Evangelion

Beyelzu -

Have you spent any length of time on the "Politics" board at www.christianforums.com? It's quite an eye-opener.

If you disagreed with the war on Iraq, you were a "Commie" (regardless of your actual political leanings.)

If you disagreed with Bush's theocratic madness, you were a "Godless atheist" or, alternatively, a "liberal Christian."

If you disagreed with the moderators on any topic whatsoever, you were a "liberal." (Again, regardless of your actual political leanings.)

And so it went on...

on the other hand, banning for a different opinion is complete bullshit.[/quote]

They did indeed ban me for a different opinion. Not only that, but they banned me for (a) refuting their arguments (particuarly those of the "Fundy rhetoric" type), (b) exposing their hypocrisy, and (c) proving that they had broken their own rules.

Oh yes indeed. The "rest of the story" is that I proved that they were (a) playing the double standards game, and (b) using more logical fallacies in a single post, than most people use in a year.

They didn't like that very much, so... I was banned.

They warned me, but I didn't receive my full quota of warnings before I was banned. Not only that, but my posts were edited and deleted at the whim of the moderators, for no good reason.

You can ask anyone who was there: Sauron, Annabel Lee, Brimshack, and the rest of the good folks who stood by me. They'll confirm that I was unfairly treated, just as they were themselves.

Incidentally, I emailed one of the more reasonable moderators as soon as I was banned, and she said she'd see what she could do about getting me back on again. But alas, it was all to no avail... :boohoo:

Evangelion

Here's an example of what I mean.

It's an excerpt from a post by one of the moderators on the "Politics" board at www.christianforums.com

I started a new thread in which I challenged him to defend this assertion - but he made no attempt to vindicate it.

As soon as my thread began to attract attention, he deleted it and invented a new rule which stated (get this) that people were no longer allowed to comment on the subject of other threads!

IOW, each thread had to be entire unto itself. You weren't allowed to discuss other people's posts in alternative threads.

Now, you tell me - does that sound reasonable?

Jat

This sounds just like a few Christian evo/creat boards I use to visit. The sysop kept changing the rules to suite his agenda. What a bunch of hypocrits there.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by lunachick
I was completely gobsmacked by the insignia that was posted on page 2 of this thread. These people frighten me.

Well, at least he fessed up:

"Yes, I'm a cold-blooded, war-mongering, insensitive, blindly patriotic and easily manipulated ['Christian'] individual who is deceived by the right-wing media and an antiquated sense of duty to country and national pride."

That describes several of the mouth breathers over there.

ieyeasu

I know that none of you folks know me too well, but...

I seem to need a recommendation to CF. They won't take my e-mail without it; I use hotmail.

Can anybody give me an endorsment?

beyelzu

They did indeed ban me for a different opinion. Not only that, but they banned me for (a) refuting their arguments (particuarly those of the "Fundy rhetoric" type), (b) exposing their hypocrisy, and (c) proving that they had broken their own rules.



Oh yes indeed. The "rest of the story" is that I proved that they were (a) playing the double standards game, and (b) using more logical fallacies in a single post, than most people use in a year.

They didn't like that very much, so... I was banned.



They warned me, but I didn't receive my full quota of warnings before I was banned. Not only that, but my posts were edited and deleted at the whim of the moderators, for no good reason.

You can ask anyone who was there: Sauron, Annabel Lee, Brimshack, and the rest of the good folks who stood by me. They'll confirm that I was unfairly treated, just as they were themselves.

Incidentally, I emailed one of the more reasonable moderators as soon as I was banned, and she said she'd see what she could do about getting me back on again. But alas, it was all to no avail... :boohoo: [/QUOTE]

well, sounds pretty messed up. I have heard other people with siilar tales.

I think that the mods here are pretty even handed. I have had some of my posts edited when they were insulting(I can get carried away in the heat of battle) but nothing like you received at cf.

course xians arent really noted for their tolerance now are they??

Hubble head

They did indeed ban me for a different opinion. Not only that, but they banned me for (a) refuting their arguments (particuarly those of the "Fundy rhetoric" type), (b) exposing their hypocrisy, and (c) proving that they had broken their own rules.



Oh yes indeed. The "rest of the story" is that I proved that they were (a) playing the double standards game, and (b) using more logical fallacies in a single post, than most people use in a year.

They didn't like that very much, so... I was banned.



They warned me, but I didn't receive my full quota of warnings before I was banned. Not only that, but my posts were edited and deleted at the whim of the moderators, for no good reason.

You can ask anyone who was there: Sauron, Annabel Lee, Brimshack, and the rest of the good folks who stood by me. They'll confirm that I was unfairly treated, just as they were themselves.

Incidentally, I emailed one of the more reasonable moderators as soon as I was banned, and she said she'd see what she could do about getting me back on again. But alas, it was all to no avail... :boohoo: [/QUOTE]


I'm stumped. Why would anyone WANT to be on those boards? I'd rather have my eyes poked out with a hot stick.

Joe6Pack

Well Jat , Thanks for clearing that up. It's funny that you mention the book "Slander" Ms. Coulter points out that many liberals that disagree with conservative views resort to slanderous statements like yours. Instead of actually coming up with a decent counterpoint. It would seem that you have proved her right. There is also(in my opinion) a lot of points she makes that I do not agree with, but that best left for another thread. Good day.

Jat

It's only slander when its untrue. And once you hear her speak there is no doubt about what she is thinking. Her "book" is nothing more than "poisoning the well".

Joe6Pack

Did you read her book? If you did you might think that the well was poisoned already. The book points out (with a conservative slant) just how messed up the media is.