“But the most intolerant are such as oppose FR owner’s statement that FR is”
You are spinning the context of “intolerance” completely 180 backwards from what I said and it is not honest. That statement is a prime example of intolerance. Jim’s statement is a disclaimer of intolerance for those who do not hold the exact same lockstep purist values. And those like yourself use it with intolerance to persecute against anyone who even hints of not being an absolute purist to each and everyone of those purist mandates in the list.
Thankfully Jim IS a wise and intelligent tolerant person. He does understand that humans are just not going to be completely in agreement with everyone of those items in the list like uniform robots without some personal deviation or compromise about certain values. I mean get real, who would expect everyone to believe in everything on that check list without any coloring outside lines at all period. He is intelligent and wise enough to know this is just not possible...
And those who want to use that check list to judge and determine who should be here and who should not be here are being selfish and not considering the welfare of the site and domain it’s self. They are only concerned about their own personal wishes and fetishes and not what is best for the site and domain as a whole. Think about it. If you went strictly by that check list and got rid of everyone who was not absolutely pure and did not stand absolutely lockstep with every item in that checklist there would only be about five pure good old boy members left here...
Are five good old boy purists going to keep the site supported and up? No... So for good reason Jim is tolerant even though the purist members are not and want to get rid of anyone and everyone who does not “think lockstep just like them”. I mentioned this I think yesterday. If the FR just banned everyone somebody thought was a troll at their persoanal word then there would not be anybody left. Every member here has their own personal “troll” they would like to be banned. So everyone is a personal “troll” to someone else on the board just because they “do not think exactly the same as they want then to”.
But in all this the main point is everyone selfishly and personally cares more about themselves than they do about the domain, site, and community as a whole. They do not consider the end cause and effect of getting rid of everyone who does not follow the herd ideology absolutely lockstep item by item. Thankfully Jim is more intelligent than all these selfish users and understands the negative ramifications and end product if he did do that. It is his best virtue from what I have observed here. His tolerance is backed by real example. Too bad many users here do not learn from his own wise example of tolerance.
We should trust his wise example of tolerance. If he is not cracking down on everyone who violates even one of those items then there is a reason why. We should trust his judgement and reasons why. Not continually put him on the spot to “do something about this guy” just because we personally do not like another user because they do not follow that checklist exactly. I really do not believe he meant for that checklist to be absolutely lockstep. Because it would be self defeating and he is much more intelligent than that.
He knows that he may as well close the doors because there would be no one left to support it if he did. So we should follow his wise example and think of the domain as a whole before we think of ourselves or we are going to lose it with our own personal selfishness.
I know he is extremely busy with the Credit Card issues right now and I do not expect any replies. But I am going to tag him in on this because it is important to me that he does not get this exchange and conversation after it has been twisted completely out of context and used against me later. Because someone will... They always do.
Thank you for your wisdom Jim...
Rather, it is your own intolerance of disagreement that resulted in your lengthy 700 word lecture. What part of "FR is far more mature with its judicious moderation than any other forum i have been on" did you miss? And it is you reaction that examples what i proceeded to state: "But the most intolerant are such as oppose FR owner's statement that FR is..."
And those like yourself use it with intolerance to persecute against anyone who even hints of not being an absolute purist to each and everyone of those purist mandates in the list.
Meaning those who manifest a knee jerk reaction of intolerance against anyone who even hints of commending the statement of what FR represents, as opposed to a purist position of tolerance of contrary views? If FR does not stand for what it says, while allowing much leeway, it might as well be HuffPo.
Thankfully Jim IS a wise and intelligent tolerant person.
Indeed, Which is why this is not the DU or Reddit, yet neither it is "Catholic Answers."
He does understand that humans are just not going to be completely in agreement with everyone of those items in the list like uniform robots without some personal deviation or compromise about certain values.... the purist members are not and want to get rid of anyone and everyone who does not “think lockstep just like them”.
What is this? Just how do you get that I am proposing a "perfect solution" ethos? Which posts flowed from a matter of security, and it remains that "being an officially pro-God (of the Bible), pro-Constitution etc. conservative site, then pushers of the contrary are usually zotted or must key a low key on those aspects, though if anything in that regard, I see it too tolerant of some."
As regards the latter, you can only imagine that this refers to anyone who does not hold to some "purist" position of agreement with that warranted FR position statement, or with myself.
Meanwhile. i have many times commended that RM wise moderation.
And in which he states (for that forum)
Open threads are in a town square format. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.
It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back... If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.” "If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
And if you read my posting history, your could see that I engage many type of posters in extended threads. But some (esp. certain cult devotees) abuse the liberty, while others have an animus against anyone who opposes them, while as regards issues, a forum should ideally be a place of objective analysis of arguments and evidence. Which FR enables more than other I know of, thank God for that.
That is all.