AdHoc wrote:....The spirit of this forum is respect and civility, how is it uncivil to assume and say someone has a bias or an agenda? I can't imagine how a person could be offended by that.
On the other hand, I do find the tone of DIs posts a little... "Sandpapery" in this thread so I can see how it could generate a thought that there is more to the words than the words themselves. ....
Just my sincere take as a completely unbiased (as far as this case is concerned) observer.
Astute observations. In my not so humble opinion some get dinged for fairly innocuous posts, like referring to someone's "religious agenda," because of prior posts blasting the religion in question. Example,
Debater A gets whacked for calling God an evil liar, while
Debater X says exactly the same thing, but couches it differently:
"If the myths of the Bible are taken literally, then they portray God as an evil liar."
If
Debater A repeats his claim with an entire paragraph it is called a "rant."
Debater X does the same thing but is more concise so it is not called "ranting."
In fairness to the moderators, much of this is a judgment call and every moderator has his or her biases. However, it continues to be my contention that
this forum is moderated more fairly and allows more open and unrestricted discussion than any religious forum on the internet.*
We are even allowed to criticize the rules and how they are applied, as long as we do it in general terms on this subforum, or in in private messages.
This very thread testifies to the truth of this fact.
[If I may be permitteda little teasing, I note that there was a post this thread will be locked.
]
_______________________
*My claim is easily rebutted if it is wrong. Simply cite the religious forum that is more open to divergent points of view than DCR.
."
