Posted on 01/26/2007 9:05:39 AM PST by Religion Moderator
I am the current Religion Moderator and have general responsibility for this Religion Forum on Free Republic. However, all moderators have authority on the RF as well – and prior RMs may log in with my handle. So the person handling your abuse reports may or may not be me, but usually it will be.
I diligently try to read all of your posts, but am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
I make every effort to treat all confessions with an even hand. Some here say that is not so evidently because their own confession is the target of what they consider to be more challenges and ridicule than the other guy’s confession. First, there is no confession on the Religion Forum with “clean hands” – if you doubt that, check out the threads where the article is “for” the other guy’s confession. Secondly, some confessions are far more contentious than others evidently as part of the doctrine.
Some posters argue for their confessions as if their lives depended on it because, frankly, to many of them it does. Flame wars ignite over petty, miserably petty, minutia. Therefore, I hold all the Religion Forum posters to a tough standard:
1. Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal. You’ll see this warning frequently on threads because the first offense in a flame war is often when one of the participants makes a personal remark about another Freeper, e.g. you’re an idiot, liar, heretic and so on. Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.” Stick with the issues and you’ll be fine. When in doubt, double check your use of pronouns before hitting “post.”
2. Thin skinned RF posters should stick with the “closed” threads. I can and do intercede to keep posters from “making it personal.” There is nothing I can do to prevent a poster from “taking it personal.” And, frankly, many posters come to the RF with huge chips on their shoulders. Such posters are as guilty of causing flame wars as the ones who actually do “make it personal.”
3. “Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.
It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!
4. All other threads on the Religion Forum are “Open” which means they are like a town square. Challenges and ridicule will occur. Expect them to be contentious, rough or even insulting. Your confession will be maligned on open threads. Your beloved religious figures will be ridiculed. Don’t complain because the author or a religious figure is called a liar, demon, heretic or whatever on an open thread. It is to be expected in the town square. Remember too that the Religion Forum is densely populated with highly educated theologians. If you are ill-equipped to defend your confession, you’ll get beat up on “Open” thread. When in doubt, ping one of your best defenders and withdraw to a “Closed” thread.
As much as is possible I try to use a progressive method with uncooperative Religion Forum posters – a warning, and if that warning is ignored, a cookie (making him log in again), and if that is ignored, an hour suspension … and so on up to a banishment. I do this because an occasional misstep on such sensitive matters as one’s confession should be tolerable. But I will not be ignored.
Posters who have been previously banned and try to come back with a different handle will be banished as soon as they are “found out.” Some retreads stay off the “radar” by behaving themselves, but once they start picking fights – they cause the moderators – any of us – to investigate. If you have been previously banned and want to come back on the forum, make a request, promise not to do whatever caused the first banning.
A poster may also be banned in an instant if he is discovered to be a racist, a hate monger including an anti-Semitist, troll, anti-Freeper, etc.
There will be people on the forum who are anti- your confession whether anti-Christian, anti-Calvinist, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Mormon, anti-Atheist, anti-Scientologist and so on. As long as they are arguing for their position on an “Open” thread – and are not using hate mongering material such as the false “oath for Knights of Columbus” or Jack Chick cartoons – and are otherwise abiding by the guidelines, their challenges will be tolerated.
Threads that become “toxic” – which is to say have devolved into an unredeemable mess of hurt feelings will be locked or pulled. I prefer to lock the threads because many posters put a great deal of effort in their replies and would like to keep them bookmarked.
Knowing which chocolate is the most toxic is important, but leaves one wondering how much must be eaten to poison a dog. The list in this box should be helpful. Maybe you can clip it and post it on your refrigerator?
* White chocolate: 200 ounces per pound of body weight. It takes 250 pounds of white chocolate to cause signs of poisoning in a 20-pound dog, 125 pounds for a 10-pound dog.
* Milk chocolate: 1 ounce per pound of body weight. Approximately one pound of milk chocolate is poisonous to a 20-pound dog; one-half pound for a 10-pound dog. The average chocolate bar contains 2 to 3 ounces of milk chocolate. It would take 2-3 candy bars to poison a 10 pound dog. Semi-sweet chocolate has a similar toxic level.
* Sweet cocoa: 0.3 ounces per pound of body weight. One-third of a pound of sweet cocoa is toxic to a 20-pound dog; 1/6 pound for a 10-pound dog.
* Baking chocolate: 0.1 ounce per pound body weight. Two one-ounce squares of bakers' chocolate is toxic to a 20-pound dog; one ounce for a 10-pound dog.
Could you please explain t me what a "sidebar" is?
A sidebar is a thread within a thread (or across threads) - a few Freepers go off on a separate topic while the others continue on with the main subject.
Bookmark
Thank you for your prompt response (Post 125).
Godless islamists.
Bookmark bump!
LOL, they are funny. I was just laughing to tears at "the Jesus Cookie" two days ago. hehe
But the word has been given, so...hey, what about Alberto Rivera? Is he off limits too? RM?
The objective is not to repeat hate speech or otherwise monger hatred or its twin, violence, on this forum - but these guys are all part of the historical record of such things, like Hitler, Marx, etc.
Dear fanfan,
How much for chocolate fudge?
We once had a dog that ate a pound of chocolate fudge.
sitetest
LOL!
I don't know. It wasn't mentioned at the link.
0.1 oz. per pound of body rate of bakers choc., but brownies aren't just chocolate.
Big dog?
;-)
Dear fanfan,
I don't know how much of what type of chocolate was in the fudge.
I remember our neighbor gave us the fudge for Christmas, my wife put it up on the counter, and went to attend to something else. Our dog, who was about 60 lbs. or so, snatched the plate of fudge while no one was looking, and wolfed it down, I suppose in a moment or two.
She then guiltily sneaked over to the couch and sat down. My wife discovered what had happened, and called the vet, hysterical. The vet called back some time later. After determining our dog had no symptoms of chocolate poisoning, she chuckled, and said not to worry about it.
We didn't.
But we sure missed the fudge!
sitetest
Let me guess you left the room right before the vote.
LOL! Something like that...
Well, just darn...
A Jack Chick comic is a good flag to mark a point where a thread has violated Godwin's Law (in a religious context)...
I'm confident you will find a suitable alternative for a Jack Chick cartoon.
Am trying to find a list of the prohibited ‘anti-RC’ sites.
I must not be searching right.
Where can I find such a list, please?
Also banned: KKK, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, any webpage showing the false Jesuit Oath, National Alliance, VDare and any other racist or anti-Semitic website.
THANKS TONS.
Want to be kosher about such things.
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.