Banned from Christianity Forum

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Fair enough, but editing posts after they've been replied to isn't on tbh. Better to reply in a different post and explain that you just made a mistake.

Agree, don't even think I realised you had replied.

Seamus who's side are you on?

nesf

seamus wrote:

Are you guys still talking about this banning or debating something else entirely?

How is the content of the thread in Xtianity (see what I did there?) in any way relevant to this thread?

It was related, then it kind of spiralled off into a hazy side area.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

It was related, then it kind of spiralled off into a hazy side area.

Nesf wanted to hit a man when he was down basically. Hope you feel good Nesf.

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote:

Seamus who's side are you on?

All I've read of this thread is the title.

I severely dislike "why was I banned" discussions, when people start discussing the topic of thread rather than the reason for being banned.

The content of the discussion is rarely a relevant factor when discussing ban.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote:

All I've read of this thread is the title.

I severely dislike "why was I banned" discussions, when people start discussion the topic of thread rather than the reason for being banned.

The content of the discussion is rarely a relevant factor when discussing ban.

?

seamus

I'm trying to decide if it's worth my while even giving my 2c here, or have you gone entirely off the topic of your having been banned?

Nevyn

seamus wrote:

All I've read of this thread is the title.

I severely dislike "why was I banned" discussions, when people start discussing the topic of thread rather than the reason for being banned.

The content of the discussion is rarely a relevant factor when discussing ban.

They do it so that they have have thier say and 'prove' thier point and reargue
the thread in a forum which is not as restricted as the one they have been banned from.

Tim Robbins

Thaedydal wrote:

They do it so that they have have thier say and 'prove' thier point and reargue
the thread in a forum which is not as restricted as the one they have been banned from.

They might actually have a point Thaedydal.

seamus

Tim.

You were banned for acting like an upset child. Get over it. You were given nothing more than a little "watch your tone" nod from the moderator, and you decided to pull the whole thread off topic to discuss it. Then you started a brand new thread, taking the piss.

If you continue to attempt to argue whatever it was you were arguing in that original thread, then I'll lock this one.

I'm on no-one's side, but sanity's.

RuggieBear

why is this not locked?

seamus

I don't like to lock threads on Feedback. Only the admins should be allowed to censor the masses.

Boston

Smods shouldn't be moderating Feedback.

RuggieBear

while i agree with that...there are plenty of instances of Smods locking ****e like this on feedback.

seamus

There are 80 posts between #11 and #91 that I haven't read. So I'm not aware of any ****e in this thread. Sometimes ignorance *is* bliss

Boston

RuggieBear wrote:

while i agree with that...there are plenty of instances of Smods locking ****e like this on feedback.

Nah, theres plenty of **** which should be locked, but the Smods (bar the usual blatant spam and abuse) shouldn't be the ones doing it.

Like this for instance, it's pointless ranting thread, contributing nothing in the way of feedback, achieving nothing. But is there a need for an Smod to step in, I don't think so, in the same way an Smod wouldn't step in where this on another forum.

On the other hand, take IceQueens thread, extremely abusive and extremely libel, and nothing but a total troll. An Smod would lock that and ban the user on any forum.

RuggieBear

Boston wrote:

Nah, theres plenty of **** which should be locked, but the Smods (bar the usual blatant spam and abuse) shouldn't be the ones doing it.

Like this for instance, it's pointless ranting thread, contributing nothing in the way of feedback, achieving nothing. But is there a need for an Smod to step in, I don't think so, in the same way an Smod wouldn't step in where this on another forum.

On the other hand, take IceQueens thread, extremely abusive and extremely libel, and nothing but a total troll. An Smod would lock that and ban the user on any forum.

hmm...that makes sense. I can't but agree with you.

perhaps i'll go back and edit my orginal post.

BrianCalgary

Have to wade in here.

The banning was for as seamus said: You were banned for acting like an upset child. Get over it. You were given nothing more than a little "watch your tone" nod from the moderator, and you decided to pull the whole thread off topic to discuss it. Then you started a brand new thread, taking the piss.

The Christianity board is for discussion, which includes banter, faith, the odd jibe and even the odd insult. Every now and then people get warned about their behaviuor, not often though. Their response is generally is positive and they let things die. Unfortunaetly Tim didn't respect this when a thread was locked and then he continued it elsewhere. Kind of felt as though he was saying 'ohe yeah well we'll see who's boss".

If as Tim has implied that you are not allowed to slam Christianity, Luther or any of the other greats, there would be no one posting on it as we'd all be banned.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Have to wade in here.

The banning was for as seamus said: You were banned for acting like an upset child. Get over it. You were given nothing more than a little "watch your tone" nod from the moderator, and you decided to pull the whole thread off topic to discuss it. Then you started a brand new thread, taking the piss.

The Christianity board is for discussion, which includes banter, faith, the odd jibe and even the odd insult. Every now and then people get warned about their behaviuor, not often though. Their response is generally is positive and they let things die. Unfortunaetly Tim didn't respect this when a thread was locked and then he continued it elsewhere. Kind of felt as though he was saying 'ohe yeah well we'll see who's boss".

If as Tim has implied that you are not allowed to slam Christianity, Luther or any of the other greats, there would be no one posting on it as we'd all be banned.

Or I ask a question that you didn't want asked.
Lock this thread if you want. I think everyone has had their say.

Blowfish

seamus wrote:

There are 80 posts between #11 and #91 that I haven't read. So I'm not aware of any ****e in this thread. Sometimes ignorance *is* bliss

A wise decision, you didn't miss much.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Or I ask a question that you didn't want asked.

Why would he want it asked? It was a petty knee-jerk reaction to what happened on the other thread. It was obvious that you didn't actually want to reasonably debate that question. Starting a thread based on the moderating decision of another thread is a childish idea.

Tim Robbins

Blowfish wrote:

Why would he want it asked? It was a petty knee-jerk reaction to what happened on the other thread. It was obvious that you didn't actually want to reasonably debate that question. Starting a thread based on the moderating decision of another thread is a childish idea.

I wanted to get to the core of issue, (Is it bad to think an argument is pathetic, or is bad to say an argument is pathetic?) actually.
The reason being is I am convinced that Mod has had it in for me for while.
However this is quite a hard thing to argue, especially if we could get to the core of the issue. I wouldn't think the Mod had it in for me if we could get to the core of the issue i.e. saying something is a pathetic argument is unacceptable in Christian philosophy due to .......

seamus

Urge to lock....rising....

Crucifix

Tim Robbins wrote:

I wanted to get to the core of issue, (Is it bad to think an argument is pathetic, or is bad to say an argument is pathetic?) actually.

That's an issue for PM (for clarification and discussion with the mod) or feedback (if everything's clear and you still have a problem), not the christianity forum.

aidan_walsh

Tim, your argument is pathetic.






So how did that make you feel? Remember that...

Tim Robbins

Crucifix wrote:

That's an issue for PM (for clarification and discussion with the mod) or feedback (if everything's clear and you still have a problem), not the christianity forum.

Good point.
What happens if a Mod has it in for you how do you deal with that?
Seamus can you leave this thread open?

seamus

You can post here or on the help desk providing as many links as possible, and keeping your post as curt and relevant as possible.

Cactus Col

Crucifix wrote:

That's an issue for PM (for clarification and discussion with the mod) or feedback (if everything's clear and you still have a problem), not the christianity forum.

I thought BrianCalgary answered that when he pointed out that it seemed like you were getting personal. Which the tone of your post implied.

And BrianCalgary just warned you to be careful. It all seemed reasonable enough. Until you decided to start arguing the point.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

I wanted to get to the core of issue, (Is it bad to think an argument is pathetic, or is bad to say an argument is pathetic?) actually.
The reason being is I am convinced that Mod has had it in for me for while.
However this is quite a hard thing to argue, especially if we could get to the core of the issue. I wouldn't think the Mod had it in for me if we could get to the core of the issue i.e. saying something is a pathetic argument is unacceptable in Christian philosophy due to .......

That isn't the core of it at all. The point is a moderator decided to lock a thread, and you decided upon yourself to create a new thread to evade the lock on the other thread. That is why you were banned. It wasn't due to the use of "pathetic" argument, although you could have used a better adjective.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

That isn't the core of it at all. The point is a moderator decided to lock a thread, and you decided upon yourself to create a new thread to evade the lock on the other thread. That is why you were banned. It wasn't due to the use of "pathetic" argument, although you could have used a better adjective.

I thought the thread was locked because we had gone off the point.
Here's the quote from Brian:

"I'm locking this because it is going way off topic and heading nowhere."

You obviously have it in for me as well Jackass, following me around and over to this thread and trying to get a few digs in and arguing with me to make this feedback thread a mess.
Why not just let me give my feedback!!!!!!!

DeVore

So, you were saying something about you not being aggressive/pedantic/argumentative.

We (society) consider it fine to have a robust debate in a debating chamber, we dont consider it fine to go to someone's house and start shouting the very same arguement in their window. Chamber = Humanities, House = Christianity.

Just as in the Christianity forum, you are simply never going to accept or internalise anything I say (or they say). You arent looking for light or debate. You are simply putting your point accross and I must say, are just as closed-minded as you accuse the christians of being.

Thread has less then 24 hours to live.

DeV.

ps: the reason we dont lock threads is because how would you feel if I locked this thread now? Slightly unfair ability to have the last word neh?

Tim Robbins

DeVore wrote:

So, you were saying something about you not being

aggressive: No
pedantic: Yes I am.
argumentative: Yes I am

We (society) consider it fine to have a robust debate in a debating chamber, we dont consider it fine to go to someone's house and start shouting the very same arguement in their window. Chamber = Humanities, House = Christianity.

Ok I should take the debate over to humanities? That's fair enough and in hindsight I would have done that. But there should be consistency, the creationist thread has some for more offensive posts than my "pathetic"
remark and questioning of it.