Banned for speaking the truth.

Wh1stler

I was banned from the Christianity forum for saying,

"Don't blame me; it was Jesus who said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus was rebuking the disciples when He said this. The fact that you wish to read a different meaning into His words in order to give priest's words precedence over Jesus' words is just another indicator of the hypocrisy which characterises your particular brand of religion."

I have had to run a gauntlet of abuse throughout this thread (and others) but the abuse has been coming from confirmed Christians and so no action was taken against them but a different set of rules has been adopted with regard to me, a confirmed non-Christian.

I would therefore request that my ban should be retracted as should all the infractions leading up to that decision. The cynical attitude of the moderators of the Christianity forum needs to be tackled decisively.

I would have thought that this type of censorship would be unacceptable but there seems to be an open bias when it comes to dealing with Christians as opposed to non-Christians. While this may be acceptable when God is choosing who enters the kingdom of heaven and who is to be consigned to the lake of fire, boards.ie does not represent God on judgement day.

It seems to be the case, and I am prepared to provide examples, that when a Christian viewpoint is challenged effectively, an abusive and evasive attitude is adopted by Christians who appear to receive full support from the moderators who invariably hand out infractions to those on the receiving end of the abuse.

I would be grateful if you would look into this and await your invitation to present my considered case in full.

Thanks in advance.

Wh1stler

I should mention that the thread in question is: 'How can we have priests like this'.

In this discussion I am practically alone in my disapproval of the priest in question. Almost but not quite.

By banning me, Plowman has successfully forced me out of the discussion in which I can show that there is a problem with how the Catholic Church chooses its personnel.

The priest in question is quite obviously, even if the case was hypothetical, 'not the right man for the job'. and throws some light onto how the 'high peadophile priest population of the CC' could come about. In fact, this was a discussion that was about to occur between ISAW and me.

I personally take the position that evil should be fought when and where-ever it is encountered and censorship should never be a tool that can be utilised in order to gag those that would 'do good' in the world.

Whatever rule Plowman applies to me must also be applied to other contributors. If this had been done then I would never have received infractions or a ban as others would have been banned before me removing the need for me to deal with their abuse by 'returning fire', as it were.

Plowman has said to me:

"This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."

I will observe that any difference of opinion between any two Christians over say, the interpretation of a verse from the Bible, represents an "overt or subtle attack" on the particular 'brand' of Christianity endorsed by the holder of the differing view.

How can the Christianity forum have any form of discusion regarding Christanity without breaking that rule?

And why should that rule only be applied, seemingly, to non-Christians?

Catholics believe Protestants are going to hell. Protestants think the Mormons have got it all wrong. Such views can be openly expounded; people are told that they must save themselves or they will burn forever; Christians disagree with Christians all the time on almost every Christian thread; every day, the charter of the Christianity forum is being contravened. All of which is okay from a Christian point of view but woe betide any non-Christian who dares to point out the flaws in their world-views.

Evil should be dealt with as and when it is found. It is unthinkable that evil will triumph though the use of a simple 'gag' over the mouths of the good.

With the post in question, a priest took a heavy-handed approach to a minor problem with a child. Even in a hypothetical situation, Jesus would not have approved and nor would a hypothetical Jesus.

The Catholic view here is different from Jesus' view and all I have done is noticed that and commented about it.

Then Plowman banned me.

Why should Plowman have the power to gag me just because he can claim that my "impatient, aggressive tone was spoiling threads and exacerbating tensions in the forum"?

I wasn't banned because I was 'wrong', I was banned because Plowman doesn't like the fact that it was said and this is something that should not be tolerated in a tolerant society.

Dades

Having read the thread from start to finish, I don't have any issue with you being given a ban. Your posting style is abrasive and disruptive, and any thread in which you post in that manner is likely to end up a locked thread.

I have however limited the ban to time served, and lifted it. This is primarily as you were probably not the only one in that thread deserving of sanction, though you were definitely the biggest culprit.

I'd advise you in the future to tone down your posts, as that type of posting only ends badly. If you are the only protagonist the next time - expect a long ban.

I]Just to note: you can appeal to an Admin to have the entire ban removed from your record if you wish - just say so here.[/I

Dades

Wh1stler

Dades wrote: »

Having read the thread from start to finish, I don't have any issue with you being given a ban. Your posting style is abrasive and disruptive, and any thread in which you post in that manner is likely to end up a locked thread.

I have however limited the ban to time served, and lifted it. This is primarily as you were probably not the only one in that thread deserving of sanction, though you were definitely the biggest culprit.

I'd advice you in the future to tone down your posts, as that type of posting only ends badly. If you are the only protagonist the next time - expect a long ban.

I]Just to note: you can appeal to an Admin to have the entire ban removed from your record if you wish - just say so here.[/I

Dades

Thank you for answering so quickly.

However, there are a number of problems with your conclusions.

You say you read through the entire post so you would have noticed that I didn't enter the discussion until post 27 by which time the OPer had been characterised as a 'cying baby' and the priest had been compared to Jesus as He drove out the money-lenders who were being compared to the mother of a disabled child.

The tenor of the discussion had already arrived at a place where 'intervention' would be warranted but no action was taken at a time when all participants were Christians.

None of which concerned me; I expected this discussion to be emotive but thought it a simple challenge.

All but one of the posters up to this point were of the same opinion; the priest was right to get angry over a child's toy. In fact, it was evident that the prevailing view was that any kind of distraction during mass is damaging to the transmission of the word of God.

So, I observed that a crying baby is a sign of a bigger threat to the aims of Jesus than a priest who can get angry at a child's toy. And so is a member of the congregation who has the sniffles; or a cough. I know a guy who constantly grinds his teeth; is there a special room for him too?

Like I said, it is an emotive issue.

It was then that I entered the discussion with a sarcastic assessment of the 'pro-priest' position and also reminding posters that we were talking about the handling of children (and their parents) in the house of God (or Jesus). And Jesus of the New Testament would not have approved.

In the very next post, lmaopml attempts to completely misrepresen my post by accusing me of generalisations; attacks me by adopting a wholly hypocritical attitude interpreting my post as being equivalent to me saying 'that all Catholics now don't love disabled children - and think they shouldn't be Christened'.

This alone constitutes a personal attack and then two more personal attacks quickly follow. No santions from any moderator so far and none really asked for. But I do have the right to reply.

So far, I am not the worst culprit at all, am I? Let alone by far.

I decide to deal with lmaopml first since his/her hypocrisy makes him/her an easy target and I 'correct' him/her by showing that his/her position is a castle in the air.

And I do this politely.

Then Medicine333 puts his/her two-penneth in before dismissing me like a child.

And still I am not the main culprit.

Where do you think the point that merited the intervention of a moderator came? But no intervention came because at the moment, it is the non-Christian who is getting the beating. So it continues.

I then tackle Medicine333 on his/her inaccurate assessment of another of my posts and of a post by the OPer.

I must confress to being mildly annoyed by people who respond to posts as if they say something completely different to what they actually say and it is a theme of this thread.

I'm not misinterpreting posts in order to score points, they are. And then in post 36, I begin to treat Medicine333 with the same dismissive attitude with which he/she treats me.

Then ISAW joins in with his own way of misrepresenting the words that I have written in order to suggest that I have a skewed view and I deal withim reasonably over the next feww posts.

Now we are at post 42 and have been mainly on the defensive because of inaccurate interpetations of my posts. Up to this point it is perfectly acceptable to misrepresent my views and then treat me as the idiot who would hold those views.

In post 42, I state some simple truths regarding the priest's authority and in a reasonable and inoffensive way.

I receive a little more abuse and in post 52 I re-enter the fray by pointing out that ISAW is factually wrong and that the idea that the mother's actions were comparable to someone trying to start a rave during mass is ridiculous. And it is.

And I'm still being polite.

In fact, it is not until Medicine333 brings my 'poor grammar' into it that I indulge in fighting fire with fire. Perhaps a warning should have been issued on account of post 67 where I tackle the grammar based accusation head on but again, I use actual 'facts' and actual 'definitions' to make my point.

But still, I have not been disrespectful to the extent deserved by the false representation of my position.

By then, in post 65, the words attributed to Jesus are re-interpreted and I take on this point too, in post 68. Why shouldn't I? I deal with this in post 68.

Then in post 74, Medicine compiles a list of 'truths' he/she has extracted from my posts before rounding off with yet another personal attack on my maturity.

And enter Plowman.

As does his open bias toward Christians. He bans me for a posting style which in the end was less abrasive than some of the other poster's styles and then he says:

"If you wish to comment on spelling and grammar errors, there is a forum for doing so."

He said this to me even though it was Medicine333 who brought my 'incorrect' grammar into it. Medicine333, a Christian, received no warning about that!

Well, if you 'read through' the thread then you would know all of this and so I am astonished that you can conclude that I am the 'biggest culprit'.

If I am deserving of a five-day ban then Medicine333, lmaopml and ISAW deserve much heavier sanctions. If they do not deserve sanctions then I deserve them even less.

Plowman pulled me about grammar even though Medicine333 had initiated that entire part of the discussion in order, specifically, to undermine my credibility.

That is hypocrisy; Plowman is operating a double-standard and I object to your defence of that position.


I also object to you suggesting that as long as another poster (a Christian?) is as culpable as I am in the future then I might avoid a ban; this seems like advance protection for those who might decide to be abusive toward me; it sounds like you are saying that I will be banned for a particular posting style unless someone else is guilty of similar; or that other posters will not be banned for the posting in a similar manner.

To sum up: I do want the ban and the infractions that led to the ban, as indicated to me by Plowman in his PM, to be expunged from my record. If this cannot be done then other posters, Medicine333 and ISAW in particular, should be similarly infracted and made to serve a ban.

If I am subject to forum rules then so are they and if this is not the case, I want to know why.

Also, I would like to know which part of the charter I contravened that was not contravened beforehand; or which law did I flout that no-one else did?

Thank you.

Wh1stler

Would you also take a look at post 75? In it, Plowman says:

"I ran a scan for condescension and the results were positive. Take a break and consider your impatient, abrasive posting style."

in response to me saying:

"So I ran a scan for sarcasm and bearing the definition of maturity in mind and the tenor of our discussion I ruled out the possibility that you were complementing my sentence due to it being mature or, as per the definition of mature."

How is it reasonable, let alone acceptable, for a moderator to adopt, even plagarise, my posting style and at the same time ban me on account of my posting style?

This kind of nepotism could lead to legal action in any other area of life. The Christian forum is not Plowman's personal kingdom where those whom have his support get particular protection from sanctions that he can impose arbitrarily on those who don't have his support.

This is completely wrong and should cause concern at the highest level of boards.ie.

And his next comment in that post:

"If you wish to comment on spelling and grammar errors, there is a forum for doing so."

exemplifies his nepotism perfectly.

Medicine333 says in post 62:

"Can you understand even basic English? The word maturity is different than the adjective 'mature.' I really shouldn't have to explain something as simple as that to an adult(that's if you are indeed an adult, but after reading your replies, I'm not so sure)."

This was the first comment to bring my 'poor grammar' in the discussion. Could this posting style be described as 'abrasive'?

Ah, but Medicine333 is a Christian and therefore is automatically covered by Plowman's umbrella of nepotism. How can this be okay?

But when I respond to Medicine333 in kind then I am banned.

This is open and overt hypocrisy and should not be acceptable.

Wh1stler

I think it is highly inappropriate that the thread in question has been closed and again it smacks of 'thought-policing'.

ISAW deserves answers to his concerns and Plowman has prevented that free discussion from taking place.

Perhap boards.ie should clarify what is meant by the term 'open discussion' since it seems to operate a policy that places strict controls on what can be said and who can say it.

The more I look at this the more unsavoury it becomes.

Where in the law is it stated that moderators can strictly control the evolution of threads in a public forum according to their own personal belief system?

I simply cannot find it.

The moderating on the Christian forum is not discretionary, it is discriminatory; which part of either the law or the rules of boards.ie permits moderators to discriminate against those who hold different views?

Again, I simply cannot find it.

Dades

Wh1stler, your theatrical outrage is starting to grate. To reiterate, if you want an Admin to look at your ban, say so here.

And just so you know, Boards.ie is a privately owned site, and the people who run it are entitled open, close or delete anything they want if they see fit. Tread carefully when you mention the law here, if there's one thing that will expedite a removal from Boards, it's suggesting you have it on your side and might seek redress from it.

Wh1stler

Dades wrote: »

Wh1stler, your theatrical outrage is starting to grate. To reiterate, if you want an Admin to look at your ban, say so here.

And just so you know, Boards.ie is a privately owned site, and the people who run it are entitled open, close or delete anything they want if they see fit. Tread carefully when you mention the law here, if there's one thing that will expedite a removal from Boards, it's suggesting you have it on your side and might seek redress from it.

All of which kind of obviates the need for a Dispute Resolution Forum completely.

And yet here it is.

I would like an administrator to take a look at my ban and the circumstances surrounding it.

I would like to know the 'owner of the site's' position regarding religious discrimination.

I mean, as a for instance, suppose someone was able to prove beyond a doubt that Christians were being led down the wrong path, would it be acceptable for a moderator to prevent all the Christians who contribute to the Christianity forum from seeing that evidence just because it challenges his world view?

Zaph

OP permabanned for abusive PM.

Thread closed.