Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 10:17 PM

(in my best Homer voice)

Mmmmmm.... Nachos.....ahghghghg *drool*

Lel · 05-12-2003, 10:48 PM

Thanks for the greeting, ShabbyChick!

We need to figure out something about these nachos, though. With or without jalape�os?

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 10:49 PM

From the ACLU/Child porn thread:

Quote:

Starscream:
I feel we need some more rules around here that forces some level of responibilty on posters to provide evidence to their often wild accusations.

Blindfaith:
Such sarcasm doesn't become you, Starscream.

Here is a perfect example of how one-sided the moderation *can* be on that board.

I wonder if I'll get smacked for disagreeing with a moderator?

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lel
Thanks for the greeting, ShabbyChick!

We need to figure out something about these nachos, though. With or without jalape�os?

Usually without for me, unless I'm feeling especially adventurous* (*read drinking alcohol).

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:03 PM

Interesting you mentioned that ACLU thread. TwinCrier's post, to the uninitiated, might appear to have been the product of her own research into the ACLU's policies. In fact the entire post is lifted verbatim from Donna Rice's website. So not only is it completely disingenuous and misleading, it's flagrant plagiarism as well.

And the moderator there is anything but.

seebs · 05-12-2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by faithful slave pedro
Interesting you mentioned that ACLU thread. TwinCrier's post, to the uninitiated, might appear to have been the product of her own research into the ACLU's policies. In fact the entire post is lifted verbatim from Donna Rice's website. So not only is it completely disingenuous and misleading, it's flagrant plagiarism as well.

And the moderator there is anything but.

Could you provide a URL to the original? Plagiarism is taken seriously... I'm not sure which post you mean, the one starting the thread?

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

Sure.

Quote:

This policy is included in its entirety in Appendix I in the book version.

The following are excerpts from ACLU Policy 4, with emphasis added:

(a) "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, publish or distribute materials to adults . . . on the basis of obscenity . . ."

(b) "Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such materials [i.e. including obscenity] to minors violate the First Amendment . . ."

(d) "The ACLU believes that . . . all limitations of expression on the ground of obscenity . . . are unconstitutional."

(g) "The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of any . . . materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law." [This describes child pornography.]

The ACLU's official position on pornography reveals their underlying agenda with respect to filtering or blocking pornography in schools and libraries.

ProtectKids.com

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
Could you provide a URL to the original? Plagiarism is taken seriously... I'm not sure which post you mean, the one starting the thread?

http://www.christianforums.com/showt...940#post950940

That is the post by TwinCrier.

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:16 PM

Meanwhile "Lawyer4God" keeps showing up demanding I substantiate the ridiculous Dobson/Porsche thing, which I intend to do one of these days, even if it means sifting through the Meese Commission hearings transcripts on microfiche.

As if he doesn't have access to a decent law library himself. That board is such a joke, the things some people get away with and the corroboration that is demanded of others.

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 11:20 PM

Ugh. You know, when I read posts by LouisBooth/Outspoken I just want to SSCCCRRREEAAAAAMMMMMM!!!! Please, someone, tell me why he is allowed to remain a moderator when he purposefully cuts quotes down to mean what he wants them to mean then *winks* at the end and everthing is peaches and cream!!! ARGH!

The way he was disagreeing with Seebs in the bugs/suggestions - picking mods thread wasn't his normal modus operandi, yet he still tried to get a few digs in. Why is that allowed, especially in a moderator. And why the comment about atheists posting in that thread? BLAH! whatever.

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

05-12-2003, 10:17 PM	#971
ShabbyChick Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 412	(in my best Homer voice) Mmmmmm.... Nachos.....ahghghghg drool

05-12-2003, 10:48 PM	#972
Lel Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Phx area Posts: 3,122	Thanks for the greeting, ShabbyChick! We need to figure out something about these nachos, though. With or without jalape�os?

05-12-2003, 11:03 PM	#975
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Interesting you mentioned that ACLU thread. TwinCrier's post, to the uninitiated, might appear to have been the product of her own research into the ACLU's policies. In fact the entire post is lifted verbatim from Donna Rice's website. So not only is it completely disingenuous and misleading, it's flagrant plagiarism as well. And the moderator there is anything but.

05-12-2003, 11:16 PM	#979
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Meanwhile "Lawyer4God" keeps showing up demanding I substantiate the ridiculous Dobson/Porsche thing, which I intend to do one of these days, even if it means sifting through the Meese Commission hearings transcripts on microfiche. As if he doesn't have access to a decent law library himself. That board is such a joke, the things some people get away with and the corroboration that is demanded of others.

05-12-2003, 11:20 PM	#980
ShabbyChick Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 412	Ugh. You know, when I read posts by LouisBooth/Outspoken I just want to SSCCCRRREEAAAAAMMMMMM!!!! Please, someone, tell me why he is allowed to remain a moderator when he purposefully cuts quotes down to mean what he wants them to mean then winks at the end and everthing is peaches and cream!!! ARGH! The way he was disagreeing with Seebs in the bugs/suggestions - picking mods thread wasn't his normal modus operandi, yet he still tried to get a few digs in. Why is that allowed, especially in a moderator. And why the comment about atheists posting in that thread? BLAH! whatever.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.