Freethought & Rationalism Archive

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:22 PM

Because a few of them are idiots and hypocrites, basically.

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by faithful slave pedro
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.

I actually think starscreams comment about a rule about people providing a little evidence for their outlandish comments is quite a valid point (as I said in that thread). Some of the things that are said are plainly fabrications, yet "young christians" read those boards and I'm sure fall victim to the lies (ahem) and are "led astray". Where is the accountability?

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by ShabbyChick
I actually think starscreams comment about a rule about people providing a little evidence for their outlandish comments is quite a valid point (as I said in that thread).

Of course it is. Mind you, most of those blockheads seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to call Bill Clinton rotten to the core, a thief, and a murderer, without the slightest whiff of support, yet get quite offended when someone says "Dubya."

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 11:30 PM

"Because a few of them are idiots and hypocrites, basically."

*snort* Well, I know that. Apparently you misread my post. If you would read my post, you would know I know what I said I know even if you don't understand that I know what I know and you don't. It's plainly in the bible, in context. I think you just argue to be arguing.

*wink* *nudge nudge*.

BAH!

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:32 PM

"Context," yeah. Booth's favorite weasel word. Ironically, it's also his greatest abuse.

ShabbyChick · 05-12-2003, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by faithful slave pedro Of course it is. Mind you, most of those blockheads seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to call Bill Clinton rotten to the core, a thief, and a murderer, without the slightest whiff of support, yet get quite offended when someone says "Dubya." [/B]

I know! How funny is that? HE has refered to HIMSELF as "Dubya", as have his followers. (sounds like I'm speaking of the next coming, doesn't it?)

The one-sidedness is often appauling! Like the way they banned Sin of Man and D. Scarlatti and yet allow LouisBooth to roam free and unrestrained. Heh. It's almost funny. *giggle* *snort* *chuckle* *Barf*

Frood Dude is correct, excessive use of *insert bodily function here* does make everything sound MUCH better!

faithful slave pedro · 05-12-2003, 11:49 PM

I just went back and read the entire thread again. It's pretty funny actually; I urge everyone to do so if they already haven't since it contains "Lawyer4God" and "KeysforChrist" salivating over the unsaved burning in hell (their posts were edited but a few other posters enshrined their comments in quotes).

Notice how the various nincompoops are perfectly willing to accept the outrageous allegations in ACLJ's OP, but a bunch of them are absolutely flabbergasted about Dobson's ridiculous and ultimately inconsequential "Chased by Satan in a Porsche" remark, and demand several times for citations.

That's comedy folks, if you're into that sort of thing.

seebs · 05-13-2003, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ShabbyChick
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.

I have sometimes wondered too.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/43508.html

In this thread, I did an experiment: With more than a little cheating, I arranged to be peaceful, polite, and calm, while trying to track down a specific point of discussion. Start at post #32, and read from there.

Disclaimer: I appear much calmer and friendlier in that thread than I am in real life. I had help.

The conclusion I draw from this experiment is that Louis has a problem with admitting *any* error, even a simple misunderstanding.

Arikay · 05-13-2003, 02:52 AM

Arent the admins breaking their own rules? I was looking at the rules and noticed this,

Rule #1
"1) You will not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes accusations whether implied or otherwise that another member is not a Christian when that member claims to be one."

In addition, rule 6 seems to have changed and doesnt include the promotion of Sinfull behavior clause anymore.

It seems to exist in partial form in rule 4 as:
"...In addition, posts in the Christian-only forums that promote questionable behavior that may be considered sinful by the Bible will be removed. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not. ... "

Im getting it from http://www.christianforums.com/rules.html

Just something interesting.

Kassiana · 05-13-2003, 04:21 AM

Okay, I'm feeling a bit ignored here...I asked this above, but I'll ask it again, this time with attention grabbing stuff so maybe these questions will at least get an "Oh, shut the hell up, Rae" response....

1. WHERE did Erwin or whoever finally decide that they can exclude any Christian they like, despite rule 7, from the Christians only forums?

SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Are they going to update rule 7 to add to "belief in the Creed" also "a nearly complete belief in Biblical inerrancy" to keep from misleading even more people in the future?

WHITE CHOCOLATE FUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3. ARE we going to report Outspoken Louis whenever possible in the hopes that maybe someone will come to her/his senses and start editing him?

SMILIN IN THE KITCHEN WITH DINAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

05-13-2003, 04:21 AM	#990
Kassiana Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,046	SEX WITH LOUIS OUTSPOKEN!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, I'm feeling a bit ignored here...I asked this above, but I'll ask it again, this time with attention grabbing stuff so maybe these questions will at least get an "Oh, shut the hell up, Rae" response.... 1. WHERE did Erwin or whoever finally decide that they can exclude any Christian they like, despite rule 7, from the Christians only forums? SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. Are they going to update rule 7 to add to "belief in the Creed" also "a nearly complete belief in Biblical inerrancy" to keep from misleading even more people in the future? WHITE CHOCOLATE FUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3. ARE we going to report Outspoken Louis whenever possible in the hopes that maybe someone will come to her/his senses and start editing him? SMILIN IN THE KITCHEN WITH DINAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

05-12-2003, 11:22 PM	#981
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Because a few of them are idiots and hypocrites, basically.

05-12-2003, 11:29 PM	#983
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	Originally posted by ShabbyChick I actually think starscreams comment about a rule about people providing a little evidence for their outlandish comments is quite a valid point (as I said in that thread). Of course it is. Mind you, most of those blockheads seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to call Bill Clinton rotten to the core, a thief, and a murderer, without the slightest whiff of support, yet get quite offended when someone says "Dubya."

05-12-2003, 11:30 PM	#984
ShabbyChick Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 412	"Because a few of them are idiots and hypocrites, basically." snort Well, I know that. Apparently you misread my post. If you would read my post, you would know I know what I said I know even if you don't understand that I know what I know and you don't. It's plainly in the bible, in context. I think you just argue to be arguing. wink nudge nudge. BAH!

05-12-2003, 11:32 PM	#985
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	"Context," yeah. Booth's favorite weasel word. Ironically, it's also his greatest abuse.

05-12-2003, 11:49 PM	#987
faithful slave pedro Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: US Posts: 89	I just went back and read the entire thread again. It's pretty funny actually; I urge everyone to do so if they already haven't since it contains "Lawyer4God" and "KeysforChrist" salivating over the unsaved burning in hell (their posts were edited but a few other posters enshrined their comments in quotes). Notice how the various nincompoops are perfectly willing to accept the outrageous allegations in ACLJ's OP, but a bunch of them are absolutely flabbergasted about Dobson's ridiculous and ultimately inconsequential "Chased by Satan in a Porsche" remark, and demand several times for citations. That's comedy folks, if you're into that sort of thing.

05-13-2003, 02:52 AM	#989
Arikay Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ca, Usa Posts: 262	Arent the admins breaking their own rules? I was looking at the rules and noticed this, Rule #1 "1) You will not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes accusations whether implied or otherwise that another member is not a Christian when that member claims to be one." In addition, rule 6 seems to have changed and doesnt include the promotion of Sinfull behavior clause anymore. It seems to exist in partial form in rule 4 as: "...In addition, posts in the Christian-only forums that promote questionable behavior that may be considered sinful by the Bible will be removed. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not. ... " Im getting it from http://www.christianforums.com/rules.html Just something interesting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.