CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › rowdyhawk10 › Posts

Posts by rowdyhawk10

203 posts shown.

Why are atheism and agnosticism in the Religion PDF? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Steven Clark2 said:I suggested splitting Religion into atheism/agnosticism, Christianity, and Islam. I suppose anyone with a bit of sense and an open mind will realize that this is a natural way to categorize things, especially since most people on this forum tend to hold those specific worldviews.

True... though then everyone would just be shouting their own hallelujahs on their own separate boards in an endless loop. It’s better this way... together... much like how God saw fit to put us all in this world together. We all have our places. 😬

I am also curious why you are requesting a separate section for Muslims when we don't actually want that. If you were asking for a Christianity sub-forum, fine... I could understand that. You are a Christian, after all, and that would be your prerogative. But you aren't Muslim! So why are you pushing for a dedicated space meant only for them? That doesn't suit us. We don't feel the need to segregate ourselves, because we know the truth... :Pacman: we enjoy the crowds, the noise, the public squares, the forums... we've realized that things are simply more interesting that way, and it works well for us. 😁

That is my perspective, anyway. Does that imply I lack a bit of sense? 🙂
Religion moderators - atheists in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Roger Barrett2 said:So, what is the actual point of a forum titled Religion - Institutional Belief?
If Christian or Muslim viewpoints can't be expressed here—if they belong in the mainstream media, at theological conferences, or in public squares, but not on this Forum—then what exactly are we doing here?

The core issue here is that believers should have the freedom to say whatever they want, provided they don't infringe upon the rights of others. I believe I made this clear in my previous response: we aren't living in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to advocate for anything that violates the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which the U.S. is bound to follow—regardless of whether such views are found in the Bible, the Quran, or any other scripture or canon. It’s just basic principle, much like Roman law dictates: one person's rights end where another person's begin. 🙂

Epignosis Asks:
The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate the laws of the United States—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal law were to change, I suppose the Church would simply continue to hold its ground, speaking out against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in general.

Look, I don't think there's an issue with discussing what's considered unnatural, provided you back it up with arguments from the natural world. I actually made a similar point myself—stating that it was contrary to nature—but I didn't get flagged for it because I was being respectful toward gay people and their personal freedoms. I just wasn't making comparisons at that level based on the Bible.

Roger Barrett2 said:The Christian view that homosexuality is unnatural doesn't violate any laws in America—at least, not as things stand right now. Even if federal laws were to shift, the Church isn't going to suddenly change its tune just to stay current. They’ll keep preaching against homosexuality, theft, lying, greed, and immorality in all its forms. At the end of the day, their moral compass isn't dictated by whatever happens to be trending in the legal system.

rowdyhawk10 As I was saying:


Look, if I messed up, then I’m sorry—I truly am. I’ll go back through your posts right now to set things straight. It’s entirely possible I mixed you up with another priest I was talking to earlier. If that’s the case, please accept my apologies. I’m more than willing to say sorry a thousand times over if that's what it takes to make it right.

Hey, don't sweat it—mistakes happen to the best of us!

I appreciate you accepting my apology. 🙂 Greetings.
Religion moderators - atheists in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Roger Barrett2 said:Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.

Forgive me, but the way you present a Bible verse and then attempt to justify it feels a bit like an evasion. Personally, I am against homosexuality, just as you read on that page, and I agree that it is contrary to nature. However, if I were to quote the Quran, I suppose I would also deserve a warning. I hope you see the distinction. We don't live in a theocracy, nor is this a strictly religious forum. No one has the right to express views that contravene the laws of the United States or international human rights charters, which bind America as well, even if such views appeared a thousand times in the Bible or the honorable Quran. We all agreed to abide by those rules when we registered for this forum.🙂

Roger Barrett2 said:Look, rowdyhawk10, there are two things here we need to clear up. First, when I grouped homosexuality with those other issues, I was simply stating that both are sins—things that are unnatural and wrong from a divine perspective. I wasn't making a comparison between people, nor was I calling for gay individuals to face criminal prosecution the way we would for rapists.

Second—where on earth are you getting this idea that I supported tearing down mosques in Canada or pushing fake news from Russia? You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. The only topic I've ever touched on regarding Islam was the debate over banning minarets in Switzerland, where I actually voiced my opposition to that ban. Feel free to dig through my post history and see for yourself. Hate speech? I’ve never once been flagged for hate speech on this forum, so again, you've got the wrong guy.

Edit: You can also check my infraction history; you'll see that not a single one of them is for hate speech.

Okay, if I did that, I apologize, and I truly am sorry... I will go back and check your posts. It is possible I mistook you for another individual who is also a priest. If that is the case, I will apologize to you—not just once, but a thousand times if necessary.
Religion moderators - atheists in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:So, I guess?
Which part of this is actually difficult to wrap your head around??
Back in the day, before we moved away from animal sacrifices, people would drink the blood and eat the meat of the creature being offered up (which, let's hope, was just an animal)
The whole idea was that through the act of sacrifice, that flesh and blood became sanctified, bringing a divine blessing to whoever consumed it
🙂
Jesus essentially abolished that practice by shifting the entire concept to a spiritual level through wine and the host—acting as a ritual to receive blessings through consecration, which we now refer to as his body and blood

And now, just because someone decided to ask a question, what are we supposed to do??
Ban rowdyhawk10? Outlaw Islam on the forum? Ban everything except Christianity??...

Or, we could try something else that actually seems useful: we could clean up the religion subreddits by removing anyone who isn't capable of civilized communication, regardless of what denomination they follow, and leave actual space for people who are genuinely interested in interfaith dialogue and actually want to learn something from "the other side"

Zg sash
I would just ask, quite sincerely... why is this lady allowed to call me out in ten different threads, morally discredit me, accuse me of some sort of undercover agenda, and literally call me a coward? Why is she permitted to impose her worldview on others as if it were untouchable? She has done this in SEVERAL threads. Wherever she can. She did it in my thread about conversion. She did it in the book protest against religion. And now she is doing it here. Why is she being tolerated? 🙄

Please look at her last post. First, she mentions Roger Barrett2. Fine, she has every right to do that, but she’s simply abusing it. She wrote maybe one paragraph about Epignosic (at most 10% of her post), and then suddenly, without any logic or intellectual justification, shifts the focus to attacking me personally (at least 90% of her post). You saw everything she wrote. For instance, she claims I am base—that I write in a low manner—and talks about my inherent lack of character. And those aren't even all the insults she threw at me. Why is she being tolerated? Especially since this entire post she scribbled in this thread isn't even on topic (meaning, what she is writing and insinuating has nothing to do with the question of why atheists are moderators on the religion thread).
Religion moderators - atheists in Feedback & Suggestions ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.

In my opinion, the moderators were technically correct to issue Roger Barrett2 a ban, though I find the severity of the penalty a bit underwhelming. Honestly, they should have gone with at least a 500-day suspension. He essentially equated homosexuals with the absolute worst elements of society—people like thieves or those involved in bestiality. That’s particularly problematic given that Roger Barrett2 has a track record of hate speech, especially regarding his support for destroying mosques in Canada, his spreading of Russian disinformation, and several other instances.

Jeremy Young19 said:How can a moderator claim to be objective if they lack the fundamental understanding or context of the very content they are supposed to be overseeing?

Even hollowtrucker77 agrees with this. Here. That was an excellent response, quoting: I suppose when someone assumes they can just blather on about whatever comes to mind—insulting others while hiding behind the excuse of "God told me this way"—it really just comes down to poor math on the part of whoever calculated that logic in the first place.It basically boils down to this: even if the Quran states that a thief should have their hands cut off, you don't get to advocate for that kind of practice on a platform like Reddit. It’s the same deal with the Bible. While it is true that certain lifestyles are equated with criminals or bestiality within those texts, a user doesn't have the right to present those views as their own personal stance here.

A moderator's job is to react to low-quality, inhumane posts, not to be an expert in exegesis. Even when it comes to actual knowledge, I suspect Reddit probably understands Christianity better than 99.9 percent of the Christians on this forum. ☕
Re: Religion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Susan Price30 said:God is love isn't my clone, don't make things up...

The moderator is claiming you have a bunch of clones. 🤷

Susan Price30 said:for example, maybe check which state this username is coming from (or anyone else's, really) before you start throwing out suggestions; that's just my advice, 'Sherlock Holmes'—but honestly, it shouldn't be hard to verify where someone is posting from instead of lying or rushing to conclusions.😉

With a proxy service, you could have been messaging from Antarctica for all I care.
Changing up your dialect won't stop you from being found out.

Susan Price30 said:you've got that whole PDF, so go troll over there and carry on with your mission while you still can. nobody asked you anything in this thread, and your opinion isn't relevant to anyone here..

So your opinion is somehow more relevant than mine? You've spent a year on PŽK, posting in over 30 different threads in this complaints subforum. Meanwhile, I've only ever posted in this one specific thread. Are you somehow above me?

Susan Price30 said:& I would ask the admins or supermods to either close this thread or stop these annoying trolls who keep coming here with their transparent provocations.

It was the moderator telling you that you have clones, and that you use some of them to hurl vulgar insults. I think I'd find it quite embarrassing if someone said that to me.
Re: Religion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brian Edwards6 said:
Susan Price30 said:She was probably just terrified that this particular forum user would leak and forward her weird private message so that was her way of stopping it; now that she's banned, she can't do it anymore. That's all there is to it. 😉

over and out.

I suppose the person in question showed quite a bit of patience with that forum user, but that's just my humble opinion. 🤷

Yeah, right... as if ''she can't post because she's banned''.
As if she couldn't just make a clone account? 😁

Brian Edwards6 said:Perhaps we are looking at a form of Grace that is incomprehensible, given that it originates from non-believers? 😉
P.S.: My last sentence (and the others) isn't meant as an insult (if anyone took it that way, I apologize), but rather a reference to a discussion on religion regarding God's Grace and my question about where the grace practiced by "non-believers" comes from (or why "believers" withhold it). 👍

Well, I didn't take that as an insult, don't worry; I took it as a witty remark, just as it was written.
It's just that I might not grasp those hidden ''truths'' that are reserved only ''for the chosen ones''. 😉

Susan Price30 said:over and out.

over and out—until the next clone appears, perhaps? 🙄
Re: Religion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Chris Peterson53 said:It finally came to light!...

1...By using one of your proven clones, you were actually insulting me.

2...And I suppose the rest of your clones have been exposed as well. Whatever is bothering you... well, I don't think that's going to be made public. 😉

If we told the clones exactly how they were being caught, they would probably just find a way to fix their methods and make themselves nearly impossible to track. You just don't do that. It would be like a detective telling a criminal exactly how they got caught. 😉
Re: Religion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Susan Price30 said:I would ask everyone to please stop cluttering this thread with things that have nothing to do with our topic.

Actually, it is exactly what this is about. It’s about how a handful of you—and I mean a very small number, you could count them on one hand—constantly engage in exactly what I described above. My post isn't targeting sincere users, just the insincere ones. At least two of your sockpuppet accounts were perfectly described by Mladen in this post; just a brief excerpt:
Pseudo-representatives of Christianity, such as Good Angel, Todaytonight, Princess, God is love, and so on, lead down that fatal path toward total indifference regarding Christian and religious beliefs. Through their contributions, they aren't enriching or supplementing Christianity; rather, they are exploiting and distorting it.

And I am not some "tough guy," Susan Price30. I have my own handle, my one and only. I have never once used multiple identities in my life. Not just on this forum, but anywhere. I was raised to be an honest and decent person. Using various aliases, where one even alters their dialect or spelling just to hide their true identity, is simply dishonorable.

Susan Price30 said:if you support and protect those who call Christianity a delusion(not just once, but at least 'hundreds' of times by now) and call Christians dogmatic people who need to be worked on (I assume working on means missionary work to lead them out of 'delusion'), then you aren't any better than they are.

A good moderator is defined by being impartial when making judgments. You, however, seem to want human opinions to be sanctioned. Still, the world isn't a small town, and you have to accept the fact that among seven billion people, there will always be those who believe Christianity is a delusion—just as there are those who believe Islam is a delusion. Both sides express their views on this forum, and no sane person screams about someone else's opinion. Both perspectives are simply human opinions. To a rational person, it shouldn't be an issue. In fact, they'll likely welcome the dialogue.

Susan Price30 said:they at least fight for the survival of their faith by imposing it because they believe that's how it should be done, whereas I wonder what you are actually fighting for.

When discussing imposition, I wonder if there is any ideology more aggressive or inherently dishonest than fanaticism in all its forms. Aren't we constantly confronted by tens of thousands of fraudulent relics—everything from the "Holy Grail" to the "Shroud of Turin"—as well as terrorist acts where civilians suffer in the name of Allah? Are you suggesting we should just stop talking about these things?

Susan Price30 said:Religion wasn't intended, nor should it be, a platform for such actions; rather, it should be a space for interfaith dialogue conducted in a civil and respectful manner that honors diversity and mutual respect.

Interfaith dialogue can only truly happen on an open and free forum like this one. It doesn't work in specialized, single-faith forums, like the ones I linked earlier. The fact that some people are perpetually offended whenever Christianity or Islam is labeled a delusion—viewing it as some sort of "provocation"—only seems to highlight how misguided and lost those who take offense actually are.

Susan Price30 said:former moderators are former for good reason, and they aren't untouchable as users either—despite your comical attempt to reach out to "old colleagues" from yesterday—their intentions and their actual role here have already been exposed, so all that's left is spreading stories about non-existent "clones"🤦 and continuing with the deception and lies. And blaming innocent people who are neither guilty nor responsible. 🙂

There is really only one reason why I am not a moderator, and I suppose it is something you simply won't understand. 😬
Re: Religion thread in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Chris Peterson53 said:Since you continue to push your own interpretations here, especially after being publicly labeled a Muslim in a derogatory sense with the clear intention of causing offense... not to mention the comments on the other sub-forum, where I was called some kind of Muslim slut (I won't even list the other insults used here), it stands to reason that I have openly stated and emphasized that I am a Christian....




😢



I feel for you regarding the insults you've faced, though I suppose that is just part of being a moderator. For my part, I've had people threaten me, saying they'd come after me with a knife or hurt my family. At the same time, a different breed of fanatic threatened me by calling me an apostate, claiming I was just playing the "church mouse" by attacking Muslims to curry favor with Christians.

It seems there is a constant attempt to turn the religion sub-forum into a classic "religious enclave" (driven largely by certain "Christians," among others). It's a space where any critical discussion is automatically branded as an attack on Christianity or an insult to the faith. If you recall, there was even a movement at one point to split off a dedicated "Christianity" section from the main religion area. 🙄 I suspect such initiatives never actually came from decent people or true Christians, but rather from fanatics who only feel comfortable when they are surrounded by "their own." In those circles, anyone perceived as "different" is effectively silenced; anything they write is immediately dismissed as non-Christian, particularly if it carries a "Muslim" tone. That is why you will perpetually be called a "Muslim slut" by them—because I suppose God intends to exalt you on Judgment Day, when every single word will be weighed. And that day is coming. Every believer believes that. As for the skeptic, or someone whose faith has a crack or a wound in it, they don't believe in accountability, which is why they lash out at honorable people without a second thought for their vile language.

Especially when they hide behind a dozen burner accounts, thinking God isn't watching. 🙄

The insults thrown at believers can only serve to strengthen them. I've never given their vitriol any weight—aside from being cautious about my own safety and my family's—so I would suggest you do the same.

Chris Peterson53 said:And what happens then? We implement forum censorship against the moderators, meaning they wouldn't even be allowed to speak as members, let alone share an opinion or speak from their religious perspective?

Many will push for that, right up until the moment the forum is moderated by people who only write exactly what they want to hear. It's because those types are losers in any fair fight. The only place they think they "win" is in a censored echo chamber, like:
www.catholic.org
www.muftis.org
www.orthodoxy.org

That said, in spaces where different cultures intersect, and where moderation remains objective and fair, one really ought to maintain some level of decorum by relying on actual arguments rather than shouting over the same tired nonsense repeated a thousand times. I suppose many people simply lack that baseline level of civility required for dialogue with those who hold different views.

It’s probably why there is such constant noise coming from the religious "underground," always demanding concessions. They seem to be working for a spiritual mafia that has made our entire world feel insecure, perhaps even dangerous. You could easily take the atmosphere found on a forum like this and apply it to the broader world—it gives you a pretty clear picture of the state of our civilization. In my view, the spiritual tyrants are largely responsible for this mess. They would likely prefer tearing down churches and mosques than actually mentioning God. Best,
What's going on in the Religion sub? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
William Green4
Just because this forum is titled Religion doesn't mean it's exclusive to religious people.
Atheism is also a specific stance regarding the existence or non-existence of God, morality, and so on.
It includes moral critiques concerning the conduct of churches and religious individuals in general.
If we segregate atheism, this subforum would essentially just turn into an "Hallelujah" board. Best regards,
Mod edit in Feedback & Suggestions ·
feralpilot0 said:Doesn't that rule seem a bit misguided to you?

Still, it is a rule. Don't you agree? 🙂 Personally, during my tenure, I wasn't fond of editing other people's posts unless I was fixing an incorrect quote, and even then, I made it a point to explain why,

I agree with your assessment that the specific rule (highlighted in red in the quote above) is flawed. Primarily because once a post is edited, there is no way to know what the original content was. That is why I preferred to just archive posts or delete them rather than edit. Knowing how many users here tend to behave, I found it safer to avoid editing altogether.

feralpilot0,
VeronikaN didn't want to issue you a warning, so she simply edited your post instead. 🙂 I don't think you should take that personally, especially given how Susan Brooks83 jumped in on it in another thread (as she almost always does—without any actual connection to the topic). As you are aware, accusing someone of trolling in a public discussion is itself a form of trolling. In that sense, you were trolling in the post in question (which was mentioned in the thread intro), because troll posts should be reported via the red icon rather than by telling someone they are a troll. Neither you nor I are the ones who decide who is trolling and when; that is the moderator's job. Our role as users is simply to report it. She deleted it just to save you from getting a strike. She respects you as a peer, okay? 🙂 Regards
Mod edit in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Susan Brooks83 said:I'm glad you decided to bring that up. 🙂 I've actually experienced that firsthand from the same moderator.
Just to clarify, I already mentioned the FBI regarding that specific post—the one filled with those nasty insinuations and insults. I read it exactly as it was written, but then, just moments later, it had been "edited." Now they’re claiming what I said isn't true, insisting nothing was changed and accusing me of making things up, on top of all the other nonsense about the server and whatnot.

🙂

Would the esteemed lady of this Reddit thread be so kind as to provide the readers with a link?
As confirmation of what I just quoted?

Susan Brooks83 said:Since the "overhaul" happened essentially overnight, I suppose it wasn't exactly obvious when the shift occurred. But regardless, the important thing is that I was accused of persecuting the mods. 🤦 I'm just disappointed I didn't manage to copy and paste that controversial post. I had been typing on a different thread, and by the time I made my way back to this one, it wasn't exactly in its original form anymore. 😁

If you wouldn't mind providing a link to this as well... just so we can be sure which post we're actually looking at?

I’m asking this because... The Terms of Service on Reddit. Standing by.
I suppose appeal posts are required to be written in a respectful manner, backed by solid arguments.
Mod edit in Feedback & Suggestions ·
feralpilot0 said:Why do people go back and edit their posts like this? What was even the point of changing this specific one without leaving a note or any indication that anything was actually removed? 😕

I suppose there might be some truth to what shadowtrucker was saying earlier, though I’m not entirely certain. It feels like we're all just circling the same drain, isn't it? I guess if you look at the data from the Pew Research Center, you could argue that the general sentiment is shifting, but even then, it's hard to say anything for sure without more context. Maybe it's just my perspective, but it seems like people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with how things are handled around here. I don't know. It's all very speculative, I suppose.

There's a private message system and we have bans if people violate the Terms of Service, so I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to be.

feralpilot0,
If that's the case, then why does this specific part of the Terms of Service even exist?
I suppose there's some merit to what shadowtrucker was saying earlier, though I find myself somewhat skeptical about the overall direction this conversation is taking. It seems like everyone on Reddit has an opinion on how things should be run, even if those opinions aren't particularly grounded in reality. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all unfolds.
Desiree The user said:Editorial opportunities on Reddit.
Reddit is privately owned by the Pew Research Center.
Most of the editorial staff on Reddit are just volunteers who were selected to handle that "job."

They have the ability to:
* Changing the content of posts.
Changing thread titles.
Deleting posts or entire threads.
Moving posts/threads.
...locking threads...

I am asking you quite seriously here: why do you believe a moderator shouldn't be allowed to edit a post? If the rule explicitly says they can only delete it or issue a warning, then that's what they should do. Are you actually suggesting we strike that part from the Terms of Service entirely? Regards.
Hate speech and religious intolerance on the Religion forum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
The question raised in the opening post of this thread might actually be quite well-founded.

I just posted a preemptive response over on the controversial thread, here, though there will probably be more discussion there shortly.

In the meantime, I’d ask everyone on the forum to please bear with us. 🙂

The situation is rather delicate—it isn't really just one single issue, but rather a whole collection of them—but I suppose if everyone approaches this with good intentions, we can find an optimal way to resolve everything.

The moderation team is currently consulting on the matter, and we will follow up both there and here once we have reached a consensus as a team.

Thanks to everyone for responding to the intro and for contributing to this topic.

rowdyhawk10
How to help Haiti in Feedback & Suggestions ·

We're moving this thread over to the politics subforum so the moderators can track down the best PDF version available.
It seems only a relatively small percentage of the total registered users on this site actually engage with the religion section.

Thread Migration - moving posts without owner consent? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Hey mellowlynx68, I've moved this thread over here.
There were several threads titled "The Ten Commandments," at least five of them, actually. :0rofl:
Someone opened yet another identical one a few days ago, so I went ahead and merged them all together.

I suppose it might be helpful to practice using the search function a bit more. 🙂 Best,
Mod Shady is at it again in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brian Mendoza95 said:Come on, people, let's not be like that; rowdyhawk10 is clearly under a lot of stress right now.

Since I am already here, perhaps I might ask rowdyhawk10: do you truly find anything in this post to be offensive to you?

Fair enough. 👍
Brian Mendoza95 said:Come on, people, let's not be like that; rowdyhawk10 is clearly under a lot of stress right now.

Since I am already here, perhaps I might ask rowdyhawk10: do you truly find anything in this post to be offensive to you?

No. It's actually a compliment. 🙂

Hannah Thompson2 said:When are you actually going to get back to me about this? It’s been two weeks already and I'm still stuck with this card.

?

I believe I addressed that in the very posts you quoted from that linked thread.
Unless, of course, there's something else you need clarification on. Best,
Sorry, we're doing some quick site maintenance in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Samuel Booth76 said:I’m honestly just done with everyone tied to this forum—the company and the mods included. You can all go jump in a lake ☕

So, even yourself? 😬
How to help Haiti in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It would probably be best if they let either the government agencies in charge of the response
or some major humanitarian organization handle it. Best,