Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chrysalis · 04-28-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

Careful on your criticisms. Calling another IIDB Member dishonest--lest you forget, Bradford is an IIDB member-- is immediately editable. Keep your comments out of the realm of personal attacks and in the realm of verifiable facts.

No more warnings on this one. I will lock the thread and take my sweet time sorting things out as needed, should this continue.

SwordOfTruth,
~E~ Moderator

SOT, Bradford said he was making his last post here and would not return. I think that might have lead some to believe he was no longer a member.

Blaster · 04-28-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

Careful on your criticisms. Calling another IIDB Member dishonest--lest you forget, Bradford is an IIDB member-- is immediately editable. Keep your comments out of the realm of personal attacks and in the realm of verifiable facts.

No more warnings on this one. I will lock the thread and take my sweet time sorting things out as needed, should this continue.

SwordOfTruth,
~E~ Moderator

Sorry SoT,
But, Nothing I have said and have (pm's, etc) is unverifiable.

Alethias · 04-28-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrysalis

SOT, Bradford said he was making his last post here and would not return. I think that might have lead some to believe he was no longer a member.

If that is the case, they are mistaken. He is not on the banlist, and still has an account in good standing, whether or not he ever uses it is beside the point as far as the rules are concerned.

While I may find certain actions attributed to certain CF Posters repulsive, I see nothing in IIDB rules that allows me to make distinctions like that in how i enforce the rules.

We've had stormfront white nationalists post racist shit on some of the forums here. I'm free to criticize their posts and their horrible ideas, but if I don't separate that from personally attacking them, I will rightfully get edited. Same applies with anyone who has an account here in good standing, regardless of whether or not they ever intend to use it or how we may feel about them.

Centurion · 04-28-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaster

Cut with the dramatic Bullshit.

When has it not been a problem when someone shows up UNEXPECTEDLY at places where you frequent ??

I know for a fact that this is truth, I SAW IT with my own eyes.
Not the showing up, But, The rep comments, the pics etc.
Also, I have no reason to not believe LH. She has a HELL of a lot more credibility IMHO.

I was yet on staff when this went down.
dsdumping herself sent me pm's that brad sent her.
Now tell me I'm making shit up............

I don't know if you are making certain things up, but your thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2947...-policies.html
(if it is connected)
with the patented blaster blindside/beat-down behavior displayed when someone asks a question or gives an opinion that isn't right in line with yours, followed only by the "innocent description" on how the whole OP became a question leaves me asking questions of integrity too.
Just not the same ones. That is if this "issue" and that thread are connected.

Given that I have seen the "I'm on a mission so get out of my way" display in the past, how is what you are doing and who you are targeting not you being guilty of the same thing you claim as having allegedly happened? Personal information, stalking a member, harassing, etc...

There are authorities that have the RIGHT to do certain things, there are also key people that have the RIGHT to do certain things and are in position to do something. The usual "public display" and "my version" accusation(s) is noted as being more in line with those that don't have enough evidence, being the "only one(s)" with the evidence or vigilante style justice. Sure, there is the conspiracy and injustice via favoritism possibility, but that can be broken by adding one or more respected and godly people and expanding on that - you know persuading reasonable and fair people.
The "battle cry" and invitation for any and all accusations against a member may be viewed as merely fishing for random numbers in mob-handed justice.
Is that your goal?

Blaster · 04-28-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

I don't know if you are making certain things up, but your thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2947...-policies.html
(if it is connected)
with the patented blaster blindside/beat-down behavior displayed when someone asks a question or gives an opinion that isn't right in line with yours, followed only by the "innocent description" on how the whole OP became a question leaves me asking questions of integrity too.
Just not the same ones. That is if this "issue" and that thread are connected.

Given that I have seen the "I'm on a mission so get out of my way" display in the past, how is what you are doing and who you are targeting not you being guilty of the same thing you claim as having allegedly happened? Personal information, stalking a member, harassing, etc...

There are authorities that have the RIGHT to do certain things, there are also key people that have the RIGHT to do certain things and are in position to do something. The usual "public display" and "my version" accusation(s) is noted as being more in line with those that don't have enough evidence, being the "only one(s)" with the evidence or vigilante style justice. Sure, there is the conspiracy and injustice via favoritism possibility, but that can be broken by adding one or more respected and godly people and expanding on that - you know persuading reasonable and fair people.
The "battle cry" and invitation for any and all accusations against a member may be viewed as merely fishing for random numbers in mob-handed justice.
Is that your goal?

Just ask your question in plain english without all the convolution.
Please ??

Crazy Liz · 04-28-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaster

The way I see it, If the others were not allowed to do this WITHOUT being pressured into stepping down, Fair is Fair.
They are not idle accusations either.
They are factual and have yet to be addressed to the satisfaction of those who this was perpetrated against.
BTW, When I tried to do this myself on several occasions with others, I was blown off like a leaf in the wind.
It is very hard to say anything to anyone that refuses to admit there has been any wrong doing.
Right or Wrong ??

Also, Scriptural mandates ONLY work when one is willing to admit their errors.
Since this hasn't worked for some, It is now in the open.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaster

Hey Chrys,
No offense taken here.
Right now, I can't really divulge a whole lot other than I have done to this point.
He is aware of the problem and is willing to take it before ALL of staff for their consideration.
I think that the ultimate issue is removal and banning. That is what's being asked for at this point.
That in itself would do alot towards the healing and hurt feelings knowing that nobody else would be subjected to this again or at anytime in the future.

This "out in the open," but at the same time "can't divulge" stuff is crazymaking and gossipy. It makes me really uncomfortable.

It reminds me of the kind of doublespeak I'm used to hearing from CF staff.

For the sake of integrity, I think anything a person feels must be publicly exposed ought to be stated directly and specifically. Innuendoes can be read a lot of ways, and the reader has no way of knowing whether they are drawing the correct conclusion or not.

I really don't like this kind of talk in public. If you can't discuss the specifics, don't post it. (IMHO) If you can only discuss the specifics in private, then only talk about it in private.

You are, of course, free to say whatever you want, so far as it is allowed here. This is just my opinion. I don't like it.

Blaster · 04-28-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

This "out in the open," but at the same time "can't divulge" stuff is crazymaking and gossipy. It makes me really uncomfortable.

It reminds me of the kind of doublespeak I'm used to hearing from CF staff.

For the sake of integrity, I think anything a person feels must be publicly exposed ought to be stated directly and specifically. Innuendoes can be read a lot of ways, and the reader has no way of knowing whether they are drawing the correct conclusion or not.

I really don't like this kind of talk in public. If you can't discuss the specifics, don't post it. (IMHO) If you can only discuss the specifics in private, then only talk about it in private.

You are, of course, free to say whatever you want, so far as it is allowed here. This is just my opinion. I don't like it.

If LH and others want for more to be known, I leave that to them. Unless I get permission from them to divulge more.
Fair enough ??
I have no problems with showing my hand.
You can also wipe your backside with your insults.
I did not insult you to this point.
Keep 'em to yourself.

Centurion · 04-28-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

This "out in the open," but at the same time "can't divulge" stuff is crazymaking and gossipy. It makes me really uncomfortable.

It reminds me of the kind of doublespeak I'm used to hearing from CF staff.

For the sake of integrity, I think anything a person feels must be publicly exposed ought to be stated directly and specifically. Innuendoes can be read a lot of ways, and the reader has no way of knowing whether they are drawing the correct conclusion or not.

I really don't like this kind of talk in public. If you can't discuss the specifics, don't post it. (IMHO) If you can only discuss the specifics in private, then only talk about it in private.

You are, of course, free to say whatever you want, so far as it is allowed here. This is just my opinion. I don't like it.

Brace yourself... I agree with most of your statements Crazy Liz.

Blaster · 04-28-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praying

I agree, if something should be done by anyone it should be Erwin doing it, and that includes, asking members to come forward, making announcements etc. Whatever is entailed to get to the bottom of the matter should be done by Erwin.

Erwin has not been around enough to know about this.
Thats why it's coming out now.
So He CAN do something once and for all.

chrysalis · 04-28-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praying

I agree, if something should be done by anyone it should be Erwin doing it, and that includes, asking members to come forward, making announcements etc. Whatever is entailed to get to the bottom of the matter should be done by Erwin.

I think the request for anyone (female?)that has experienced sexual harassment from Bradford to report this to Erwin was clear and straightforward.

We can leave it at that.
I just hope there is a way that this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but it looks unlikely that will happen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.