Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seebs · 05-11-2003, 12:45 PM

Well, it sorta shocked me that the "One Accord" thread got deleted; it was funny, and friendly, and it's not as though every conversation should be required to be *serious*.

I don't know that the bias is a problem for tax status; religious organizations are presumed to have a bias.

faithful slave pedro · 05-11-2003, 12:45 PM

They are not allowed to endorse political candidates, that's why I said "at least a constructive violation."

Lel · 05-11-2003, 01:47 PM

Is CF based in Australia, or are they organized as some sort of entity in the US?

faithful slave pedro · 05-11-2003, 02:02 PM

Ah sorry my mistake then. I saw that "non-profit" thing and figured they sent tax-deductible receipts for the donations. I guess they don't. Instead you get "blessings," which as everyone knows are far more valuable.

livius drusus · 05-11-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
No, it's also targetted at two people who have sex within committed relationships that are not currently "marriages".

The ignorance of historical Christian understanding of "marriage" is, frankly, shocking.

But mostly, it's targetted at making sure that, if you're a new Christian, you get the idea that it's all easy sailing with no controversy, so that, when you meet someone in the real world who disagrees, you have no idea what the scope of the debate is, and you've never seen any of the Scriptural arguments before, to make sure you're completely blindsided.

That, I suspect, is the plan of the entity who pushed most strongly for this rule, using fundamentalism and fear as wedges to make sure that the rule got accepted without due consideration of the dangers it poses.

(And please, mods, if we're crossing the line, move the thread out into an open forum; this thread was intentionally started in a forum where theists could say things that sounded preachy, because sometimes we do that when we're talking about our disputes.)

There's no problem here, seebs. I know people who sound preachy talking about weed. It's haranguing we seek to avoid, lectures, commentaries on the existence/condition of other's souls, threats of posthumous horrors and all that jazz. You're not even close.

seebs · 05-11-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
There's no problem here, seebs. I know people who sound preachy talking about weed. It's haranguing we seek to avoid, lectures, commentaries on the existence/condition of other's souls, threats of posthumous horrors and all that jazz. You're not even close.

Ahh. Okay. I know that the SL&S guidelines were fairly strict at one point, wasn't sure how they interacted.

I'm still, frankly, a little stunned by the whole thing; I guess the critical mass of "issues" finally built up.

Amusingly, they're attacking PastorFreud for having something in his .signature saying that LouisBooth has judged him a non-Christian.

Seems to me that, if they have a problem with people making factual claims about what LouisBooth does, they should MAKE HIM STOP DOING THOSE THINGS. But no; LouisBooth is magic. He can call my wife a cheating slut. He can call people false teachers, and deceivers, and anything else he wants. He can NEVER ONCE APOLOGIZE - I have never seen him apologize, even once, in any way that a parent would accept. (He fails the "say it like you mean it" clause; "I'm sorry you don't like that you're not wise" is not an apology.) He can do all these things, but because he thinks the Bible is literal truth, that's okay, he's a Christian, but people who *follow* the teachings, but don't always believe every last word is at face value... they're *dangerous*.

I have lost count of the number of people I've seen LouisBooth condemn. I've lost count of the lies he's told, the attacks he's made, the times he's responded to serious questions or arguments with mere derision.

But, apparently, he is to be the model for the board; the one person whose actions must not be questioned or challenged.

The Frood Dude · 05-11-2003, 06:30 PM

Well, Gunny made it clear that if I didn't change my signature, I would be officially warned for "flaming." I fail to see how posting Louis's public opinion of my Christianity is "flaming." I changed my sig to a quote from Louis. I have seen others with quotes in their sigs, so I think this should be OK.

My sig now says:
"I'm not calling you a hell spawned liar because of your view which is exactly where your view comes from though."
Louis Booth (in his nonstaff posting account)

Hmm... I'm not calling you a whore just because you sell your body to people like a whore does.

I have also noticed that Louis (aka Outspoken) gets away with exremely offensive comments by putting a *chuckle* or LOL or a

in the post. Or, by putting a ? at the end instead of a period. -- You are a dirty, stinking, liar?

Oh the love.

Funny side note-- if they keep giving me warnings, I won't have any blessings left to be able to change my signature! I once got a warning for failing to edit a post on a locked thread. Hello! I could not edit a post on a locked thread, even though I tried.

seebs · 05-11-2003, 06:43 PM

You might, in happier times, have been able to query them about the warning for not editing a post in a locked thread. I've seen the staff fail to realize that something is a staff feature - AA once told someone to look at the big red number at the bottom of his posts to see how many warnings he had. (Mods see that.)

I was stunned by the "hell spawned liar" post. I actually referred to it once when trying to explain how to "subtly" flame people. If I say "I'm not calling you a liar", then everyone's attention is immediately called to the question of where the idea that you *are* a liar would have come from...

The Frood Dude · 05-11-2003, 06:57 PM

Seebs, I am so grateful that you did not beat your wife today. Praise God!

You mean like that?

seebs · 05-11-2003, 06:59 PM

Sorta. The "I'm not saying you're a hell-spawned liar" one was truly classic. Hard to improve on that.

Sometimes, the temptation to actually flame back was pretty strong, but I mostly swore off flame wars a while back; they didn't do me any good. Which isn't to say I didn't occasionally practice a bit.

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

05-11-2003, 12:45 PM	#931
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Well, it sorta shocked me that the "One Accord" thread got deleted; it was funny, and friendly, and it's not as though every conversation should be required to be serious. I don't know that the bias is a problem for tax status; religious organizations are presumed to have a bias.

05-11-2003, 12:45 PM	#932
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	They are not allowed to endorse political candidates, that's why I said "at least a constructive violation."

05-11-2003, 01:47 PM	#933
Lel Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Phx area Posts: 3,122	Is CF based in Australia, or are they organized as some sort of entity in the US?

05-11-2003, 02:02 PM	#934
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Ah sorry my mistake then. I saw that "non-profit" thing and figured they sent tax-deductible receipts for the donations. I guess they don't. Instead you get "blessings," which as everyone knows are far more valuable.

05-11-2003, 06:30 PM	#937
The Frood Dude Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 41	Well, Gunny made it clear that if I didn't change my signature, I would be officially warned for "flaming." I fail to see how posting Louis's public opinion of my Christianity is "flaming." I changed my sig to a quote from Louis. I have seen others with quotes in their sigs, so I think this should be OK. My sig now says: "I'm not calling you a hell spawned liar because of your view which is exactly where your view comes from though." Louis Booth (in his nonstaff posting account) Hmm... I'm not calling you a whore just because you sell your body to people like a whore does. I have also noticed that Louis (aka Outspoken) gets away with exremely offensive comments by putting a chuckle or LOL or a in the post. Or, by putting a ? at the end instead of a period. -- You are a dirty, stinking, liar? Oh the love. Funny side note-- if they keep giving me warnings, I won't have any blessings left to be able to change my signature! I once got a warning for failing to edit a post on a locked thread. Hello! I could not edit a post on a locked thread, even though I tried.

05-11-2003, 06:43 PM	#938
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	You might, in happier times, have been able to query them about the warning for not editing a post in a locked thread. I've seen the staff fail to realize that something is a staff feature - AA once told someone to look at the big red number at the bottom of his posts to see how many warnings he had. (Mods see that.) I was stunned by the "hell spawned liar" post. I actually referred to it once when trying to explain how to "subtly" flame people. If I say "I'm not calling you a liar", then everyone's attention is immediately called to the question of where the idea that you are a liar would have come from...

05-11-2003, 06:57 PM	#939
The Frood Dude Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 41	Seebs, I am so grateful that you did not beat your wife today. Praise God! You mean like that?

05-11-2003, 06:59 PM	#940
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Sorta. The "I'm not saying you're a hell-spawned liar" one was truly classic. Hard to improve on that. Sometimes, the temptation to actually flame back was pretty strong, but I mostly swore off flame wars a while back; they didn't do me any good. Which isn't to say I didn't occasionally practice a bit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.