Posted on 08/30/2004 7:37:41 PM PDT by Nevski
lay off the pulp novels -
Im frankly tired of these accusations -
anyone banned has rightly deserved it IMO - cept maybe wrigsd
LOL - yeah right
Anyone banned managed it on their own without an assist.
I think that "trolling" should be added to that list about personal attacks, racism, violence that they put at the bottom of the post window. They ban folks for trolling on all forums.
The RF is no exception. Trolling behavior can be immediately recognizable or it can be something that becomes obvious over time. Essentially, it is defined rather loosely as "attempting to stir up trouble."
While I've agreed with the bannings, I've worked to get one of them overturned to no avail....I was just flat turned down. It strikes me that the mods had their own reasons and they were firm about them.
Apparently not quite. Reference post #305.
Personally, I think Rev gives himself more credit in 305 than is due.
I don't see how Rev can cause anyone to engage in trollish behavior. They do that on their own. "That woman you gave me...she made me eat it."
He can report it, but that is not a crime. That is according to the rules.
Silly arguement Harley.
If I witness you robbing a convenience store and call the police, I'm not the cause of your arrest.
Just a means of grace...so to speak.
I did on two occasions request the moderator to check out two new posters as retreads and those two were subsequently banned when the mod discovered they were retreads. Other than that, I'm a big boy and can handle things on my own.
The conversation on this board has eroded to petty squabbling. Are there any other threads where I can discuss topics concerning God's word? Perhaps people are yet interested on this thread??
I am a "none of the above", but I am curious. Are you implying by this statement that those who are Arminian are serving a different God? Or is this just a figure of speech. Thanks!
Start your own.
We have? You must not have pinged me to that discussion as I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
In reality, however, the issue of a ping list does not apply here.
I pinged, not from a list, but I pinged the person who I was responding to, three people I mentioned in my post (yourself included) and one more person who I thought would be interested in the neonomianism aspect of the post since he and I had discussed that issue before..
”Especially when you choose to use my name in a post in a negative (and less than forthright) way…“
I’m a little confused by this thought. Are you now denying that you entertained and flirted with Open Theism a couple of years ago?
Furthermore, I don’t think it is accurate to suggest that I presented you in a negative light. After all, it ~IS~ ACCURATE that you seriously entertained and flirted with Open Theism a couple of years ago. But it is also accurate that you finally rejected it –I would think that is definitely positive!
”…please give me a separate ping and not at the end of a list.
Besides pinging the person I was responding to, notice that the pings are in the order of who I mentioned with the exception of lockeliberty. In reality, I was simply thinking of the names in my head as I typed them out. I should have put you before lockeliberty as I mentioned your name and not his. For that I apologize.
But really, where is there a rule that says you need to be given a “separate ping”????
Isn’t this complaint actually a bit petty?
Jean
anyone banned has rightly deserved it IMO - cept maybe wrigsd”
No, I think the accusations have some merit.
In reality, it does not go at all to the issue of “power” or “authority”. No one is suggesting that you actually have the “power” or “authority” to ban someone.
It goes to your intent in hitting the abuse button.
I think the most telling evidence of this is your complaint to the moderator that thePilgrim used personal information in a Freepmail, when you yourself are guilty of using posting private information from private emails to FR.
Let’s use an analogy.
Let’s say you are neighbors with someone who is a tolerable nuisance.
For whatever reason, you are really annoyed with this neighbor.
He’s guilty, lets say, of being a bit too noisy. He plays his stereo too loud. His dog barks and keeps you up. He is a nuisance, but he is tolerable. None of these “crimes” are of great importance, but they are against city ordinance, nonetheless.
Now, there are a couple of ways you can handle the situation.
You can simply live with it. Make the best of if and realize that he could be a worse neighbor. He could be an Ohio State fan, perhaps. You can hope that perhaps the authorities will eventually clamp down on him, but you simply let him be.
-OR-
You can ~ensure~ that the authorities take notice in the hopes that ~eventually~ the law will handle what you failed to do on your own. Get your neighbor to stop.
In the latter example, you still can make the claim that “I don’t have the power or ability to get anyone arrested” or “they deserved to be arrested because they committed the crimes”.
But in reality, you do bear some responsibility in getting the authorities to take notice. Now, you might hide under the auspices of “I don’t have the power or authority” or “he deserved to be arrested because he committed the crimes” because it might make you look a little petty by calling the cops every time your neighbor did something you didn’t like.
In the case of the latter alternative, what would make matters worse is if you were actually guilty of the same problems. Perhaps you didn’t really break any city code, You see, your neighbor works third-shift and sleeps during the day. While you don’t actually break any city codes, you still do just enough –mowing your lawn, building that storage shed in your back yard, having friends over to play volleyball on Saturday in your yard which is right next to his bedroom window…- to annoy your neighbor.
Applying that analogy to the current events here on FR and your admitted hitting of the abuse button. I find it completely disingenuous that you ping the moderator because thePilgrim revealed personal information from a Freepmail on the forum when you yourself are guilty of revealing personal information from private-nonFR-email on the very same forum.
Oh, you are quite correct keeping in mind that while it is against the rules to post private information from Frmail to the forum, it is not against stated FR rules to post private information from non-Frmail-email on a FR forum.
You have not done the former, but you certainly are guilty of the latter.
While you have a “technical” complaint, Matthew 7:3-5 certainly does apply to this situation.
Now, in the light of the fact that you-yourself have posted private email information to the forum, the only rationale I can possibly see behind your complaint to the mod regarding the same actions of thePilgrim is that your intent is to get thePilgrim removed from the forum.
Jean
Jean
It appears that you are doing the same thing here, x. You plant the idea that certain people are “trolling” –presuming ~YOUR~ rather "loose" definition of “trolling”, of course- and then you simply repeat that term over and over hoping that it will stick.
It seems you want us gone one way or another and you are willing to find any loophole you can to set us up as being rule violators.
Your current actions are a far cry from how you used to conduct yourself on this forum.
What you say now:
”I've agreed with the bannings”
What you said then:
”...I cannot recall a time (and don't believe it exists) when DrSteveJ violated any of those FR rules. In fact, he is quite gentlemanly in his posts and will seldom even make a pointed remark.”
What changed?
Certainly drstevej’s posts and demeanor haven’t.
You might say the rules have changed and that is fair, but if drstevej’s is “quite gentlemanly in his posts” and if drsteve will “seldom even make a pointed remark”, then I don’t know how drstevej violated even the new rules.
Now, admittedly, that old quote from you was in the context of some discussions over Mormonism where drstevej was your ally. Perhaps the change was the fact that drstevej began focusing his posts against doctrines you hold? Were drstevej’s posts making you feel a bit “uncomfortable”? Well, as you so eloquently put it in that old quote, “[drstevej] is an EX-[Arminian] and, therefore, can bring up theological points that might make [Arminians] uncomfortable. But that is fair game. Everyone's theology should be open to question, or nobody's should be.”
X, it is not that you have the “power” or “authority” to get someone banned. It is the intent you have when you report abuse.
That intent is patently obvious.
”He can report it, but that is not a crime. That is according to the rules.”
If drstevej is “quite gentlemanly” and if his posts “seldom even make a pointed remark”, what’s there to report?
In reality, it is your intent that is in question, not your power or authority.
Jean
FYI, The two links don't work.
Has it not yet occured to you that you were turned down because NOBODY takes you seriously? You've promised much, delivered nothing (to anyone), and merely antagonised anyone you've managed to come into contact with.
You posts are generally inchoherent, you have a nasty habit of not reading other's posts, especially if they're of substantial length, and you have no reading comprehension when you actually DO read a post. In terms of attention, you make connectthedots (who i mention merely because of his ADMITTED infirmities in this particular area, with NO desire to ridicule him on this particular point) Look like a paragon of Rabid attention.
What the hell are you still doing here...aside from providing amusement for the rest of us?
Don't bother attempting protracted discussion with me, i am working 7 day weeks, and have little time for your nonsense.
For your information, ADD is not an infirmity at all when not also accompanied by other factors. In some instances or careers, it can actually be a significant advantage.
Also, contrary to common belief, people with ADD have an ability to hyper-focus when something grabs their attention.
If you are going to speak about ADD, you ought to at least know something about it, other than misguided stereotypes. You need to take a chill pill, or maybe not work so much.
That being said, I will be surprised if you are not banned by this time tomorrow. That was the single most offensive post I have ever read on these threads.
i've been tossed out of better places, and by better people. You say that as if i should be ashamed of it. If you check the above ping list, i'd say that i'd be with better company anyway.
As for offensive, you ought to consult some of your own rants, and don't presume to lecture me on propriety...you're not qualified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.