On the Freedom of the Will: Part II: Section I (Refuting Arminian Free-Willism)

CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

[P-Marlowe]

There is our point; Marlowe the Arminian gets three days. Wrigley the Calvinist gets banned. Both sides are equally to blame, seems like the punishments should be equal. It's that jack-booted Nazi thing... ;-)

I suppose you think that little wink makes it all better?

Milquetoast Q. Whitebread was FOREVER banned. P-Marlowe was suspended for 3 days. Milqutoast came on as a polite newby with a lot of questions. He didn't come on and immediately post a comment that the moderators (including the founder of the Forum) were a bunch of jack booted nazi thugs.

Milqutoast got banned for being a joke. Foley/Wrigley got banned for being a jerk. One letter can make a big difference.

[CARepubGal]

LOL!

[CARepubGal]

Spare me the self righteous rhetoric Marlowe. Consider yourself ignored from here on out.

[Gamecock]

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If you look close, there a shot of "fighting cock" in the bottom.

BigMack

[CARepubGal]

Ruh Roh! Forgot about that dress! ;-)

[drstevej]

***Wrigley got banned for being a jerk.***

Personal attacks against the departed, Marlowe. Are you above forum rules?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You know why baptists don't have sex standing up?

BigMack

[CARepubGal]

Might lead to dancing? ;-)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Close.

People might think they are dancing.

BigMack

[Jerry_M]

Why the heck did I get pinged here?

Reading this tread from there on down was a waste of 15 minutes of my time that I will never get back.

Of course, it just reminded me why I, like others, choose to lurk a whole lot more than post these days.

[Jean Chauvin]

Permission to treat the witness as hostile, Your Honor?

Permission Granted

Counsellor, was there any designation in the FR rules that identified the violation as 2nd "bad" if the 2nd identity "came on as a polite newby with a lot of questions" but identified the violation as "really really bad" if the 2nd identity posted a comment "that the moderators (including the founder of the Forum) were a bunch of jack booted nazi thugs"????

-or-

Does the FR rule simply say:

Don't play games - Don't represent yourself as another person, create or use another screen name to avoid a revocation of posting privileges, misrepresent the site or your role in it, and don't misattribute a contribution you've made. (Parody exceptions would apply to the latter, of course, but it should be clear what you are doing.)

...thereby giving NO differentiation among types of posts an individual makes when using an alternate identity????

Stop sounding so seemingly self-righteous and trying to justify your actions which were clearly in violation of the rules just as much so as it has been alleged upon Wrigley.

Jean

[Alamo-Girl]

Here's a sad story...

This is a religion forum, so where does a father terribly concerned about his son being tormented by Satan come for help? Here, about 20 minutes ago.

But what are the posters doing? Are they running to come to his aid? No, they are arguing amongst themselves....

If you want to join in praying for this young man or his dad or mom: Please pray for my son

[drstevej]

It took fifteen minutes to read four posts???? :-)


(I do get your point)

[xzins]

There isn't anything righteous about his rhetoric. He's right.

Alter-egos come and go, but when they come and try an uppercut to the jaw of the owner of the place, then they might not get warm fuzzies as a reward. Everyplace else in the world that goes for common sense.

[drstevej]

***Alter-egos come and go***

Have you ever posted under another name?

[CARepubGal]

Sounds about right. :-)

[xzins]

The correct question is: Should an alter ego of ANYONE ever try a takedown move on the owner of the joint?

[drstevej]

Have you ever posted under another name?