Surely you could have found a better way to provide the information than that.
I am somewhat computer and Internet literate, and I already had enough information to find more information on that subject should I decide to do so.
I'm going to use your post to, hopefully, impart some information about myself and how I moderate to everyone; I'm not picking on you, A.J.
One thing that's always in the back of my mind is the great difference between personal face-to-face communication and Internet communication. In heated oral discussions, words sometimes slip out - you thought it, you said it, it's out there, and it can't be taken back. Those things happen and we all learn how to deal with those situations.
Internet communication is different. Words don't just "slip out" - they have to be thought, then typed, then (hopefully) reviewed, then posted, all of which after the original thought need to be consciously decided upon. Compared to verbal conversation, there aren't any "slips of the tongue" in cyber conversation. In that sense, every word that appears on this forum or any forum is premeditated.
Yes, we all get angry, or any number of other combinations of emotions, which cause us to blurt things out. But the Internet allows us time to reconsider. You might be surprised to learn how many times I've rewritten my remarks just on this thread. In one or two instances I did exactly what I'm talking about - just sent it "out there" without reconsidering. In my view, too many people don't reconsider. That's when flame wars start. That's what I'm here to stop.
Some of these attack posts can be very brief. Consider all the false accusations in just two sentences: "largest ... in American history", "religiously-inspired", "mass murder", "The guy who ordered it", "liked to", and finally the oft-repeated play on President Young's name "bring 'em young".
It does no good to reply to such posts. They just come back with the same thing next time the subject comes up, whatever they think are the best-sounding accusations.
(I do not flag AJ because I do not want to seem to be inviting more of the same.)
Marlowe's #389: But if we are going to have free and open and cordial discussions of religion, then allegations (whether true or false) against religious leaders and allegations (whether true or false) about what certain religions teach or have taught in the past, should not be considered as violative of the spirit of the religion forum or of the general posting rules on FR provided they are done to further discussion and ultimately seek the truth rather than to ridicule or berate any particular poster's beliefs.
In theory that may seem to be a high-minded and noble idea, but in practice it doesn't ever work out that way here because of a multitude of posts like #493 and because of the lack of a scholarly approach to subjects that require lots of careful scholarship to present them in their most accurate light.
Anyone trying to read such a thread (and Marlowe and I have posted on dozens of them over the months and years) just gets a load of disinformation, inflammatory rhetoric, and poisoned bait. Why should I cooperate with that?
It is better to stick to the Scriptures. The Word of God tends to calm the discussion.