You got 4/3 of the Beast!
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.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For example, if an Islamic article said that Christians were polytheists because they believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that would not be a direct attack the issue can be discussed in an ecumenical, non-contentious format. But if the article said that Christians were infidels condemned to eternal damnation, that would be a direct attack and could only be discussed in an open format.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. The term gross error in an article may not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply. It is crucial to maintain the academic decorum on ecumenic threads.
Some contrasting of beliefs can be made without breaking the ecumenic tone but generally speaking, posters should express the beliefs they are for but not those they are against. They may also ask questions.
Anti posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an anti or ex article under the color of the ecumenic tag.
Posters who try to tear down others beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Do not pick at scabs by mentioning prior open threads. If you need to make a point previously made on an open thread, summarize it anew.
I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.
I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.
I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.
I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.
But when it comes to this Religion Forum, I lay out the guidelines and resolve disputes within those guidelines. But I do not "settle" matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.
If a guideline, rule, policy or settlement exists which affects this Religion Forum, I will do all I can to see it enforced.