I've done it, a lot.Shame on anyone negative repping anyone.
I've done it, a lot.Shame on anyone negative repping anyone.
I do it because I feel like it.Depends on the purpose for giving them.
THAT would have been quite easy to state instead of all the claims that he was a new user. When I reported CS for being a Voltaire, your reply in the woodshed was that he WAS a completely new user.
Since then, you have also stated that Crucible is NOT Sum1sgruj/Skybringr/Homeskillet, etc. that he is also a new user. AFTER that, several other people, including Angel, have flat out stated the same thing ... that he is Sum.
Now perhaps Knight also gave him permission to come back. THAT would, of course, be his choice. I was called out after Koban (who has a history of making petty reports to try to get people banned) and GD) joined up to defend him.
Since then, no one else has been corrected and told "NO, Crucible is a brand new user".
Angel even confronted him yesterday and told him it is obvious who he is and that he should come clean.
Even if a moderator's response about a user is something I don't like such as "well, we decided to give him another chance", it's an honest answer and doesn't cause the break down of trust to those who are in an authority position and should be setting an example.
And before the twin sowers of discord try to spin this as being disrespectful to a mod, that is not what I am doing. I would just like the inconsistencies cleared up.
I've done it, a lot.
I don't think it means to reconcile.So how does forgiveness work in that situation?
If you would ever learn to mind your own business, instead of making it YOUR job to out those who have been allowed to come back, none of this needed to have happened.
It's Knight's business, and it's ridiculous for you to put Sherman up as the one at fault since she was simply doing her job. YOU, on the other hand, are a nosey old busy body who thinks she's the Queen of the Boards. Sherman tried to get you to let it go, and you refused. She doesn't owe you any explanations.
Lets clear the air about CS/BOLCATS/Voltaire since you have figured out that they are the same user. You are correct. Knight allowed him back. He made his bed with the things he's done with his profiles and posts. He now has to sleep in it.
There does come a point, though, when you need to forgive and not follow the person around constantly reminding him of his failures. It does not mean, that you necessarily can trust that person again.
PJ did the same. Where's your outrage on that one?
I am (...) given neg reps that state "burn in hell, demon"
You nailed it but you won't get half the grief as me for saying it.
PJ did the same. Where's your outrage on that one?
Yeah, and you also believe polygamy is fine and you can be sexually aroused when you look at another woman but it isn't lusting.
I think it includes everyone.So are you and many others.He's blind to his hypocrisy.
I have no idea what you are accusing him of. He didn't claim to be my friend, then lie to me and manipulate my wife. He didn't claim he wasn't a Christian and disparaged Christians.
If ClimateSanity believed that, would you be his friend? :think:
Again, polygamy isn't a sin. We're not polygamists and have no plans to be polygamists. You are accusing me of wanting to not do something that is not immoral. :chuckle:
Lusting is coveting, according to the Bible. It is not being sexually aroused by the opposite sex. If I covet another man's wife, I'm an adulterer. If I find her attractive, I've done nothing wrong. If I become aroused, I've done nothing wrong. If I desire to have her in spite of her husband, it's lusting (coveting) and adultery whether I think it or do it. You are trying to make normal sexual attraction between the sexes immoral and calling it "lust."
Put ClimateSanity under the yoke of your interpretations. He deserves that. It will be poetic justice.
I am bashed, given neg reps that state "burn in hell, demon" and comments on the board such "I can't wait to watch you burning in hell, Rusha" because I refuse to LIE about my beliefs.
Someone (CS/Voltaire) whose views are suppose to be representative of this site is still applauded and defended by some after using his belief in Christianity as a game to deceive others.
:rotfl:
I think it includes everyone.
I can give one word that will show the hypocrisy of "let bygones be bygones" from many of the women that have posted in this thread, without even saying where it was said, and they will know what I'm getting at.
Eeset.
Yep.He did claim Jesus was not God, and he did say he agreed with Meshak, and he did say he didn't believe in dispensationalism. He said a lot of things and then contradicted himself later.
Liar
Here is the whole quote ... including the words you deliberately changed. Not that I expect anything more from you or the other one who has been proven over and over again to be deliberately dishonest.
I am bashed, given neg reps that state "burn in hell, demon"
I am (...) given neg reps that state "burn in hell, demon"
Yep.
Sooooo, hows that "let bygones be bygones" looking to you now?
What are you talking about