...[H]ave to lock this down while I report the spammer." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

"Welcomed the wind in the willowjoy..." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

"With an aside for the ever volatile..." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

"...[H]e did what he always does when his ears are redder than Rudolph's nose..." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

"Commented on the danger of personalizing argument..." ~ Town Heretic link lain:

[Security and identity in the Lord leading to increased humility] "Nothing says "I'm growing in humility" quite like pointing it out to others."

You claimed I am someone in need of significance. :yawn: My significance is in Christ (Ro 7:18).

"I've stated the why of my objection to your abuse of scripture to lend authority to declarations unsupported in association with their target."

If you believe that I misrepresent scripture, make your case. each:

"Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..." Full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson

[You call God-haters "friend".] "I love them as Christ loved them."

Mal 1:3, Jn 17:9, Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5

[Most people move to the right as they get older.] "That's a saying you're confusing with a fact."

Those who will be wise move to the right (Eccl 10:2).

[What should we conclude about you?] "You don't conclude. You just declare whatever reality suits you."

:yawn: Who cares what suits me? What suits God? Eccl 10:2

"I omit helping you in your ongoing attempt at assassinating the character of other members..."

Mk 3:25

[I am pleased that you asked for me not to be banned.] "I didn't say you weren't pleased. I said you didn't appreciate it."

I don't appreciate you reporting me. I do appreciate that when you did report me, you asked for me not to be banned. :banned:

"Thank you, sir! May I have another?" ~ Chip, Animal House

 

[Town Heretic]

...I don't know what you meant by this.

Try going to the thread via the link provided and see what's going on.

Is that true? I don't know. Your odd statement seemed to indicate that that is what you believe. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
You don't write clearly.

Oh for Pete's sake, it's a satirical thread about the sorts of postures and positions taken in internet forum debate. Your confusion and my use of all caps should have clued you and a simple visit to the thread would have given you an understanding of the fun that was going on there and its point.

But even if you didn't do any of that, this line should have told you something:

POSTER NEITHER STARTED THREAD NOR IS AN ACTUAL SUBSCRIBER.

That's the opposite of financially contribution, which is your peculiar reading. The imagined person is making ominous threats and attempting to close a thread that isn't his. Worse, even were it his thread his lack of subscriber status would preclude the action. Even a cursory reading of that post should have told you it was part of a running joke thread. And nothing in it should have led to your baffling conclusion were you inclined to accept it as War of the Worlds radio serious... good grief.

This describes your style--

No, it describes your response to it. And that runs contrary to your declaration of "enjoyment". Again, not every thread is for everyone. Don't care for it, don't subscribe to it. Change the channel. Start your own link. Begin a vegetable garden. Whatever.

You are a control freak. :Commie:

No, I'm not. I made two suggestions in a thread that asked for them.

"Make it an infraction worthy offense to post more than twice in a row outside of a thread you create."

Right. That was one of the two in Ktoyou's thread asking for suggestions. There were a few posters launching four or more posts in a row, turning the stated purpose of the forums here, dialogue, into monologues and blogs. That was my reason for the suggestion, which was only that and which I never lobbied anyone to implement who could have done so.

“Have you ever considered removing the non subscribers ability to delete posts?”

That was the other suggestion. It came in response to Gros erasing large sections of his writing, making it difficult for those attempting to point out to him and others what they found objectionable about his posts. Your original criticism of that post was, hysterically enough, that I was attempting to "silence" people...the day you can silence a person by insisting their words remain for consideration is the day you have an argument. :nono:

....Ask the administrators to provide a "moderate" option.

I have. A number of people have. But it's not our call.

...You have it arranged so that others cannot refute your charges. :Shimei:

No I haven't. Every repost is linked to the thread where the argument is ongoing. That's where the argument belongs. There's no point in arguing the same thing in two threads. You want a different editorial slant on the thing, start your own thread. See if anyone is interested. Who knows?

"Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic link :yawn: Ad hominem

That's not about you. It's about a poster who places everyone who disagrees strongly with her on ignore. So it's a characterization based on actual practice, exaggerated as a point of rhetoric. I'll omit your more of the same rhetoric that follows. That's your answer.

You claimed I am someone in need of significance. :yawn: My significance is in Christ (Ro 7:18).

I think that's great.

If you believe that I misrepresent scripture, make your case.

I have. And I've made my intent clear on not facilitating your further misuse of the Holy. I'm not obligated to continue to make the same point you'll ignore over and over and I don't intend to.

As to Christ. He was criticized by religious leaders for spending time among the heathen. Go ahead. Misuse scripture to that end. The devil can do as much. Luke 5:32; John 3:16

Those who will be wise move to the right (Eccl 10:2).

This is a perfect illustration of how you misuse the Holy.That scripture has nothing to do with political orientation. Using it like this trivializes the sacrosanct. Shame on you.

Who cares what suits me? What suits God?

The difference between us is that I don't confuse your desire with His mind.

 

[vegascowboy]

However it seems that right wing, gun waving maddist nut jobs get given a lot of slack.

Leave me out of this!

:IA:

 

[serpentdove]

[Town Heretic odd comment] "Try going to the thread via the link provided and see what's going on."

You've moved the post. Why don't you just explain it in your own words. You posted this shortly after reporting me. Is there a connection? What does it mean?

"[T]his line should have told you something: POSTER NEITHER STARTED THREAD NOR IS AN ACTUAL SUBSCRIBER."

You are a subscriber. Who are you talking about? Why was this immediately on your mind right after asking Knight to give me a warning?

"...The imagined person is making ominous threats and attempting to close a thread that isn't his. Worse, even were it his thread his lack of subscriber status would preclude the action..."

I don't close threads myself so I have not run into this situation. Are you boasting about your membership abilities?

"...Even a cursory reading of that post should have told you it was part of a running joke thread. And nothing in it should have led to your baffling conclusion were you inclined to accept it as War of the Worlds radio serious... good grief."

"He's not funny." lain: ~ Teresa Heinz Kerry :hammer:

[Control freak suggestions: "Make it an infraction worthy offense to post more than twice in a row outside of a thread you create." ~ Town Heretic] "There were a few posters launching four or more posts in a row, turning the stated purpose of the forums here, dialogue, into monologues and blogs."

Why does this bother you? :idunno:

"...[N]ot every thread is for everyone. Don't care for it, don't subscribe to it. Change the channel. Start your own link. Begin a vegetable garden. Whatever."

Can't you unsubscribe? Change the channel. Start your own link? Begin a vegetable garden?

:listen: You like other's opinions--as long as they agree with you (Eccl 10:2).

[Control freak suggestions: "Have you ever considered removing the non subscribers ability to delete posts?”] "It came in response to Gros erasing large sections of his writing, making it difficult for those attempting to point out to him and others what they found objectionable about his posts."

Why does this bother you? :idunno: When a member subscribes to a thread, he gets an email response. Sometimes, the member will edit or delete the original post. Who cares? You can reply to the original comment if you'd like because you have a copy of it in your email. If you get to the original post and there are any changes, address the original argument or address the changes. If you address the original comment, make an indication with a timestamp of the time it arrived in your email. If you address the revised version, link to the revised post. This is not a problem. :dizzy:

Gros recently revised the entire introduction to a thread complaining about Knight. I think he came to his senses and withdrew the original complaint. Isn't that a good thing?

"Your original criticism of that post was, hysterically enough, that I was attempting to "silence" people...the day you can silence a person by insisting their words remain for consideration is the day you have an argument."

It would seem that you attempt to remove member's freedom to express their views, or revise or extend their comments. Why? You call for me to get warnings? Why? You are a lawyer. You are supposed to be able :noway: to attack arguments not people. each:

Let Gros be Gros.

"Why is what I do so important? Why must I always be the focal point of attention? Let me just be. Let me live." ~ George Costanza

[Exposing your leftists tendencies] "You're being dishonest..."

Proof please. each:

[Lying] "It's a trait of dishonorable people."

:yawn: Strawman. I agree. Lying is a trait of dishonorable people.

I am not speaking about lying. I am speaking about the Left's desire to control people. :Commie: The Left, for example, wants government more in your life. The Right wants government less in your life. Denying this denies reality. Eccl 10:2

You, being more left than right (your own self identification), tend to want to control people. I, being on the right, do not.

[You have it arranged so that others cannot refute your charges. :Shimei:] "No I haven't."

If I post in your Observation thread, I get a warning.

Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM

If I were to post in your thread again, do you think I'd get another warning or even banned? :banned: I do.

"Every repost is linked to the thread where the argument is ongoing. That's where the argument belongs..."

Until you add something new.

"...I link to draw people to the thread."

Highlighting certain threads is a good idea. I keep a record of threads that I participate in.

"You want a different editorial slant..."

You add a slant (your word not mine). I responded to your slant.

"...start your own thread."

I could but I won't. I'm not going to start an observations to the observations thread. :dizzy: If you don't want replies, say so. I'm assuming you don't :Commie: unless you say otherwise.

"Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic [link... :yawn: Ad hominem] "That's not about you. It's about a poster who places everyone who disagrees strongly with her on ignore."

:yawn: Strawman. I don't endorse that member (2 Pe 2:1). Yours was an ad hominem attack which members should be allowed to respond to. I support :noway: attacking bad theology (Ga 5:9) not people. each:

"t's a characterization based on actual practice..."

:yawn: Strawman. You may be right. I make the point that it is absurd to not be able to reply in your Observation thread when you make mention of me. atrol: Warning 1, 2

"Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry." :Commie: ~ Dennis Prager

"I'll omit your more of the same rhetoric that follows..."

:yawn: Do you mean more examples of your fallacious arguments?

[Identity in Christ] "I think that's great."

Keeping our pride in check is great. I am positionally declared righteous though I have no righteousness of my own.

[If you believe that I misrepresent scripture, make your case.] "I have. And I've made my intent clear on not facilitating your further misuse of the Holy."

You made a truth claim: I misuse scripture. The reader will either agree with you or he won't. each:

"I'm not obligated to continue to make the same point you'll ignore over and over and I don't intend to."

I reject your claim. We differ. Next subject. :mario:

"As to Christ. He was criticized by religious leaders for spending time among the heathen. Go ahead. Misuse scripture to that end. The devil can do as much. Luke 5:32; John 3:16..."

If you believe I misuse scripture then say, SD this is an example of your misuse of Luke 5:32 or John 3:16. Here's why I think that. Then, provide all of your reasons each: for coming to your conclusion. I think it means this, etc. You may be right. :idunno: Make an argument and let the reader decide. each: If the reader has the Holy Spirit indwelled, he'll respond to the truth (Jn 16:14).

I don't try to keep up with lies. I give out the word of God, oly: what people do with it is their business (McGee).

[Those who will be wise move to the right (Eccl 10:2).] "This is a perfect illustration of how you misuse the Holy."

Let the reader decide. each:

"That scripture has nothing to do with political orientation. Using it like this trivializes the sacrosanct. Shame on you."

I don't think it's a coincidence that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3). I may be wrong. :idunno: Let the reader decide. each:

Sidebar: Admittedly, only left-handed amino acids throw me for a loop in my theory.

[What does God say?] "The difference between us is that I don't confuse your desire with His mind."

:yawn: Ad hominem. You believe I misrepresent scripture; therefore, you would logically come to that conclusion. Pas de problèmes, as the French would say. Take me :yawn: out of the equation and :noway: determine what is true (Ac 17:11). Where we disagree, let the reader decide. each:

 

[Town Heretic]

You've moved the post. Why don't you just explain it in your own words. You posted this shortly after reporting me. Is there a connection? What does it mean?

You should literally have seen what that meant. I moved the whole thing past your spamming.

You are a subscriber. Who are you talking about? Why was this immediately on your mind right after asking Knight to give me a warning?

I am a subscriber. The persona in ALL CAPS isn't. I only just explained exactly what was going on in the thread and why you had every reason to both understand that and to not come to the odd conclusion you managed to...I don't know what you're talking about in regard to when Knight gave you warning. The post in question didn't reference you. Nothing in that whole repost did.

I don't close threads myself so I have not run into this situation. Are you boasting about your membership abilities?

No. I've explained this. If you insist on being obtuse it's your choice.

:listen: You like other's opinions--as long as they agree with you

Actually, I frequently rep people who don't agree with me. I've given rep to people I don't even like if I like the post.

Why does this bother you?

I didn't say it bothered me. I offered it as a way of improving things in a thread asking for that sort of suggestion. I also already told you why: because when a poster erases large portions of his or her posting it makes it difficult for others to reference the remarks with authority, unless someone quoted them entirely, which doesn't happen that often.

Gros recently revised the entire introduction to a thread complaining about Knight. I think he came to his senses and withdrew the original complaint. Isn't that a good thing?

I think so, the point being made. I didn't say there weren't exceptions. I also didn't lobby for the change. It was just a suggestion. It may, on the whole, be a bad one. :idunno: Just a notion.

It would seem that you attempt to remove member's freedom to express their views, or revise or extend their comments.

No to the first and you can't support that. Same for extension. Revise? You have a point. It was probably a bad idea. I didn't think of that practical benefit. And it may well be what Gros was trying to do.

Why? You call for me to get warnings? Why?

Because you weren't giving argument. You were mostly engaging in petty insult of the "I don't think you're so hot" variety. That's pointless, artless and unanswerable. All I could do is trade insult with what you gave me. But what you don't get is that I'm not interested in that. I'll answer insult as a part of a larger argument. And when I do it's usually aimed at my subject with a bit of humor.

Proof please. each:
:yawn: Strawman. I agree. Lying is a trait of dishonorable people.

Yes. I already set out you doing exactly that in relation to a conversation we had in another thread. You adopted the old "let the reader decide" and then when zoo did called those who would support me either pagans or "other" when he was neither. I'm not going over that again. You are what you are and it's been set out clearly enough.

The Left, for example, wants government more in your life. The Right wants government less in your life. Denying this denies reality.

The left and right differ more these days on where the government should intrude and where it should be larger than it likely needs to be. Republicans have grown government every time they've taken control of it. The rest is just rhetoric.

You, being more left than right (your own self identification), tend to want to control people. I, being on the right, do not.

Nope. My left leaning is both incremental and libertarian. Libertarians don't tend to want to control people. :nono:

If I were to post in your thread again, do you think I'd get another warning or even banned? :banned: I do.

If you made one of your, "You must not be a very good lawyer" comments you should be.

You add a slant (your word not mine). I responded to your slant.

That's the thing, you didn't. I reproduce works and link to them so the whole thing is verifiable. You just decided you'd insult me. Then you did it again. By the third time I'd had enough.

I'm not going to start an observations to the observations thread.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting you start your own thread for your own editorial perspective on whatever you write. Doesn't have to have anything at all to do with Observations.

:yawn: Strawman. I don't endorse that member

I didn't say you did. So the straw is between your ears alone.

Yours was an ad hominem attack which members should be allowed to respond to.

It wasn't an ad hominem. I've set that out prior. And I always tackle issues when there's one to tackle. MEshak doesn't want to argue. She wants to declare and then treat those who will argue against her theology to a hefty dose of ignore. And so the title I gave her.

I support :noway: attacking bad theology not people.

The attack was on her practice: the practice of hiding behind ignore.

:yawn: Do you mean more examples of your fallacious arguments?

Make up your mind. An ad hom isn't an argument. So either you recognize the rhetorical criticism or you don't. But you can't have it both ways. I meant that your other examples were similarly ill considered and errant. The one example was sufficient to illustrate it.

You made a truth claim: I misuse scripture. The reader will either agree with you or he won't.

And I set out your sad misuse of scripture to confuse a right hand with right wing politics. And, again, that's why your scripture will never see print in my responses and shame on you.

I reject your claim. We differ. Next subject. :mario:

Control freak.

If you believe I misuse scripture then say, SD this is an example...

I did exactly that. I referenced it above and set it out with your scripture attached in my last.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. I may be wrong.

I think that's about the saddest thing I've ever read by you. If you actually believe that I honestly don't know what to say to you. Only that I'm sorry for you.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

I wonder who does the most reporting?

 

[Town Heretic]

I wonder who does the most reporting?

I'm really glad you asked that. I went back over the last twenty some odd pages of reports, over a thousand reports going back into last year.

In point of fact: it's me. Well, me and my old friend Sod went at reporting one another a great deal. He'd be ahead but for my recent difficulty with SD. I probably have the record for most reports to fewest posters reported ratio.

Anyway, my count is 68 out of around eleven hundred posts.
Sod came in second with 58.

A lot of people were in the teens. About a half dozen with twenty or more reports.

Over the life of TOL? :idunno: I stopped at November or 2011.

 

[chrysostom]

I'm really glad you asked that. I went back over the last twenty some odd pages of reports, over a thousand reports going back into last year.

In point of fact: it's me. Well, me and my old friend Sod went at reporting one another a great deal. He'd be ahead but for my recent difficulty with SD. I probably have the record for most reports to fewest posters reported ratio.

Anyway, my count is 68 out of around eleven hundred posts.
Sod came in second with 58.

A lot of people were in the teens. About a half dozen with twenty or more reports.

Over the life of TOL? :idunno: I stopped at November or 2011.

now that is a good report

 

[Town Heretic]

now that is a good report

It's an honest one. I always am, whether it serves or injures my interest.

:e4e:

 

[serpentdove]

"You should literally have seen what that meant. I moved the whole thing past your spamming."

Proof please. each:

I originally asked you what this means. You explained that it was some imaginary character which was supposed to be funny. lain:

According to you, I knew what you meant because--you are so clear.

"I am a subscriber. The persona in ALL CAPS isn't."

I'm happy for you and your imaginary play character. lain:

"I only just explained exactly what was going on in the thread and why you had every reason to both understand that and to not come to the odd conclusion you managed to..."

You don't express yourself clearly.

"I don't know what you're talking about in regard to when Knight gave you warning."

Knight gave me a warning because you asked him to. What don't you get? I cannot share the two PMs that he sent me because I have not been given permission to do so.

"The post in question didn't reference you. Nothing in that whole repost did."

Thank you for clarifying that point.

[Suggestion one] "...[W]hen a poster erases large portions of his or her posting it makes it difficult for others to reference the remarks with authority..."

No it doesn't. You can respond to their original comments and allow them the freedom of making revisions and new comments.

"...nless someone quoted them entirely, which doesn't happen that often."

If you subscribe to the thread, you get an email with their original comments. If they change the comments, you can respond to that also. I would suggest providing a timestamp so that the reader knows that you are addressing a comment from an earlier revision.

[It would seem that you attempt to remove member's freedom to express their views, or revise or extend their comments.] "...[Y]ou can't support that."

I provided two examples. 1, 2 It seems like you want to limit freedom of speech. The Left is about Control (Eccl 20:2). The Right is about freedom (Jn 8:36).

"Same for extension. Revise? You have a point. It was probably a bad idea."

You are free to share your idea but in my opinion it was a bad one.

Leftist like to mock me for "post error" on many of my comments. There are too many reasons to list as to why it is necessary to revise a post (e.g. spaces in a YouTube link, capitalizing a particular smilie for it to display correctly, Revising Lu for Lk (Luke) or Co for Col (Colossians) from normal bible abbreviations for links to work in the system, revising [ ; ] [ ) ] in a quote so that it does not turn into a [] smilie, removing asterisks (*) that the computer perceives as consecutive numbers or bullet points, etc.).

[Reporting me] "Because you weren't giving [an] argument."

I asked a question. I could have asked: "Why are you so boring?" or "Do you think anyone enjoys reading your irrelevant, rabbit trail arguments?" :smokie:

"You were mostly engaging in petty insult..."

The former would have been perceived as insulting. My comments which received warnings were genuine questions. I can help you figure out why you are the way you are (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"Why are you the way you are." ~ Michael Scott to Toby, The Office

"You were mostly engaging in petty insult of the "I don't think you're so hot" variety. That's pointless, artless and unanswerable."

I did not quantify your "hotness".

[Lying] "Yes. I already set out you doing exactly that in relation to a conversation we had in another thread..."

Proof please. each:

"You adopted the old "let the reader decide" and then when zoo did called those who would support me either pagans or "other" when he was neither."

There are times when we are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide for himself who is right and who is wrong. each: The ZooAnimal, CheeseWiz, Noguru types :dizzy: will always be there to support you--until they become Christians (Eccl 10:2).

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

[The Left, for example, wants government more in your life. The Right wants government less in your life. Denying this denies reality.] "...[J]ust rhetoric."

Just delusional. :hammer:

"You, being more left than right (your own self identification), tend to want to control people. I, being on the right, do not.] "Nope. My left leaning is both incremental and libertarian. Libertarians don't tend to want to control people..."

They are immoral conservatives (Enyart).

[If I were to post in your thread again, do you think I'd get another warning or even banned? :banned: I do.] "If you made one of your, "You must not be a very good lawyer" comments you should be."

You argue like the Left (Eccl 10:2). Does that translate into brilliance in the courtroom? :idunno: You tell me. Here, we discuss spiritual matters.

[You add a slant (your word not mine). I responded to your slant.] "...[Y]ou didn't. I reproduce works and link to them so the whole thing is verifiable."

You provide commentary before the link.

"You just decided you'd insult me."

I responded to the commentary.

There would be no reason to respond to the original thread referenced.

"Then you did it again."

Then I responded to your odd sounding post in the same thread posted by you right after reporting me.

[I'm not going to start an observations to the observations thread.] "I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting you start your own thread for your own editorial perspective on whatever you write."

Your editorial perspective (your words not mine) was what I had responded to. You don't want to be challenged when you use ad hominem attacks :yawn: against other TOL members.

[:yawn: Strawman. I don't endorse that member] "I didn't say you did. So the straw is between your ears alone."

The topic was ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread. I provided an example:

SD: "Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic

TH: "[The comment is] not about you. It's about a poster who places everyone who disagrees strongly with her on ignore."

SD: :yawn: Strawman. I don't endorse that member (2 Pe 2:1). Yours was an ad hominem attack which members should be allowed to respond to. I support :noway: attacking bad theology (Ga 5:9) not people. each:

I returned to the topic of discussion--your use of ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread and should people be permitted to respond?

"It wasn't an ad hominem."

The example that I provided ("Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic) was an ad hominem attack.

"And I always tackle issues when there's one to tackle. [Meshak] doesn't want to argue. She wants to declare and then treat those who will argue against her theology to a hefty dose of ignore."

:yawn: Strawman. Meshak was not and is not the issue. You are probably right to address her tactics. However, you are wrong to think that you can add "editorial slants" or "editorial perspectives" (your words not mine) without being challenged.

[I support :noway: attacking bad theology not people.] "The attack was on her practice: the practice of hiding behind ignore."

:yawn: Strawman. Meshak was not and is not the issue. I happen to agree with your assessment of Meshak but we were discussing the issue of freedom to respond to ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread.

As you know, there have been many threads started about me specifically. I don't read these. It's bad form on their part. Similarly, if I come upon a thread with a member's name in the title created only to attack the person, the first thing I do is scan the thread to see if that member has chimed in. If they have and they've had the opportunity to defend themselves, I'll join the conversation.

There are rare cases when a member is so deceitful (Ga 5:9) that a thread should be devoted to them (Eph 5:11).

In the case of your thread, I graciously offered a critique. If you don't want my two cents, say so.

:listen: You know if you say so, you only prove my point that Leftists want to silence the critic. :Commie: You will therefore invite me back into your thread and wonder how you ever lived without me. :skeptic:

[Alleged misuse of Eccl 10:2] "I set out your sad misuse of scripture to confuse a right hand with right wing politics."

I believe there is a spiritual issue at play.

"...[T]hat's why your scripture will never see print in my responses and shame on you."

Whether you agree or disagree with a person's interpretations of scripture, you should quote them accurately. If you wish to cut off the scriptural reference (Jn 1:1), then it would be appropriate to make use of ellipses (...). That way the reader can say to himself Hmm? That does sound like a complete thought from SD. I'd better check out the original post.

[I don't think it's a coincidence that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. I may be wrong.] "I think that's about the saddest thing I've ever read by you..."

That's because you believe that I am referring only to politics. I am referring to spiritual underpinnings that cause us to think a certain way which would include our political views (2 Cor 10:4, Eph 6:12).

 

[Town Heretic]

Proof please. each:

That I moved it? If you go there you'll see Moved and the same thread appears in the post following your post. :AMR:

...You don't express yourself clearly.

What do you mean? lain:

Knight gave me a warning because you asked him to.

Do you think Knight just does what anyone asks him to do?

What don't you get? I cannot share the two PMs that he sent me because I have not been given permission to do so.

Yeah. You wouldn't want to betray a confidence...like you just did, in principle.

I provided two examples. It seems like you want to limit freedom of speech.

Asked and answered on both points.

The Left is about Control. The Right is about freedom.

Nah. Liberal philosophy is about a collective answer and responsibility and it has a necessary place in our social compact. Conservative philosophy is premised on individual right and responsibility and it has a necessary place in our social compact.

...I asked a question. I could have asked: "Why are you so boring?"

Except that's not really a question. It's an insult with peculiar punctuation at the end.

or "Do you think anyone enjoys reading your irrelevant, rabbit trail arguments?" :smokie:

See? That's another one. As to people enjoying the thread, sure. And I have about 158,605 reasons to think so. But I'm sure you have a thread with a great many more hits. You should link to it to really, really show me. That would be great. I'll wait...

"You adopted the old "let the reader decide" and then when zoo did called those who would support me either pagans or "other" when he was neither."

There are times when we are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide for himself who is right and who is wrong. each: The ZooAnimal, CheeseWiz, Noguru types :dizzy: will always be there to support you--until they become Christians

Thanks for making my point for me.

Look, you don't need my help to talk to yourself and there's nothing to gain from entertaining you. You don't learn. You won't change.

See you in the funny papers, kid. :e4e:

 

[Eeset]

Reading all these long parsed posts gets boring.

 

[Lon]

This thread asks a question as if the problem is the frequency and not this damnable bias that pretty much ruins the experience for other posters.

There are ways to broach a subject. This board allows single-issue preaching but 100 threads about the presumed non-deity of Christ is like sandpaper. As soon as you act up, it is like pouring salt and lemon juice so of course you get banned. Change the subject or take the one-trick dog and pony show to an arian board where such a view doesn't get old-fast.

So yes, you are right. There is a bias. In fact there are a few favoritisms on this board. This board favors open theism. If I got sassy for disrupting the open theists, I wouldn't cry about it. I'd know exactly why my behavior wasn't tolerated. I am a 'guest' here. Rude, tenacious, undiscerning, etc. guests get bounced. Crying will not change a thing. You are always going to get bounced for rubbing people the wrong way, and seen as an instigator for bugging bikers if you keep walking into a biker establishment and ride and talk about a moped (or almost anything foreign made).

 

[Sum1sGruj]

There are ways to broach a subject. This board allows single-issue preaching but 100 threads about the presumed non-deity of Christ is like sandpaper. As soon as you act up, it is like pouring salt and lemon juice so of course you get banned. Change the subject or take the one-trick dog and pony show to an arian board where such a view doesn't get old-fast.

So yes, you are right. There is a bias. In fact there are a few favoritisms on this board. This board favors open theism. If I got sassy for disrupting the open theists, I wouldn't cry about it. I'd know exactly why my behavior wasn't tolerated. I am a 'guest' here. Rude, tenacious, undiscerning, etc. guests get bounced. Crying will not change a thing. You are always going to get bounced for rubbing people the wrong way, and seen as an instigator for bugging bikers if you keep walking into a biker establishment and ride and talk about a moped (or almost anything foreign made).

Blah., you keep talking about your little triangle. Trinitarians put up a thousand and one threads resembling the same thing, and they are all predictable due to the sheer repetition of the same old things over and over again. No original insight, no interesting context, just a bunch of 'proof texts' and bigoted bantering.

There was a pot who met a kettle
!

The end.

I don't know what your current fascination is with my posts, following me around and bashing me with your insufferable concept, but this subject has nothing to do with your archaic philosophy.

The name of this site is 'theologyonline'. People do not come here thinking that they are going to get treated like crap for having differing views, and so therefore, you all should cease trying to crusade the site. There is no real justification for the way some of you act., as long as one can admit what is so obvious, I wouldn't even have a problem with it. It's the dishonesty that is aggravating.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The site says its biased when you sign up. You didnt have to sign up.

 

[chrysostom]

Reading all these long parsed posts gets boring.

boring people should keep their posts short like you do