Biased warnings

[TheTruth101]

This is a copy and pasted messege that I have sent to Micatala. He closed a thread "Conciousness without the brain" and gave me a warning for no apparent reason.


Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.
On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.
This is a Debating christianity site. I am debating with sources to back up my claims. "Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

I am aware this is not a preaching site, I am debating Atheism from a stance as a christian. If you reach to a conclusion that I am preaching, then all christians that back up their claims that offer sources from the bible are "preaching".

This is noted as rather a personal vendetta. This isnt the first time you've done this. You've done this atleast 2 times.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread. The Atheists that claimed otherwise from what I said has offered no sources as to what they claim is true. Every post that they posted, if it was relevent to the topic, I responded with my views of such subject with sources to back up my claims.

This messege will be copy and pasted to every moderator on this forum.

In reply, please send it to all moderators as well.


Please advise moderating team.

[stubbornone]

The letters BS, clarified as bullocks are not a swear word.

Apparently lying and false accusations are fine though?

See the problem yet?

Now, off to ignoring deliberate flame bait ... we have individual letters with clarification to 'warn' about.

bullocks
Web definitions
Expression of frustration.

Terrible, terrible use of a 'swear' word?

Wonder what happens when we appeal that one? Perhaps we'll use the word 'bullocks' shortened to BS, as a further justification for all the terrible, terrible Christians out here absolutely ruining the forum?

Oh wait, you are also not allowed to question moderation action, even when its clearly silly? Guess we should PM right? So we can get more vacuous one liners and random accusations?

Pride. In action.

So, to clarify, what happens when you disagree with the moderators, who are all so different that they are utterly immune to group think? Why you start to get petty, vindictive 'warnings' about issues that are at best borderline - appeals to both logic, definitions, and the forum's standards go ignored.

What is the word that several posters have used to describe such actions? Vendetta.

Individual letters are not swearing.

2. Profanity and obscenity of any sort are not allowed (this includes words that are abbreviated or coded).

That is particularly so when you clarify your abbreviation as the word bullocks.

Please follow your own rules.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c.php?t=14

Respect, eh? Like hurling false accusations? Like allowing atheists to call people bigots in a deliberate flame bait and then ignoring it? Nah, respect is forcing a draconian interpretation of 'swearing' into a warning, because moderators should be able to lie about posters who challenge them?

Convenient that 'every' Christians who stands up to mods is automatically an uncivil jerk ... who swears no less.

My, my the Christian civility is just killing me.

"I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite."

Some of you will recognize that quote, including the mighty O I would imagine.

[stubbornone]

Finally, let me remind the mods of a couple of relevant facts:

#1 - When this pattern of vindictiveness first appeared, it was recognized right up front.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

In fact, the pattern is obvious. I asked O, directly, whether or not he wanted me to simply leave as the pattern of vindictiveness - because every Christian on that list is clearly an uncivil jerk (good thing we have Jesus as O here to correct them and ignore their clarifications) is quite clear.

I got no response.

A little bit of honesty would have gone a long way, but the need to revel in judgement of others, however spurious, prevented that honesty from emerging. What a waste of everyone's time.

#2 - I will once again point out that false accusations are not just uncivil - they violate one of the ten commandments:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor

Once again, its been proven repeatedly that O, and his apparently independantly minded cohorts, have repeatedly falsely accused me of dragging the word 'bigot' into this forum. Repeatedly.

No admission of that simple fact has been pointed out, and there has certainly been no apology or reversal of 'penalties' for such a false accusation.

Apparently, what independently minded moderators who are immune to group think means, is that admitting that simple fact is ... what? Honest? Better than swearing? Deeply Christian and honorable? The highlight of the message of Jesus in respectful debate?

#3 - And this one is most important, because it is one thing to see that treatment meted out to oneself, it is quite another to sit back and watch the same treatment be hurled at others whose sole fault is that they love their faith enough to stand up to bullies and wanton smearing of their religion. (Which of course just happens to brand them uncivil jerks).

So you mods tell me, what do you do as a Christian watching so called Christians hurl false accusations at people who are defending themselves against deliberate flame bait? Utter hypocrisy?

Apparently, being a moderator on this forum means you have the entire message of Jesus figured out, not apparently however to the point where violating one of the ten commandments in order to caste Christians off a Christian debate forum might be deemed unacceptable?

Imagine my shock and surprise, after making the case of this pattern, to return on a lark and find the same shameful behavior being heaped upon other Christians - real Christians - who apparently think being attacked means you defend yourself ... which automatically makes you an uncivil jerk - because there can be only 'one', right O?

Shameful.

Of course, since I am not a mod, and thus am particularly brain dead about the message of Jesus, in addition to being automatically a uncivil jerk who swears by using letters with clarification ... well, just add a few more false allegations to the list, perhaps I am also ... wantonly cruel? I steal little ride bikes from children? Just like all the other Christians on that list in #1, eh? I mean what would such a horrible person have to add to this discussion?

Of course by default, anyone you slander and refuse to apologize to is automatically depraved and unworthy of status as a human being in Christ's grace, correct?

Therein lies the rub mods, the standards of Christianity are pretty darn clear (Is that a swear word?) and your lofty status as internet mods does not make you immune to them --- or the consequences of violating them in a huff of pride.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2)

Tell me mods, is violating one of the ten commandments so you can continually ban Christians from your forum a good thing? Or is it pointing this out that is the problem? One where you must exercise that mighty, mighty internet power to silence that is the problem?

"So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister[a] sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them." (Luke 17:3-4)

If they repent ...

What about when they double down in denial and continue to treat others with exactly the same derision and false accusation?

Nah, everyone who disagrees with the mods, particularly O, is automatically an unworthy jerk.

[YahDough]

This is a copy and pasted messege that I have sent to Micatala. He closed a thread "Conciousness without the brain" and gave me a warning for no apparent reason.


Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.
On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.
This is a Debating christianity site. I am debating with sources to back up my claims. "Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

I am aware this is not a preaching site, I am debating Atheism from a stance as a christian. If you reach to a conclusion that I am preaching, then all christians that back up their claims that offer sources from the bible are "preaching".

This is noted as rather a personal vendetta. This isnt the first time you've done this. You've done this atleast 2 times.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread. The Atheists that claimed otherwise from what I said has offered no sources as to what they claim is true. Every post that they posted, if it was relevent to the topic, I responded with my views of such subject with sources to back up my claims.

This messege will be copy and pasted to every moderator on this forum.

In reply, please send it to all moderators as well.


Please advise moderating team.

The moderators may be harder on Christians because we have a higher standard to keep. But I understand your frustration. Sometimes a guy feels like overturning tables.

[micatala]

The letters BS, clarified as bullocks are not a swear word.

Well, that is one interpretation of the intitials, but it is not the most usual one.

You seem to feel that your understanding of the rules should trump the long-standing practice of the moderators, which includes not just the 7 current moderators, but a number of other former moderators as well.

If we let everyone define the rules, and make their own interpretations of those rules, the result would likely be essentially no rules at all. You are certainly not the first person to object to the swearing rule or its interpretation. You are certainly not being singled out in that regard. I know I have given a number of comments and warnings on the use of BS over time, and so have other moderators.

Apparently lying and false accusations are fine though?

Making false statements is not against the rules. You may disagree with that reality, but it is the reality. If you do not like that, you may simply frequent other forums where that is against the rules. If you find any such forums, I would be interested in knowing about them. Feel free to PM me with links to forums where making false statements per se is against the rules.

You agreed to the rules as they are when you signed up. It is not that hard. Follow the rules. If you do not, you really have no grounds for complaint.




As far as the rest of us "not standing up to otseng," I think any reasonable review of the forum will show that contention to be at odds with reality. I myself do not often debate against otseng, but we had a very contentious thread on the notion of the global flood a few years back. It is still the 7th longest running thread on the forum.

See here for one page where otseng and I engage.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=1090

You will also notice throughout this very long thread, even from this page to the end, that non-Christians and Christians are both receiving warnings and comments, and have both been banned. This would seem to indicate your idea that we are biased in our persecution of Christians is not valid.


In fact, we do not "keep score" as far as people's ideologies. We simply enforce the rules. If you want to "keep score" yourself, consult the probations page.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

You will certainly find both Christians and non-Christians represented. Whether the proportions are similar to those for the membership at large, I don't know, but the issue is never proportions anyway, only behavior.

In fact, here is the Final Warning given to the last person to be placed on probation, an atheist as it happens.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 535#535535



Now, we collectively as mods have, in my view, gone way past half-way in engaging with your complaints publically. Yes, I am giving you another warning since I don't think there is any question you broke the rules again in challenging a moderator action.

Again, you may not like the rules we have and you are welcome to that opinion. Not liking the rules, however, is not a license to flout them.




Moderator Warning



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

Given the OP, I thought it would be worth providing the response I gave to Truth 101's PM.

From: micatala
To: TheTruth101
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Biased warnings

Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same.

If you do feel others are breaking the rules, then do report them. I did see you had several reports on the thread, and my comment and the closing of the thread were in part due to those reports.

Quote:
A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.

Using Youtube is not the issue. Using a video to make a poke at another member is. There is certainly nothing substantive about a movie trailer. It is hard to see how it might be considered evidence. The attached comment seemed to be personal, and not addressing an issue of debate.

Quote:
On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.
This is a Debating christianity site. I am debating with sources to back up my claims. "Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

It is not a personal vendetta. I am responding both to reports, both by you and against you, and what I happen to find on the thread.

Yes, this is a debating site. You can certainly argue for a particular religous viewpoint. However, when you get into telling individual forum members that they should convert or repent or fear for their souls, that is crossing over into personal areas.

If you post a video, that should give substantive support to a position. I would even say that if it did not, if it was somehow irrelevant, the moderators are not likely to take issue with that. The issue was that the video and attached commentary came across as a personal attack on another member.

Quote:
I am aware this is not a preaching site, I am debating Atheism from a stance as a christian. If you reach to a conclusion that I am preaching, then all christians that back up their claims that offer sources from the bible are "preaching".

Preaching is different than debate. You may cite the Bible, but you should be aware the Bible is not considered authoritative on the C & A forum. It would be in the Theology Forum. It is a judgment call where the line is between preaching and debate. Again, if you come across as attacking others for their beliefs, or as using the forum as a platform for proselytizing, that is at least getting towards going over the line. When you start addressing individual members with what they should be doing, or that they are in danger of hell, etc., that is getting personal. Even inflammatory rhetoric against atheists in general can be against the rules.

The idea is to focus on civil debate. Ideally, members show respect for each other even when they vehemently disagree.

Quote:
I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread. The Atheists that claimed otherwise from what I said has offered no sources as to what they claim is true. Every post that they posted, if it was relevent to the topic, I responded with my views of such subject with sources to back up my claims.

It is partly because a number of comments were unproductive, nonsubstantive, and getting a bit uncivil that I closed the thread. I am not attributing all the problems on the thread to you. When a thread seems to be getting generally out of hand, we sometimes feel the best thing to do is close it down.



I will provide the other moderators a copy of your post with my responses for further discussion.

[stubbornone]

The letters BS, clarified as bullocks are not a swear word.

Well, that is one interpretation of the intitials, but it is not the most usual one.

When its followed immediately with the phrase, "As in I mean utter bullocks," then the intent is rather clear.

To ignore that, deliberately, as O would know, is called a lie of omission.

Now, I see talk about Christians being held to higher standards:

#1 - that standard would definitely include moderators enforcing said 'standards'.

#2 - the rules of logic apply to everyone regardless of faith choice. So, when I have had atheists throw U-tube in my face, I have generally confined my disagreement with it to saying, "Sorry, I am not going to watch a video that may speak to what you think you are evidencing, please give me something to read with citations that I can check - and I will."

What I do NOT do, generally being logical, though clearly a raging jerk who steals candy from babies mind you, is run to the mod after ignoring several Christians posting U-tube videos and then scream that I am being repressed because an atheist did it in reverse.

Which is odd, because when athiests use U-tube, its fine and dandy? When a Christian does it ... its preaching?

Isn't that pretty much the definition of double standards? It has nothing to do with a 'higher standard' at all does it?

It has to do with what I, and several other posters have pointed out to an increasingly obtuse and excuse oriented moderation team - there is a flame bait problem originating with certain atheist members of the forum.

After all, when three atheists call someone a bigot and then run to the moderation team in tears because someone called the 'general rejection of Christian soiurces merely because they are Christian, bigoted ... well, we see the intent is rather a game of gotcha and I am going to out you to moderation team ...

... a moderation team we repeatedly seen that is deliberately blind to the process, to the point of willfully avoiding evidence of the problem and absolutely refusing to investigate when these concerns are brought to them from multiple posters ...

Of course, being that all victims of deliberate flame bait are uncivil jerks anyway ... well, that is quite a dilemma for a debate forum isn't it?

Once again, make all reports public, and you will quickly see the flame baiters and posters interested in actual debate will learn to avoid them.

Or I suppose we can have debate by mod intervention over the use of U-tube ... which is apparently what is causing the forum's discipline problems?

The reporting of something as frivolous as U-tube videos, which are used on every debate forum I have ever seen, though generally discouraged ... well, this is the first time I have ever seen it as a 'discipline' issue.

That is because its not a discipline issue, its about thin skinned overly personal atheists looking to use rules as a weapon to launch a personal attack through the moderators ...

And moderators who are willing to let them do so.

Apparently, on all those other forums where I routinely encounter U-tube, its been the height of incivility, illogical, and downright anti-Christian of me to act like an adult and ask for an academic source rather than U-tube in line with my academic training ... which is apparently what has caused me to be such a nefarious bastard?

Being tolerant of other opinions does not mean abandoning standards, and it sure as heck doesn't mean instigating double standards.

Finally, I suggest you read your own owners manual on respect being the CORE of a debate forum, and then tell me how moderators making perfectly false statement, repeatedly, and in defiance of evidence to the counter - and then using those false allegations as a basis for 'discipline' is within the forum rules?

Such conduct needs to be explicitly spelled out as harmful on a CHRISTIAN debate forum? Good luck running that one by Jesus. As a Christian, I am certainly not fooled by such an explicitly self serving and legalistic approach to rationalization.

Entrenched dishonesty NEVER leads to anything good, and attempting to make it right by claiming its not against the explicitly spelled out rules?

Neither apparently is the open advocacy of slavery or rape ... which I don't see on the list of rules either. Odd.

So perhaps we, on a Christian forum, being knowledgeable of our past, can see the EXACT same approach applied to the lower law of the old testament, wherein ANYTHING not explicitly banned in the OT law, must be kosher right?

Well, we Christians have the higher law for clarifying purposes on that one ... just not on a CHRISTIAN debate forum apparently, where bearing false witness against your neighbor is considered kosher ... because its not actually a forum rule violation ... and the mods don't feel it necessary to add one of the ten commandments to their rules of conduct ...

Even as its absence created problems?

Funny thing that God gave us the ten commandments and called them wise? Just not on Christian debate forums ... where these rules apparently have no bearing - especially when its the mods violating the standard.

That about right?

God, what a jerk to point this out? No worries, I have to puppies to kick, some baby seals to club, and some close to swear words like, "Gosh darn it!" to chalk into my neighbors drive way and blame their kids for ...

I can certainly see why O is so anxious to silence Christians like me - can't have us pointing out things like that ... no Sir!

[LiamOS]

When its followed immediately with the phrase, "As in I mean utter bullocks," then the intent is rather clear.

To ignore that, deliberately, as O would know, is called a lie of omission.

If you meant bullocks, why not write bullocks? Your bizarre abbreviation, despite your subsequent clarification, was obviously intended to be read differently, which you know well is against the rules

Once again, make all reports public, and you will quickly see the flame baiters and posters interested in actual debate will learn to avoid them.

You'd really be surprised at the reports, but they will not be made public.
If you want a forum to debate religion with public reporting, feel free to start your own.
Do not demand that otseng change his forum to suit your fringe* position that the moderators are biased.

* With nearly 9000 registered users and a total of... 10 or so? people complaining about bias over my time here.

I can certainly see why O is so anxious to silence Christians like me

Your challenges to moderators that I've seen, be they public or private, are inflammatory and heavily rhetorical. We're all keen to get past what we think has already been dealt with.


At this point, I'll echo rule 15:
"Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private. "

[stubbornone]

When its followed immediately with the phrase, "As in I mean utter bullocks," then the intent is rather clear.

To ignore that, deliberately, as O would know, is called a lie of omission.

If you meant bullocks, why not write bullocks? Your bizarre abbreviation, despite your subsequent clarification, was obviously intended to be read differently, which you know well is against the rules

Once again, make all reports public, and you will quickly see the flame baiters and posters interested in actual debate will learn to avoid them.

You'd really be surprised at the reports, but they will not be made public.
If you want a forum to debate religion with public reporting, feel free to start your own.
Do not demand that otseng change his forum to suit your fringe* position that the moderators are biased.

* With nearly 9000 registered users and a total of... 10 or so? people complaining about bias over my time here.

I can certainly see why O is so anxious to silence Christians like me

Your challenges to moderators that I've seen, be they public or private, are inflammatory and heavily rhetorical. We're all keen to get past what we think has already been dealt with.


At this point, I'll echo rule 15:
"Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private. "

And now I am being disciplined for what you think I meant, even as I clearly spelled out what I meant ... Even though I have made that EXACT point in the past.

Moderator mind reading and you telling me what I meant now matters, once again, more than evidence? Isn't that the problem?

In the mean time:

Why have supposedly six independently minded moderators not been able to:

#1 - EVER overturn even a single disciplinary issue from O? Not once? Yet we are supposed to believe that you unbiased opinions are fact?

And what happened, again, when I asked them to be looked at?

#2 - Why are several different posters, since numbers are apparently an indicator of unbiased standards all reporting the same thing? Why are terms like, "Atheists reporting at 5 to 1 ration," and, "vendetta," being ignored?

It was your standard Liam, and this entire discussion is about moderators using very different standards to evaluate things ... especially when defending their own clearly erroneous decisions? So why are you not applying your standards to you position.

Or will you continue to state that when I write BS, as in utter bullocks ... which no one considers a swear word, to be the very thing that defines the disciplinary issues of the forum ... and Christianity?

#3 - I will again reiterate the main point.

Why is it that three atheists can use the term bigot, then make bigoted statements and run screaming to the mods?

Is there some reason that the moderation team has repeatedly ignored the evidence presented? Why a bunch of Christians would double down with even more false accusations rather than apologize? Is there some reason that these false allegations would then be used ... well, as a vendetta?

Some reason that, by your own record, you think being personally attacked by atheists on your forum should result in ... blaming the victim? Some reason that repeatedly asking your apparently independently minded moderators to look at it was summarily and repeatedly ignored?

Does the concept of atonement mean nothing on a Christian debate forum?

#4 - Glad to see G was banned as well. A perfectly level headed, but strong Christian, who was, as I was and as others are reporting, were targeted by flame baiting atheists ... and you banned her? Not the atheists ... again? All while denying your bias ...

Which of course, how can mind reader be biased, right?

Bullocks.

Let me remind you again:

“I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the long, smooth faced hypocrite.�

"Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, 4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.� (Luke 17:3-4)

So, being as the status of moderator - or even an mighty internet site owner - does not make you magically perfect, and since I know damb good and well I was slandered by the site's owner, I see the excuses and lack of repentance EXACTLY as what they are.

Anyone of sound moral fiber would question, indeed SHOULD question, and interpretation that requires mind reading AND THE SPECIFIC REJECTION OF PLAINLY MADE STATEMENTS - STATEMENT MADE BOTH DURING AND WELL BEFORE THE apparent miraculous manifestation of mind reading ability.

Your forum's problem is not a swearing problem.

Its a flame bait problem and mods who get way to personal and highly vindictive when people disagree with them. To the point that moderation team, which is all Osteng based on the public data, have never once been over turned.

And yet, I know for a fact, and I swear as truth before all mighty God himself, that Osteng slandered me and my actions repeatedly, omitted key facts deliberately, reacted with vengeance rather than logic ... and there are others reporting THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT.

No worries though, there are six other mods who don't see it and are magically both immune to group think, power imbalance, and ... in at least one case have the magical ability to read minds.

I think the record here is clear, and I fully remember why left this godless place in the first place. I have said my piece, you mods KNOW I am telling the truth, and the question now is what will do with your honor before God ... rather than before your 'boss'?

Hopefully, its not claim you have miraculous powers you clearly do not have.

Bye!!!

Enjoy the 'Christian' forum where violating one of the commandments is entrenched and actually defending your faith exposes you to abuse, flame bait, and then jealous retribution from the owner. Seem like a Godly action to me.

But then I am just your average Christian, who has of course not been raised to the lofty status of internet forum moderator ... just the priesthood.

And remember, even Jesus chewed out hypocrites when he found them.

[stubbornone]

Liam, may want to check that 'admits mistakes' thingy ...

... in the meantime, I am off to ride my bike, because I can legally take the whole lane, in the middle of the lane deliberately slowing traffic for not real reason. Probably drive ten MPH below the speed limit in the fast lane to the grocery store where I will no doubt bring a full cart to the express check out lane before returning to the car I, of course, parked sloppily in two spaces close to the entrance before returning home by driving way to slow in the fast lane.

It tough being such a jerk.

I mean, if you guys were going to slander me, you could have been creative about it rather than accusing me of dragging in the term bigot to your forum?

I suppose calling U-tube 'preaching' (but only when Christians do it) is pretty humorous ... but it certainly lacks that creative panache that makes fiction so interesting to read.

[LiamOS]

And now I am being disciplined for what you think I meant, even as I clearly spelled out what I meant ... Even though I have made that EXACT point in the past.

Run into your nearest airport, and shout "BOMB". Clarify it as being an acronym, and see what happens.
This is not an argument or a discussion. What you said was obviously meant to be perceived as something else, something which would be against the rules. This has been clarified to you before; the rules are not there for you to try to subvert.

Why have supposedly six independently minded moderators not been able to:

#1 - EVER overturn even a single disciplinary issue from O? Not once? Yet we are supposed to believe that you unbiased opinions are fact?

We've never had to, at least in my time here.

And what happened, again, when I asked them to be looked at?

They were looked at, and remained the same.

#2 - Why are several different posters, since numbers are apparently an indicator of unbiased standards all reporting the same thing? Why are terms like, "Atheists reporting at 5 to 1 ration," and, "vendetta," being ignored?

Why are so many Christians and Atheists alike voicing their opinions that this is the most balanced and fair forum around? These numbers are far larger.

Even if Atheists were reporting more, so what? If there's no rule broken, nothing happens, except perhaps a comment where one is needed.

It was your standard Liam, and this entire discussion is about moderators using very different standards to evaluate things ... especially when defending their own clearly erroneous decisions? So why are you not applying your standards to you position.

The astute reader will notice that it was actually Wootah who warned you.

#3 - I will again reiterate the main point.

Why is it that three atheists can use the term bigot, then make bigoted statements and run screaming to the mods?

Let me, for the third time, answer you:

I do not know what thread/incident you are referring to. Please PM me a link.

Is there some reason that the moderation team has repeatedly ignored the evidence presented? Why a bunch of Christians would double down with even more false accusations rather than apologize? Is there some reason that these false allegations would then be used ... well, as a vendetta?

We ignore 'evidence' if we do not deem it to be so. Further, I've repeatedly asked you to clarify to me what exact situation you meant, but you've not.




I am now locking this thread. Further public complaining about the forum and/or its moderation, personal attacks at moderators, etc. are against the rules, and will be dealt with as such.