Home › rowdyhawk10 › Posts

Posts by rowdyhawk10

203 posts shown.

Mod Shady is at it again in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 28, 2009

Amy Brown8 said:🙂 People who live locked away in their own little bubbles always seem to need someone else's world to tear down. That’s exactly what you’re doing with your weirdness, your ignorance, and this "knowledge" delusion you've got going on. I was just pointing out what I see in those so-called spiritual ecstasies of yours—it’s just emptiness. It’s a kind of "wisdom" that only makes sense in your own head. You can't hide how much you actually hate Christianity; your stance is transparently obvious. I really don't think you have any actual desire to learn anything. Your whole goal seems to be tearing down this belief system and silencing anyone different. Honestly, the more I listen, the more I think maybe I should stop calling you "tolerant"—since you only use that word when it suits you. 😢

Look, what you wrote there is nothing more than pure trolling mixed with a heavy dose of personal attacks. And the backlash hasn't even died down yet regarding the mess you left in the "Orthodox world" thread, where your insinuations turned into a public condemnation without any actual basis.

Did I personally insult you at any point in this thread?
Did I analyze your character or your personality?
Did I tell you what kind of person you are?
Did I claim that you hate someone or something?

I know you do this intentionally so that once you get a warning, you can complain about being "terrorized" by others. This is a constant tactic used by a few individuals on this forum—defending the abnormality of your beliefs (and your quasi-ecstasies, if we must call them that) in such an undignified manner by spitting on anyone who recognizes the sheer absurdity and depth of idolatry. You prefer to muddy the waters of a clear, spontaneous dialogue because you thrive in the confusion. When you realize you can't reasonably defend your convictions—mostly because you can't accept anyone else's—you resort to this low tactic: starting personal insults to make any real conversation impossible. So, if you aren't capable of avoiding this behavior, perhaps you should just avoid the forum altogether. Best,

When is the religion section finally getting purged from PDF? in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 26, 2009

Gregory Turner71 said:Hold on, let me just grab my shotgun first... 😁

My dear colleague, I am sorry for your loss... but the bullets just seem to bounce right off my impenetrable titanium shield! 🙂

Is it allowed for moderators to insult users? in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 26, 2009

Of course this thread isn't the reason. 🙂 The formal appeals process exists specifically for situations like this—for instance, when someone is unhappy with how a moderator handled things. However, I suppose Peter Stewart6 would prefer to spread those complaints outside of the designated PDF, which is exactly where they aren't allowed to go according to the rules. Best,

Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 25, 2009

I'm not sure. You should probably check with her about that. 🤷
I am merely responding regarding my own actions. Best, 🙂

Is it allowed for moderators to insult users? in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 25, 2009

Nicholas King said:
Susan Brooks83 said:So, what, you're going to be the one to show me mercy? 🤦

I don't particularly feel like showing any affection toward someone who threatens "action from the appropriate authorities" in a situation like this.

If I had happened to mention mercy, I suppose people would have assumed it was a matter of...
The sexual exploitation of a female forum user by a moderator. 🙂

Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 25, 2009

Morgan Rodriguez57
Like I mentioned in our private messages, there’s a fundamental disagreement here: what you label as "falsehoods," he views as absolute truths. To be fair, kom1 is an incredibly mild-mannered guy; his only real offense is taking an anthropological approach that seems to rub you the wrong way. It feels like you expect me to report him just because he isn't adhering to your specific standards of truth—which, I suppose, means writing strictly from a Catholic worldview. It almost seems as though you want the freedom to insult him without any moderation, simply because his perspective doesn't align with your version of "the truth."

I suppose it was only fair that kom1 received a penalty from feralpilot0 for insulting you. Honestly, I might have even rated him higher than a 45, given how heavy those insults were. Then again, you were essentially giving him similar energy right back earlier. popularly Below his cartoonish post. And even before that. Well, man, you... You just won't stop watching.I suppose that’s all there is to it. It applies to quite a few topics, not just this one that's currently causing a stir.It seems like you just can't stand him. Honestly, it’s more about his writing than anything else. You’ve been shadowing his every move for weeks, maybe even months now—it’s pretty obvious. I get that people with views like his aren't exactly popular, especially since he challenges church dogma using historical facts, scientific data, and anthropological perspectives, but just because you don't like him or what he has to say doesn't give you the right to insult him or troll him constantly.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:😁 Obviously. I suppose you lack the capacity for reasonable reading. I suppose you're just letting your emotions get the better of you when you write like that.

This is just trolling, plain and simple, and this reply is nothing more than a reaction to his insults. If you take a moment to look at your own writing toward him—just looking back at your last few posts—you’ll see that your tone is consistently aggressive. I don't think I've ever seen you actually agree with him on anything. It feels like you're just relentlessly picking him apart from one thread to the next, and honestly, it's been going on for far too long. And that’s always the case with those anthropological threads he tends to start.That's why I actually think he’s somewhat right when he tells you:

kom1 said:It seems you have made it your mission to dismantle my writing.

To be honest, Morgan Rodriguez57, I haven't actually seen kom1 rushing around to attack, dispute, or deny anything you’ve written. Yet, somehow, you seem to show up in every single thread he posts in just to take him down. Even in that one controversial topic. I suppose I should mention Temu. He opened it. If you can't engage with him at an acceptable level, then perhaps it's best to simply ignore his posts and topics altogether. If you do choose to discuss things with him, I'd suggest following the forum rules. Should he direct any insults toward you, we will step in to protect you—just as we do for him.

One more thing I should probably mention to catch the administration's attention, since they’ve been called out—and that includes feralpilot0. In all the years since kom1 first registered back in December 2002, I honestly can’t recall a single instance where he was ever disrespectful to anyone. He’s an incredibly quiet, level-headed member of this community—the kind of guy who even his harshest critics tend to respect. To be fair, nobody has ever directed insults at him until you came along. He hasn't breathed a word of disrespect toward anyone else in these eight years. Looking back at how this whole mess started—which I was actually reading about just this evening—it seems he was practically baited into insulting you. Of course, that doesn't make his behavior okay, but it does shed some light on why you've been following him from one thread to the next. I guess the guy just finally hit his breaking point. 🤷

I suppose I find it unfair that he’s the only one receiving warnings during your little disputes—and it always seems to happen within threads HE starts, which clearly get under your skin. Meanwhile, you seem to dodge any penalties entirely, despite the fact that you’re practically breathing down his neck and occasionally trolling him. If I really wanted to, I could easily list dozens of examples here to prove it, but I just don't have the time right now. Still, if you insist, I suppose I could. 🙄 Best regards,

Thread temporarily closed in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 5, 2009

rustymaker5 said:My apologies, I wasn't aware of the specific protocol since I haven't had any issues until now. You mentioned the complaint book. Understood.

Well, there you have it, and you've already received a response.
The procedure is outlined in the forum rules. Best.

Thread temporarily closed in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 5, 2009

It’s a bit like getting slapped in a diner and then running straight to George W. Bush to file a formal grievance. 🙄

There really wasn't any need to start a thread here; it goes against the rules. Since I was the one who closed the topic, you could have just sent me a private message and waited to see if I responded. If I didn't get back to you, there is always the "complaint book" section under religion. I suppose you should only open a public thread here after you've tried those steps and still haven't received a response that satisfies you.

Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 4, 2009

Morgan Rodriguez57, that was merely a yellow card—which, as you’re aware, doesn't actually carry any penalty points—intended only to suggest that such questions tend to derail the discussion. The topic at hand was specifically the Swiss referendum regarding the ban on minarets.

Perhaps we could find another time to debate whether the Quran or the Bible holds more merit. Does that work? Best regards.

Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning in Feedback & Suggestions · Dec 3, 2009

Morgan Rodriguez57.
You’ve raised quite a few questions here, seemingly designed to justify banning minarets in Switzerland. For instance, you claim that "Islam is violent"... you even went as far as saying "mosques serve as training grounds for Islamic extremists"... along with several other accusations used to argue that minarets should be banned everywhere, not just in Switzerland. Some of you even pushed for bans on more than just minarets across Europe—which, frankly, borders on hate speech—and some suggested banning mosques entirely. One user even argued for the total abolition of Islam, claiming "it's never too late."

You also framed your question this way: "find me something in the Quran similar to what is in Jesus'..."... an attempt, I suppose, to suggest that "peaceful Christianity" is somehow superior to an "aggressive Islam."

If I had simply deleted your question, you probably would have claimed: "Here is rowdyhawk10, a Muslim who is bothered by my uncomfortable questions because he can't answer them," followed by something like, "rowdyhawk10 is abusing moderator powers to delete inconvenient questions he can't handle." Either way, it seems you would have been dissatisfied. 🤷

I temporarily locked the thread and noted that I would be removing off-topic comments. Regards.

Mod Shady is at it again in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 21, 2009

rustyfalcon38 said:Let me clear one thing up—the opinion I’m sharing here isn't just mine; it represents a whole group of former contributors to the Religion PDF who walked away from this forum specifically because of the moderator in question. There is this overwhelming sense of arrogance—a blatant dismissal of anyone else who comes to the Religion section, especially Christians. As a believer of Jewish descent, I embrace the Messiah and his teachings; I’ve been interested in this PDF for quite some time and truly wanted to join the conversation. But when I see how people are treated simply for disagreeing—with a vibe more akin to those repulsive sites like Islamosna—I lose all desire to participate. Certain things should be self-evident: the religious and cultural background of Americans is over 90% Christian, and I believe moderators should act with that responsibility in mind (after all, When in Rome, do as Romans do, right?). Instead, we see favoritism toward nonsense like "Jesus is gay because of how he combs his hair," claims that Christians are polytheists, accusations of "corrupt faith," or assertions that Muslims are the only ones on the right path. It’s garbage. Plenty of people have abandoned this forum precisely because such statements are tolerated far more leniently than any criticism of Islam. One gets the distinct impression that there is no clear leadership and no unified direction for moderation policy, while in the meantime, the individual in charge uses that vacuum to push their own propaganda. This PDF is slowly dying; engagement is dropping, and if things continue this way, it might just reach its end, because people are genuinely losing interest and quite literally running for the exits.

Shalom 🙂

Why should the image of this country match the makeup of this forum? (this forum isn't the United States or the American people). Besides, there are more non-Catholics than Catholics on here. So, what exactly are you looking for: having 90% Catholic moderators? (and why are you being so prickly toward Nicole James?)

rustyfalcon38 said:A few pieces of advice for you; perhaps try reading more closely—or better yet, buy some glasses—and please stop putting words in my mouth that I never actually said. Try to take someone else's critique with a bit more gravity. All I am looking for is objectivity and a level playing field, not some personal vendetta being carried out across the forum.

And where is the evidence for these claims, if I may ask? Which warnings have you actually received from a moderator in the Religion section? What you're doing here is pure lobbying! In the rules, it clearly states that such behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps it would be better to speak only for yourself, since everyone has a way to appeal any penalties they receive, which is handled under: Complaints regarding warnings.

rustyfalcon38 said:Let me clear one thing up—the opinion I’m sharing here isn't just mine; it represents a whole group of former contributors to the Religion PDF who walked away from this forum specifically because of the moderator in question. There is this overwhelming sense of arrogance—a blatant dismissal of anyone else who comes to the Religion section, especially Christians. As a believer of Jewish descent, I embrace the Messiah and his teachings; I’ve been interested in this PDF for quite some time and truly wanted to join the conversation. But when I see how people are treated simply for disagreeing—with a vibe more akin to those repulsive sites like Islamosna—I lose all desire to participate. Certain things should be self-evident: the religious and cultural background of Americans is over 90% Christian, and I believe moderators should act with that responsibility in mind (after all, When in Rome, do as Romans do, right?). Instead, we see favoritism toward nonsense like "Jesus is gay because of how he combs his hair," claims that Christians are polytheists, accusations of "corrupt faith," or assertions that Muslims are the only ones on the right path. It’s garbage. Plenty of people have abandoned this forum precisely because such statements are tolerated far more leniently than any criticism of Islam. One gets the distinct impression that there is no clear leadership and no unified direction for moderation policy, while in the meantime, the individual in charge uses that vacuum to push their own propaganda. This PDF is slowly dying; engagement is dropping, and if things continue this way, it might just reach its end, because people are genuinely losing interest and quite literally running for the exits.

Shalom 🙂

That's all quite general, until you actually provide some usernames.
And lobbying is definitely prohibited under the
code of conduct and complaint book ii
.Quote:

rustyfalcon38[URL='showthread.php?p=23513110#post23513110'] says:
Why would I post somewhere where people get warned for things like psychoanalysis, or where Islam is treated as sacred while everyone else is always wrong? I'm trying to change the environment and prepare the ground for myself and others to participate and write freely without having to count up warning points at the end of the day.

Evidence, evidence... (???) 🙄 If I have been unfair to you in any way, please tell me specifically where.

I've been looking over your profile. You haven't received A SINGLE WARNING from any of the moderators in the Religion subforum—and I don't just mean myself, but any other moderator overseeing that section. So, this claim of yours about being "assigned" to do this doesn't really hold water. I have no idea who sent you a private message. I already pointed you toward the rules, so perhaps you should actually take the time to read them; what you're doing is quite simply against the rules. Best,

Mod Shady is at it again in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 19, 2009

Hannah Thompson2 said:Look, this isn't some deep theological debate—it’s about you trying to smear me. I laid out all my arguments in that link, and now it’s just been wiped away. Seriously, who gave you the authority to do that?

And specifically, this is what’s written in black and white.

rowdyhawk10;
First things first, let me be perfectly clear about this: The faith that Jesus taught—the actual core of what he preached—is mostly just found among Jewish and Muslim communities today.. And there isn't even a code of conduct for those who claim to follow her. Honestly, at this point, it doesn't even matter if we're talking about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or those smaller groups like the Quakers or Jehovah's Witnesses—it’s all pretty much the same. There isn’t really a code to follow with them—not because one doesn't exist, but because everything written in the Gospels and the apocrypha regarding what Jesus actually said has been twisted beyond recognition. The meanings and intentions have just been warped over time, haven't they?

How exactly do you claim to know where Jesus's teachings exist? And how can you argue they only persist among Muslims and Jews? The New Testament and the apocrypha predate the Quran—so you can't really go against that chronological flow. I’d love to actually sit down and debate this with you, but honestly, after everything that was deleted—I'm assuming that was your doing—there's just no point anymore.

You’re calling me out specifically here. And there's just no rulebook for those who choose to follow her. Look, I'm the one you're talking about—but based on what exactly? You haven't actually given me a single argument.

I simply speak my truth. I don't see how my convictions constitute an "attack" on whatever it is you believe in. The forum rules for the Religion section are pretty explicit: "THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS OR TABOOS ON THIS FORUM!" That basically means there aren't any untouchable topics or specially protected religions here. If our worldviews don't align—well, I suppose I can't help that. My main concern is that I haven't disparaged you personally.

Hannah Thompson2 said:Look, this isn't some deep theological debate—it’s about you trying to smear me. I laid out all my arguments in that link, and now it’s just been wiped away. Seriously, who gave you the authority to do that?

And specifically, this is what’s written in black and white.

rowdyhawk10;
First things first, let me be perfectly clear about this: The faith that Jesus taught—the actual core of what he preached—is mostly just found among Jewish and Muslim communities today.. And there isn't even a code of conduct for those who claim to follow her. Honestly, at this point, it doesn't even matter if we're talking about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or those smaller groups like the Quakers or Jehovah's Witnesses—it’s all pretty much the same. There isn’t really a code to follow with them—not because one doesn't exist, but because everything written in the Gospels and the apocrypha regarding what Jesus actually said has been twisted beyond recognition. The meanings and intentions have just been warped over time, haven't they?

How exactly do you claim to know where Jesus's teachings exist? And how can you argue they only persist among Muslims and Jews? The New Testament and the apocrypha predate the Quran—so you can't really go against that chronological flow. I’d love to actually sit down and debate this with you, but honestly, after everything that was deleted—I'm assuming that was your doing—there's just no point anymore.

You’re calling me out specifically here. And there's just no rulebook for those who choose to follow her. Look, I'm the one you're talking about—but based on what exactly? You haven't actually given me a single argument.

What? What was deleted? Where? I'm lost. 🤷 If this is directed at me, please be specific—which link, which thread, and who deleted it?

Hannah Thompson2 said:Look, this isn't some deep theological debate—it’s about you trying to smear me. I laid out all my arguments in that link, and now it’s just been wiped away. Seriously, who gave you the authority to do that?

And specifically, this is what’s written in black and white.

rowdyhawk10;
First things first, let me be perfectly clear about this: The faith that Jesus taught—the actual core of what he preached—is mostly just found among Jewish and Muslim communities today.. And there isn't even a code of conduct for those who claim to follow her. Honestly, at this point, it doesn't even matter if we're talking about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or those smaller groups like the Quakers or Jehovah's Witnesses—it’s all pretty much the same. There isn’t really a code to follow with them—not because one doesn't exist, but because everything written in the Gospels and the apocrypha regarding what Jesus actually said has been twisted beyond recognition. The meanings and intentions have just been warped over time, haven't they?

How exactly do you claim to know where Jesus's teachings exist? And how can you argue they only persist among Muslims and Jews? The New Testament and the apocrypha predate the Quran—so you can't really go against that chronological flow. I’d love to actually sit down and debate this with you, but honestly, after everything that was deleted—I'm assuming that was your doing—there's just no point anymore.

You’re calling me out specifically here. And there's just no rulebook for those who choose to follow her. Look, I'm the one you're talking about—but based on what exactly? You haven't actually given me a single argument.

Now, what you're asking actually opens up a theological debate. And, as I've already stated, I have no intention of getting into a theological debate on this subforum. You already received the arguments regarding that topic in the thread where we discussed it. If you aren't satisfied with those answers, feel free to ask over in the Religion section; I'd be happy to explain my views in more detail there (and I stand by them!). We can certainly continue the discussion there, but let's keep it to the arguments instead of calling out moderators, just like everyone else does.

Hannah Thompson2 said:Look, this isn't some deep theological debate—it’s about you trying to smear me. I laid out all my arguments in that link, and now it’s just been wiped away. Seriously, who gave you the authority to do that?

And specifically, this is what’s written in black and white.

rowdyhawk10;
First things first, let me be perfectly clear about this: The faith that Jesus taught—the actual core of what he preached—is mostly just found among Jewish and Muslim communities today.. And there isn't even a code of conduct for those who claim to follow her. Honestly, at this point, it doesn't even matter if we're talking about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or those smaller groups like the Quakers or Jehovah's Witnesses—it’s all pretty much the same. There isn’t really a code to follow with them—not because one doesn't exist, but because everything written in the Gospels and the apocrypha regarding what Jesus actually said has been twisted beyond recognition. The meanings and intentions have just been warped over time, haven't they?

How exactly do you claim to know where Jesus's teachings exist? And how can you argue they only persist among Muslims and Jews? The New Testament and the apocrypha predate the Quran—so you can't really go against that chronological flow. I’d love to actually sit down and debate this with you, but honestly, after everything that was deleted—I'm assuming that was your doing—there's just no point anymore.

You’re calling me out specifically here. And there's just no rulebook for those who choose to follow her. Look, I'm the one you're talking about—but based on what exactly? You haven't actually given me a single argument.

Regarding your assumption that I deleted something of yours—I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. I guess it would help if you were a bit more specific. We can certainly continue this discussion on that topic once things are clearer. I'm open to it. 🙂

Hannah Thompson2 said:Look, this isn't some deep theological debate—it’s about you trying to smear me. I laid out all my arguments in that link, and now it’s just been wiped away. Seriously, who gave you the authority to do that?

And specifically, this is what’s written in black and white.

rowdyhawk10;
First things first, let me be perfectly clear about this: The faith that Jesus taught—the actual core of what he preached—is mostly just found among Jewish and Muslim communities today.. And there isn't even a code of conduct for those who claim to follow her. Honestly, at this point, it doesn't even matter if we're talking about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or those smaller groups like the Quakers or Jehovah's Witnesses—it’s all pretty much the same. There isn’t really a code to follow with them—not because one doesn't exist, but because everything written in the Gospels and the apocrypha regarding what Jesus actually said has been twisted beyond recognition. The meanings and intentions have just been warped over time, haven't they?

How exactly do you claim to know where Jesus's teachings exist? And how can you argue they only persist among Muslims and Jews? The New Testament and the apocrypha predate the Quran—so you can't really go against that chronological flow. I’d love to actually sit down and debate this with you, but honestly, after everything that was deleted—I'm assuming that was your doing—there's just no point anymore.

You’re calling me out specifically here. And there's just no rulebook for those who choose to follow her. Look, I'm the one you're talking about—but based on what exactly? You haven't actually given me a single argument.

I'm not attempting to cast any blame on you by holding this view. It is simply my perspective, and I believe it to be the truth. I also feel that my position is supported by arguments; I have already laid them out there, so if they aren't sufficient, feel free to dispute them. 🤷

It is somewhat improper on your part to call out a moderator within a standard discussion thread. There is a general consensus among the moderation team that such remarks in regular threads are subject to immediate removal and a strike on your record. If you have grievances regarding moderation, those should be reserved specifically for the complaint book thread or this particular subforum. I'll leave you to it over on that thread. I am stepping out of this conversation, unless you have a specific grievance regarding my actions as a moderator. Regards. 🙂

Mod Shady is at it again in Feedback & Suggestions · Nov 9, 2009

Hannah Thompson2,
I have no intention of getting dragged into theological debates with you here on the complaint book forum (since that falls under the domain of Religion).
If you feel like I've actually wronged you, just specify what it was (provide a link and an explanation).
Here are the general guidelines on how to file a grievance: Best, 🙂

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 28, 2009

steeleagle2 said:@rowdyhawk10—After your first post where you actually agreed with the shutdown—which was a classy move on your part—we get this third installment where you’ve not only flipped your stance but also turned ice-cold. It’s freezing. You’re basically staging a display of raw authority here, parading through with the laws and rules like they're some kind of absolute victory. It feels like watching one of those massive military parades in China where they wave around heavy artillery and endless lines of soldiers. Honestly, I feel like that woman standing defiantly in front of the tank in the middle of the square.

I won't even bother commenting on the rest because this has started to feel more like entertainment than anything else, and I'm not really here for the show.

In my initial post, I actually intended to close it and wrote, "leave a final word." But, as you probably noticed, it triggered a wave of dissatisfaction and bitterness; people weren't ready for the Dervish Lodge to shut down. So, I reached out to a few members—and then to my colleagues on the moderator team the next day—to ask for their input. In the meantime, the debate at the Dervish Lodge was heating up, and I was just politely asking everyone to bear with me... (that was the third post). It isn't cold at all, if you look closely. Ultimately, after some thorough analysis, he agreed with everyone that the Dervish Lodge shouldn't be closed. 🤷 Peace Peace

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 28, 2009

steeleagle2 said:Blue, it wasn't a sudden whim on my part. The Dervish Lodge is different from any other topic on this forum. There is nothing else like it. It has to simultaneously adhere to the forum rules and general operations, while also remaining completely distinct and protected so it can actually function. How do you balance those two things, and why is it necessary?

The answer to that is quite complex. As the one who started it, I can only say that the current situation on this religious sub-section of the site is such that the "protection" of the Dervish Lodge has cracked, turning it into just another ordinary thread. Under these conditions, it cannot fulfill the promise made in the introductory post.

Why it must follow forum rules is obvious to everyone.
But why must it simultaneously be separate and protected, and how is that even possible?
I'll try to explain.

A real Dervish Lodge has its own physical space, which defines it and separates it from the outside world so it can function; in fact, a Dervish Lodge cannot exist as an institution without this. This is essential because the atmosphere required for its operation is created within those walls. Primarily, this involves physical cleanliness, followed by spiritual purity. Spiritual purity in a space is achieved through constant, directed prayer and rituals, and through the presence of spiritually pure individuals. This allows the Dervish Lodge to provide the "tools" necessary for spiritual education, the building and strengthening of individuals, or simply providing a sanctuary for souls in search. That is the basic, summarized essence of what the Dervish Lodge must provide.

Now, back to this virtual Dervish Lodge. For protection to work here, it isn't enough for moderators to be diligent and delete off-topic posts or spam. Something more is required. First, the individuals within it—those who feel they belong there, whether by merit or simple desire—must be spiritually pure and strong. Through that combination, they guard the walls of this virtual Dervish Lodge against outside intrusion. Now, when an intrusion happens, it's easy to delete it, but the goal is to cut the intrusion off at the root—to prevent it before it occurs. Because once it happens, it's already too late. It's too late because the intrusion introduces impurity that needs cleaning. Beyond just deleting a post, there is something that remains "hanging in the air." That lingering element needs cleansing, and moderators neither can nor have the tools to handle that. That task falls to those responsible for the Dervish Lodge. If a critical mass of impurity appears, it floods the Dervish Lodge, and individuals are no longer able to...
It’s about purification—as much as possible—and ensuring we ourselves are purified through the effort of cleaning it. A critical mass of spiritual impurity has been fostered by the atmosphere surrounding Religion.

We made a promise in our opening post, and that promise has to be real. When someone walks into our Dervish Lodge, they need to feel that we actually kept our word. No one should leave the lodge feeling heavy-hearted. There is no room for deception here; you simply cannot trick the human soul.
Perhaps you’re wondering if the problem lies within us, or if we just lack the strength? Look, an individual draws their spiritual strength from the community—they essentially fly on the wings of the group. Alone, they have no wings. They are lost and weak. The happenings over on the Religion forum, which rowdyhawk10 moderates, have visibly weakened our community, which automatically stripped away the strength of those of us responsible for the Dervish Lodge. In short, the moderators have gradually created an environment on the Religion forum that actively drains the vitality of our collective. This phenomenon is called turmoil. And we aren't the only ones suffering; all believers feel it, evidenced by the various complaints regarding the state of Religion coming from different denominations or individuals alike. Everyone can see something is wrong. Let me tell you exactly what it is:
Religion has become a place where disbelief and atheism are deliberately and systematically promoted, while faith—whatever its kind—is suppressed. This is done by serving a critical mass of immorality to believers, triggering a predictable reaction (usually some form of protest) that most often ends in sanctions. When this is done planned and systematic, the forum eventually gets purged of believers—at least those who can spot the insidious manipulations by the structure in charge of the Religion forum—leaving behind only those who are blind to these events or someone like me, who actually cares about fixing things.

rowdyhawk10 is quite the 'philosopher.' Just compare his posts toward me regarding the closing of the Dervish Lodge yesterday versus today. Anyone watching will notice the shift. Yesterday he was abrasive, cold, and quite threatening; today, he’s suddenly pleasant and seemingly eager for dialogue, change, and blah, blah, blah... I’d call that emotional instability, but let's move past that. Secondly, I want to point out that he doesn't actually stand behind or believe any of what he's proposing. It’s just a performance, his own little show. While less mood swinging would be nice, the core issue is that he just wants to find a way to preserve his position first, and then ensure the forum functions according to administration directives. Consequently, he’ll say anything to anyone just to hit those goals, regardless of whether his words are true or if he even believes them. It’s a farce with elements of a fiasco. Those who noticed this have either been banned or chose to leave the forum on their own.

That’s all for now.

Could you perhaps provide an example—mentioning the specific username and the circumstances—of someone who was unfairly penalized simply because they chose to protest in a respectful manner?

Religious people constantly try to impose their own set of rules on us, all in an attempt to gain some kind of unfair advantage over atheists. It seems like they’re always reporting even the most trivial posts, such as... The insulting of Christian religious sentiments., The insult directed at Muslim religious feelings.And here we are, trying to explain it to them that... The Religion forum isn't exactly a sanctuary for believers! This is essentially a space for anyone who holds their own views on religion—even those that might be negative. To be clear, the "Religion" sub-forum isn't meant to be... Believers Religious people might consider... mineIf we went that route, atheists would basically be unwelcome on the forum. steeleagle2, the alternative would imply that the administration is playing favorites by favoring religious people while discriminating against those who aren't. I don't think anyone in admin actually wants that, nor is it even a possibility. That kind of thing only happens on those single-issue forums. Muslim.com, www.catholics.org, www.buddhism.com Our position remains clear: every human being has an equal right to be heard, so let the arguments speak for themselves. We only step in to sanction those who are being disrespectful or those who try to force their views on everyone else as if they were some kind of absolute truth. default This serves as both a response to and... this one Regarding your post: there aren't any privileged users on this forum. There are no sacred cows here. And frankly, steeleagle2, that’s a good thing. I actually accepted a moderation role because I saw that the position of equality was the ideal way to handle things. As an American, I suspect there isn't a more perfect standard than that. I suppose anyone who truly understands the clear distinction between truth and delusion shouldn't feel any fear about stepping into that kind of conflict. 🙂

I'm not quite sure which users you're referring to when you mention those who have been "sanctioned for protesting." If you have someone specific in mind, please provide a username and the context of the situation. Generally speaking, we tend to implement sanctions when protests take a sycophantic tone. However, I only consider stricter disciplinary measures once individuals lose all sense of proportion and resort to those petty, ad hominem tactics. It seems that, unfortunately, there isn't much other way to handle them besides taking a hard line. 🤷

steeleagle2 said:Blue, it wasn't a sudden whim on my part. The Dervish Lodge is different from any other topic on this forum. There is nothing else like it. It has to simultaneously adhere to the forum rules and general operations, while also remaining completely distinct and protected so it can actually function. How do you balance those two things, and why is it necessary?

The answer to that is quite complex. As the one who started it, I can only say that the current situation on this religious sub-section of the site is such that the "protection" of the Dervish Lodge has cracked, turning it into just another ordinary thread. Under these conditions, it cannot fulfill the promise made in the introductory post.

Why it must follow forum rules is obvious to everyone.
But why must it simultaneously be separate and protected, and how is that even possible?
I'll try to explain.

A real Dervish Lodge has its own physical space, which defines it and separates it from the outside world so it can function; in fact, a Dervish Lodge cannot exist as an institution without this. This is essential because the atmosphere required for its operation is created within those walls. Primarily, this involves physical cleanliness, followed by spiritual purity. Spiritual purity in a space is achieved through constant, directed prayer and rituals, and through the presence of spiritually pure individuals. This allows the Dervish Lodge to provide the "tools" necessary for spiritual education, the building and strengthening of individuals, or simply providing a sanctuary for souls in search. That is the basic, summarized essence of what the Dervish Lodge must provide.

Now, back to this virtual Dervish Lodge. For protection to work here, it isn't enough for moderators to be diligent and delete off-topic posts or spam. Something more is required. First, the individuals within it—those who feel they belong there, whether by merit or simple desire—must be spiritually pure and strong. Through that combination, they guard the walls of this virtual Dervish Lodge against outside intrusion. Now, when an intrusion happens, it's easy to delete it, but the goal is to cut the intrusion off at the root—to prevent it before it occurs. Because once it happens, it's already too late. It's too late because the intrusion introduces impurity that needs cleaning. Beyond just deleting a post, there is something that remains "hanging in the air." That lingering element needs cleansing, and moderators neither can nor have the tools to handle that. That task falls to those responsible for the Dervish Lodge. If a critical mass of impurity appears, it floods the Dervish Lodge, and individuals are no longer able to...
It’s about purification—as much as possible—and ensuring we ourselves are purified through the effort of cleaning it. A critical mass of spiritual impurity has been fostered by the atmosphere surrounding Religion.

We made a promise in our opening post, and that promise has to be real. When someone walks into our Dervish Lodge, they need to feel that we actually kept our word. No one should leave the lodge feeling heavy-hearted. There is no room for deception here; you simply cannot trick the human soul.
Perhaps you’re wondering if the problem lies within us, or if we just lack the strength? Look, an individual draws their spiritual strength from the community—they essentially fly on the wings of the group. Alone, they have no wings. They are lost and weak. The happenings over on the Religion forum, which rowdyhawk10 moderates, have visibly weakened our community, which automatically stripped away the strength of those of us responsible for the Dervish Lodge. In short, the moderators have gradually created an environment on the Religion forum that actively drains the vitality of our collective. This phenomenon is called turmoil. And we aren't the only ones suffering; all believers feel it, evidenced by the various complaints regarding the state of Religion coming from different denominations or individuals alike. Everyone can see something is wrong. Let me tell you exactly what it is:
Religion has become a place where disbelief and atheism are deliberately and systematically promoted, while faith—whatever its kind—is suppressed. This is done by serving a critical mass of immorality to believers, triggering a predictable reaction (usually some form of protest) that most often ends in sanctions. When this is done planned and systematic, the forum eventually gets purged of believers—at least those who can spot the insidious manipulations by the structure in charge of the Religion forum—leaving behind only those who are blind to these events or someone like me, who actually cares about fixing things.

rowdyhawk10 is quite the 'philosopher.' Just compare his posts toward me regarding the closing of the Dervish Lodge yesterday versus today. Anyone watching will notice the shift. Yesterday he was abrasive, cold, and quite threatening; today, he’s suddenly pleasant and seemingly eager for dialogue, change, and blah, blah, blah... I’d call that emotional instability, but let's move past that. Secondly, I want to point out that he doesn't actually stand behind or believe any of what he's proposing. It’s just a performance, his own little show. While less mood swinging would be nice, the core issue is that he just wants to find a way to preserve his position first, and then ensure the forum functions according to administration directives. Consequently, he’ll say anything to anyone just to hit those goals, regardless of whether his words are true or if he even believes them. It’s a farce with elements of a fiasco. Those who noticed this have either been banned or chose to leave the forum on their own.

That’s all for now.

I was wondering if you could perhaps link to that specific post of mine where I was supposedly being rude, cold, or overly threatening? This is a genuine request, man, I’m asking you nicely. Rather than making me hunt for it, here is a list of my posts: first, second and third... There they are. Could you maybe quote exactly what part of those was considered rude, cold, or threatening toward you? 🙄

And take a look at this post by Brenda Cook4 (as well as the one where I suggested you "take a step back from yourself" earlier); perhaps you could lend a hand with the Dervish Lodge moving forward. I suspect you might have neglected it a bit yourself. 😉 If we're on the same page, maybe write a nice poem at the Dervish Lodge tonight—boldgull19 should too, along with Rachel Sanders2 and everyone else... It is our job as moderators to watch over things and protect this trust to the best of our ability. Peace peace

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 28, 2009

boldgull19 said:From what I know, etiquette means listening to the current Dervish Lodge's legal rep—this one right here—and we all know he started this whole thread.

@rowdyhawk10, I'm not looking for a fight... You could have just respected the thread starter's wishes and explained things to the admins, mods, or whoever else (if necessary) that you're a decent guy and you're doing this out of friendship (because he's a brother you care about). It’s not like the decision breaks any rules, and it wouldn't make you look like any less of a solid moderator to everyone else. Honestly? You'd look like a much bigger person. In real life (like at our jobs), people justify stuff like that all the time.
You can't know what's best for someone else (for instance, I personally think being a moderator might not be the best fit for you, so I'm leaving room to be wrong and prove myself wrong), nor can you justify it based on experience (years of it) or past events. Circumstances change. People change. I just hope the decision to keep things open wasn't made just because it's fun to debate stuff in the mod corner, or to stay in the spotlight, or to grab a little extra attention. If it was—well, that's just sad.

That argument about "what would the Forum look like if every thread starter demanded deletions whenever they got triggered"—it doesn't hold water. To me, it's stupid to even talk about... First off, find me one other case where that actually happened (usually, ego trips outweigh good intentions). But, let me remind you... remember Master Ivan's school when his students bailed and he had to shut the whole place down for a while out of pure embarrassment? And imagine, the moderators actually respected his request.

And why would I come across as less of a human, boldgull19? I don't think that's quite the case; I suppose I might just end up appearing more like a child. 🙂 Here is Brenda Cook4. Hey. I provided a solid reason for why closing the Dervish Lodge would be a mistake, and I find myself agreeing with her on that point. As a moderator, I carry a certain level of responsibility—something people here tend to overlook quite easily, though I suppose that's just how things go. In my role, I aim to pass judgment on any issue based strictly on my own conscience. It was steeleagle2’s place to make a suggestion—whether his specific approach was right or wrong is a separate matter entirely. My responsibility, however, was to consult with various forum members and my fellow moderators (there is actually a thread regarding this in the moderator section) so that after hearing different perspectives, I could arrive at what I believe is the most correct or optimal solution. The fact that steeleagle2 lacks confidence in my competence—perhaps because I am a "philosopher" rather than someone who acts purely on impulse—is honestly irrelevant here. I am a moderator with all the authority that entails. My decisions can always be criticized; in fact, I often argue that such criticism is necessary. There is always something to be critiqued, I suppose.

I suppose the Dervish Lodge doesn't have to serve as a training ground for hypocrites.

boldgull19 said:From what I know, etiquette means listening to the current Dervish Lodge's legal rep—this one right here—and we all know he started this whole thread.

@rowdyhawk10, I'm not looking for a fight... You could have just respected the thread starter's wishes and explained things to the admins, mods, or whoever else (if necessary) that you're a decent guy and you're doing this out of friendship (because he's a brother you care about). It’s not like the decision breaks any rules, and it wouldn't make you look like any less of a solid moderator to everyone else. Honestly? You'd look like a much bigger person. In real life (like at our jobs), people justify stuff like that all the time.
You can't know what's best for someone else (for instance, I personally think being a moderator might not be the best fit for you, so I'm leaving room to be wrong and prove myself wrong), nor can you justify it based on experience (years of it) or past events. Circumstances change. People change. I just hope the decision to keep things open wasn't made just because it's fun to debate stuff in the mod corner, or to stay in the spotlight, or to grab a little extra attention. If it was—well, that's just sad.

That argument about "what would the Forum look like if every thread starter demanded deletions whenever they got triggered"—it doesn't hold water. To me, it's stupid to even talk about... First off, find me one other case where that actually happened (usually, ego trips outweigh good intentions). But, let me remind you... remember Master Ivan's school when his students bailed and he had to shut the whole place down for a while out of pure embarrassment? And imagine, the moderators actually respected his request.

I know quite well that being a moderator isn't the best path for me. Certain situations just end up tearing me apart, and I suppose it takes a significant toll on my family as well. There is also the constant risk of losing friends along the way. Still, maybe there is some merit in staying guarded when you possess the kind of knowledge I hold. I guess everything has its purpose.

boldgull19 said:From what I know, etiquette means listening to the current Dervish Lodge's legal rep—this one right here—and we all know he started this whole thread.

@rowdyhawk10, I'm not looking for a fight... You could have just respected the thread starter's wishes and explained things to the admins, mods, or whoever else (if necessary) that you're a decent guy and you're doing this out of friendship (because he's a brother you care about). It’s not like the decision breaks any rules, and it wouldn't make you look like any less of a solid moderator to everyone else. Honestly? You'd look like a much bigger person. In real life (like at our jobs), people justify stuff like that all the time.
You can't know what's best for someone else (for instance, I personally think being a moderator might not be the best fit for you, so I'm leaving room to be wrong and prove myself wrong), nor can you justify it based on experience (years of it) or past events. Circumstances change. People change. I just hope the decision to keep things open wasn't made just because it's fun to debate stuff in the mod corner, or to stay in the spotlight, or to grab a little extra attention. If it was—well, that's just sad.

That argument about "what would the Forum look like if every thread starter demanded deletions whenever they got triggered"—it doesn't hold water. To me, it's stupid to even talk about... First off, find me one other case where that actually happened (usually, ego trips outweigh good intentions). But, let me remind you... remember Master Ivan's school when his students bailed and he had to shut the whole place down for a while out of pure embarrassment? And imagine, the moderators actually respected his request.

That isn't quite right. To be honest, I just don't care for the way this shutdown was proposed. It’s fine if the Dervish feels bad about the banned Humaninside; it's fine if he realizes certain discussions were pointless and disrupted the spirit of the Dervish Lodge (like those involving Gary Morales3 or the others...). But the manner in which this was handled is absolutely not okay. And I suppose the Dervish knows that. That’s why I decided on this approach—whoever is tired should take a rest, and perhaps they'll return to us later. There will always be someone to look after the Dervish Lodge.

boldgull19 said:From what I know, etiquette means listening to the current Dervish Lodge's legal rep—this one right here—and we all know he started this whole thread.

@rowdyhawk10, I'm not looking for a fight... You could have just respected the thread starter's wishes and explained things to the admins, mods, or whoever else (if necessary) that you're a decent guy and you're doing this out of friendship (because he's a brother you care about). It’s not like the decision breaks any rules, and it wouldn't make you look like any less of a solid moderator to everyone else. Honestly? You'd look like a much bigger person. In real life (like at our jobs), people justify stuff like that all the time.
You can't know what's best for someone else (for instance, I personally think being a moderator might not be the best fit for you, so I'm leaving room to be wrong and prove myself wrong), nor can you justify it based on experience (years of it) or past events. Circumstances change. People change. I just hope the decision to keep things open wasn't made just because it's fun to debate stuff in the mod corner, or to stay in the spotlight, or to grab a little extra attention. If it was—well, that's just sad.

That argument about "what would the Forum look like if every thread starter demanded deletions whenever they got triggered"—it doesn't hold water. To me, it's stupid to even talk about... First off, find me one other case where that actually happened (usually, ego trips outweigh good intentions). But, let me remind you... remember Master Ivan's school when his students bailed and he had to shut the whole place down for a while out of pure embarrassment? And imagine, the moderators actually respected his request.

But the Dervish Lodge can't be compared to that. We've had plenty of instances where someone asks a question, gets a satisfactory answer, and then requests the thread be closed because they have enough info. But that isn't what's happening here. This Lodge is a valuable thread, and many valuable people are against closing it, so that is how it shall remain for now. Perhaps you all could step up a bit yourselves and help maintain the spirit of the Dervish Lodge by addressing issues promptly. Peace

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 28, 2009

Let me get straight to the point, in order...

Justin Mitchell said:Dervish, Peace be upon you!
The Dervish Lodge really needs a shake-up from you, Dervish. Look at how much life has been breathed into this place! Everyone is rushing to step up. Every two minutes, someone says: "We’re closing down, it's over." But don't you dare close it; it's clear people aren't ready for that. And I hope rowdyhawk10 takes care of things his way by bringing back HumanSide (is that how you say it?) and the others who felt slighted. Peace!

He actually managed to tear me apart this time. I suppose I’ll have to keep your post in mind for next time. 😉

boldgull19 said:@rowdyhawk10, hasn't it always been fine to just close the thread if the OP asked for it?

Some people feel a sense of closure once they see a topic is truly settled, but that logic doesn't really apply here since the Dervish Lodge hasn't even hit fifty posts yet. Besides, I suspect you’re actually feeling a bit bummed about seeing it shut down, aren't you? And look, I get it—you have a soft spot for the Dervish, and so do I. But imagine if this worked that way: if every single person who felt full or satisfied just decided to demand their thread be locked every day. Would this Forum even function? In any public discussion, you have to expect a variety of perspectives; otherwise, what is the point of having a conversation at all? Maybe I’d consider closing it for a few days just for your sake, given how much you adore the Dervish, but I have a feeling he'd be back asking to reopen it before we knew it. this I won't bother commenting on the post itself, but I suppose that single entry is the only one among everything written here that offers any actual justification for closing her out for a while. Still, even then, those reasons don't seem quite sufficient. As far as the Dervish is concerned, it's probably for the best that his input isn't taken to heart.

northernrider9 said:I’m calling out to every single Muslim in the world, to all of humanity, and even to all you spiritual leaders—please, for once, use some common sense—don't you dare shut this forum down. What on earth is rowdyhawk10 supposed to do if they pull the plug? Honestly, get that stench out the window immediately.

Understood. It's all set. 🙂

wiredcyclist72 said:Peace be upon you

What exactly do people mean by "style"?
I've been keeping an eye on this—honestly, I follow this regularly—but can someone explain why some z
are calling for the Dervish Lodge to be shut down?

I always thought once the Dervish Lodge opens its doors, the keys are thrown away!
Peace, peace, peace... because nobody is to blame here...

Let me explain my reasoning here. First off, this serves as a commemoration for a certain forum member who seems obsessed with making crude jokes about people he wouldn't dare say those things to in real life. Second, Gary Morales3 has caused quite a stir at the Dervish Lodge lately with his recent posts—though I suspect he might eventually realize the mess he's made, especially once reality hits him hard enough that he feels like checking into a rehab clinic or just cutting off his internet service for the week. Finally, the Dervish wants everything that's been happening to settle down a bit, which is a fair point, I suppose. He wants to close the thread for a while so the online community can recharge, which also makes sense. However, I think he's mistaken in assuming that running away from reality actually solves anything. You have to face these things head-on. carrying! And let’s just imagine for a second that someone decides to shut down the actual Dervish Lodge on their own whim? Occasionally, a place might close for renovations or an expansion... but even then, one ought to find a better location to move to while the repairs are being handled.

wiredcyclist72 said:Peace be upon you

What exactly do people mean by "style"?
I've been keeping an eye on this—honestly, I follow this regularly—but can someone explain why some z
are calling for the Dervish Lodge to be shut down?

I always thought once the Dervish Lodge opens its doors, the keys are thrown away!
Peace, peace, peace... because nobody is to blame here...

Well, I'm looking for the key too, but I can't seem to find it. 😉

steeleagle2 said:True, but that used to be a matter of principle. Back then, moderators closed threads as a way to show respect to the person who started them, especially since there wasn't actually a rule in the Forum guidelines allowing it. Nowadays, though, it’s all about calculation. That sense of honor has either vanished or become incredibly rare...

I don't believe you're aiming at my honor, Dervish. That simply cannot be true. Nor am I aiming at the idea that I've trampled yours. That can't be true either. So, I suppose showing respect in a situation like this wouldn't involve listening to you, but rather precisely not listening to you. I see that clearly, by God. I only hope you and everyone else sees it too. Besides, if you wanted to close this, you could have just sent me a private message stating your intentions and the reasons behind them. I know it's difficult for you, but the internet isn't meant for people without empathy or those lacking restraint, and such people aren't really worth grieving over.

steeleagle2 said:Honestly, what is there even to say to you? Look, I’ll put this in terms you might actually grasp—THIS IS MY THREAD. It doesn't belong to you, nor does it belong to any other member here. I have poured years of my life into this, and with the help of a select few valuable members, I have brought giants of men to this forum, serving them tea all these years just so they would share their profound wisdom. Have you ever brought anyone worth their salt to the Dervish Lodge? Go ahead, name just one handle, you who are stuck in a phase of weighing options.

Even if I haven't brought anyone else (which I have), at least I've tried to be useful here as a moderator. 🤷 And I'm not sure why it's even an argument whether I brought someone or not?! 😕 I moderate the Religion sub-forum. Besides, the years of your life invested (and mine in this forum, don't forget that) are two more reasons why the Dervish Lodge shouldn't be closed. And I know you don't actually want it closed either. Even if we did close it, you'd probably be asking to reopen it before long.

steeleagle2 said:Peace be upon you.

The "style" is that there is no style. Personally, I wanted it closed.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I just meant that I wanted to see—and show everyone—what happens when someone asks for their own thread to be closed, versus how it looks when they close it themselves. The Mejdan was "Insan's" thread, whereas this one is "mine." For the Mejdan, nothing was even up for debate.

And yet, many people feel just as strongly about keeping it open. ☕ Most of them, actually! Especially some of the people held most dear here. You can see that for yourself. On the other hand, even those who claim they want it closed (including you) don't truly mean it, which seems pretty obvious too.

steeleagle2 said:Peace be upon you.

The "style" is that there is no style. Personally, I wanted it closed.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I just meant that I wanted to see—and show everyone—what happens when someone asks for their own thread to be closed, versus how it looks when they close it themselves. The Mejdan was "Insan's" thread, whereas this one is "mine." For the Mejdan, nothing was even up for debate.

You're conflating two different things (much like Benjamin Foster is doing below). The Banquet was the thread of a banned user (who earned that ban a long time ago; we only tolerated him for so long out of pure goodwill... specifically Ego's goodwill!). Humanside started the "Banquet of Giving" and managed it the whole time, so we figured once he stopped posting, the reason for the thread to exist vanished—if he had simply logged off or stopped writing, we wouldn't be closing it, but since he's banned, it's different.

steeleagle2 said:Brian Mendoza95 won't step up; if he wanted to, he would have spoken up by now.

I am opening this position up to anyone—except rowdyhawk10—to act as the caretaker for this Dervish Lodge. Since I am stepping down from this role and washing my hands of all responsibility, I’m looking for a volunteer. Does anyone want in? The only condition is that the Lodge can only remain open if someone takes charge.

rowdyhawk10 is part of the six-person team serving as caretakers for the Dervish Lodge. 🙂

steeleagle2 said:Because you didn't offer me a Peace.

Looking at the numbers, we have 114 Americans and 76 non-Muslims here, totaling 190 people.
This thread has been read over 255,000 times and boasts more than 8,500 posts.
It originally opened on April 10, 2006, under the spirituality sub-forum. Later, that whole section was moved under the jurisdiction of the philosophy moderators, who then shifted it over to religion. At one point, it was actually closed for a few months. One person even embraced Islam just by reading through it.
Personally, I’ve contributed about 1,300 posts here. Following me, wearyhawk222 has 662 posts, then Raiden with 444, Forget-me-not 383 with 383, and rapidmaker6 with 375. That makes our top five. Behind them, with over 200 posts each, come
Brian Mendoza95, boldgull19, Humaninside, and Ashik. Everyone else has fewer than 200.

There are nine people who have truly poured themselves into the Dervish Lodge. Out of those nine, one is permanently banned, and two have stopped posting because they can't stand this forum anymore—leaving just six of us. Of those six, one supports my request, one is against it, one doesn't care, one has no idea what's happening, and one hasn't spoken up yet.

This space was envisioned to showcase a side of Islam that is largely unknown to the Western world, yet today, it risks becoming something we would never want to represent.

Those are reasons to keep the thread open, not reasons to close it.🙂

steeleagle2 said:Because you didn't offer me a Peace.

Looking at the numbers, we have 114 Americans and 76 non-Muslims here, totaling 190 people.
This thread has been read over 255,000 times and boasts more than 8,500 posts.
It originally opened on April 10, 2006, under the spirituality sub-forum. Later, that whole section was moved under the jurisdiction of the philosophy moderators, who then shifted it over to religion. At one point, it was actually closed for a few months. One person even embraced Islam just by reading through it.
Personally, I’ve contributed about 1,300 posts here. Following me, wearyhawk222 has 662 posts, then Raiden with 444, Forget-me-not 383 with 383, and rapidmaker6 with 375. That makes our top five. Behind them, with over 200 posts each, come
Brian Mendoza95, boldgull19, Humaninside, and Ashik. Everyone else has fewer than 200.

There are nine people who have truly poured themselves into the Dervish Lodge. Out of those nine, one is permanently banned, and two have stopped posting because they can't stand this forum anymore—leaving just six of us. Of those six, one supports my request, one is against it, one doesn't care, one has no idea what's happening, and one hasn't spoken up yet.

This space was envisioned to showcase a side of Islam that is largely unknown to the Western world, yet today, it risks becoming something we would never want to represent.

Just leave Ashik out of it since he’s Ashik. And honestly, most of the other usernames... probably aren't looking for a shutdown either.

steeleagle2 said:Because you didn't offer me a Peace.

Looking at the numbers, we have 114 Americans and 76 non-Muslims here, totaling 190 people.
This thread has been read over 255,000 times and boasts more than 8,500 posts.
It originally opened on April 10, 2006, under the spirituality sub-forum. Later, that whole section was moved under the jurisdiction of the philosophy moderators, who then shifted it over to religion. At one point, it was actually closed for a few months. One person even embraced Islam just by reading through it.
Personally, I’ve contributed about 1,300 posts here. Following me, wearyhawk222 has 662 posts, then Raiden with 444, Forget-me-not 383 with 383, and rapidmaker6 with 375. That makes our top five. Behind them, with over 200 posts each, come
Brian Mendoza95, boldgull19, Humaninside, and Ashik. Everyone else has fewer than 200.

There are nine people who have truly poured themselves into the Dervish Lodge. Out of those nine, one is permanently banned, and two have stopped posting because they can't stand this forum anymore—leaving just six of us. Of those six, one supports my request, one is against it, one doesn't care, one has no idea what's happening, and one hasn't spoken up yet.

This space was envisioned to showcase a side of Islam that is largely unknown to the Western world, yet today, it risks becoming something we would never want to represent.

Whoa, maybe take a step back there. ☕ Just one fact: FOR MONTHS NOW... meaning at least a hundred days, perhaps even half a year, NONE of you active participants (those who want the shutdown) have filed a SINGLE report regarding those inappropriate posts that would supposedly make "the Dervish Lodge become something we would never want to be associated with." Meanwhile, those who actually care about the lodge and were filing reports are now all against the shutdown. (You can count on that.) That tells you everything. So, if things have gone off course, perhaps it's time to set sail and fix what you can.

Kate Phillips40 said:I'm with steeleagle2 on this one. He made a solid point earlier, and besides, as the thread starter, he's got every right to ask for it to be closed for now.

Peace to everyone.

I might be wrong to respond to you, but heir... 🙄 My opinion is that there isn't a valid reason here. For starters, it's partially manipulated (by his own admission, northernrider9 here) and mostly fueled by bitterness over Gary Morales3's recent posts. While I don't necessarily agree with how Gary Morales3 wrote (regarding the lack of hospitality), I suspect even that might ultimately lead to something positive.

Kate Phillips40 said:I'm with steeleagle2 on this one. He made a solid point earlier, and besides, as the thread starter, he's got every right to ask for it to be closed for now.

Peace to everyone.

Which ones? Name them and drop the links. If someone suggests closing things down, we’ll only take that into consideration if there's actual evidence to back it up. objective One should consider the underlying reasons and whether the benefits of closing—or perhaps the potential damage caused by staying open—would ultimately outweigh the costs. In this specific situation, however, I suppose that doesn't really change anything.

Benjamin Foster said:I believe steeleagle2 has skillfully diverted attention from the fact that the Mejdan was shut down quite rudely. Now that he, in his capacity as the head of the Dervish Lodge, is requesting its closure, people are suddenly acting like we need to hold a full-blown debate over it. It’s obvious that certain individuals realize they won't have a place to exert their influence once it's closed. Personally, I stand with the Dervish; this kind of dictatorship simply isn't sustainable.
It’s better to turn off the heat entirely than to let the whole thing get filthy...

What exactly constitutes "rudeness" when it comes to shutting down the Mejdan betrayal? Is it about that one image, or something else entirely?

Benjamin Foster said:I believe steeleagle2 has skillfully diverted attention from the fact that the Mejdan was shut down quite rudely. Now that he, in his capacity as the head of the Dervish Lodge, is requesting its closure, people are suddenly acting like we need to hold a full-blown debate over it. It’s obvious that certain individuals realize they won't have a place to exert their influence once it's closed. Personally, I stand with the Dervish; this kind of dictatorship simply isn't sustainable.
It’s better to turn off the heat entirely than to let the whole thing get filthy...

You can't even begin to compare these two. steeleagle2 isn't a permanent fixture, whereas Human is most likely one (unless the administration decides to scrap the whole permanent status thing). If that actually happens, the Mejdan Odaja thread will inevitably resurface. And when it does, I'll be making sure the first post is mine, where I'll use some rather vivid descriptions to recount just how cozy and comfortable it felt sitting in Ego's backside.

Benjamin Foster said:I believe steeleagle2 has skillfully diverted attention from the fact that the Mejdan was shut down quite rudely. Now that he, in his capacity as the head of the Dervish Lodge, is requesting its closure, people are suddenly acting like we need to hold a full-blown debate over it. It’s obvious that certain individuals realize they won't have a place to exert their influence once it's closed. Personally, I stand with the Dervish; this kind of dictatorship simply isn't sustainable.
It’s better to turn off the heat entirely than to let the whole thing get filthy...

Go ahead, list them. The one and only. Could someone share an example of a time when they experienced someone acting like a dictator toward them? I’d also be interested to hear from steeleagle2 on whether he’s ever dealt with that kind of authoritarian behavior personally. Honestly, if anyone else here has a story, please feel free to speak up. In my view....

That’s all from me for tonight. Peace Peace to everyone.

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 28, 2009

Please keep the discussion regarding this matter here instead of on the Dervish Lodge
We will follow up later with a more detailed explanation, so please bear with us. Thank you.

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 27, 2009

There are a few key points regarding the issue at hand. First off, we respect the original poster's desire to close this thread. However, we also have to consider—and I think you all should too—that every sub-forum, every thread, and every single post is the property of the Muslim.com domain , where a team of about 50 professional moderators manages the discussions, while registered members participate voluntarily whenever they feel like it (or choose not to). Essentially, the forum operates on a voluntary basis.

Secondly, regarding us moderators and our policy for managing the Religion sub-forum—(this goes out to steeleagle2, northernrider9, and anyone else using this as an argument)—everyone is already aware of this thread, as well as others, it isn't the place to debate this. That discussion belongs in the Messages, Desires, Comments sub-forum. I say this as someone who has been on this forum for nearly ten years and understands how things work here. So, if anyone wants to start a discussion about the conduct of our moderation team, please feel free to do so over in that section. In fact, it’s actually encouraged; power without criticism eventually leads to unethical or even aggressive behavior. If we handle things peacefully through civil discourse, logic, and honest human conversation, everything can be resolved. Therefore, please head over to the PZK sub-forum! That entire section exists specifically for these matters, and because of that, we won't tolerate further critiques of moderator actions here, and such posts will be deleted moving forward.

Lastly, just generally for everyone... this thread will either be closed or remain open. Whether the starter's word should be final, or whether everyone who has carried this thread through the months and years—as well as the moderation team—should have a say, is now the real question. As you know, several very active members of the Dervish Lodge have already expressed their opposition to closing the topic. On the other hand, steeleagle2 essentially issued an ultimatum, coming out of nowhere... or rather, dropping a bombshell without any consultation with the moderators, notifying us that we would be expected to close the thread. So, once again, we find ourselves somewhat caught off guard by this little "revolution."

So, brother steeleagle2 and everyone else... we are currently weighing which solution is best, so please bear with us! We will make a decision very soon, perhaps even tonight or tomorrow. At the moment, I am leaning toward keeping the Dervish Lodge open (I'll explain my reasoning later), and posts starting from this one and everything related to it might be moved to this sub-forum, so that everything can be examined calmly and from multiple angles there.

To address a few individuals specifically... Gary Morales3, we seriously ask you not to escalate this crisis! We won't tolerate that. Gary Morales3, please, let's have some peace right now. northernrider9, please don't try to force a solution. As a member, he has stated his opinion three times (here, here, and here), which is more than enough. We won't tolerate further insistence, regardless of our good intentions. steeleagle2, please calm down and trust in our competence and good intentions. We want what is best and most useful. We thank boldgull19 for her selfless help and advice; we believe we will reach a decision she is happy with. Donna Cook48 has voiced her opinion, thank you, Donna Cook48. Thanks also to rapidmaker6, Flow, the guys, Justin Mitchell (a note to him: please refrain from lobbying for banned users; their case is now out of our hands and rests with the administration), as well as Jeffrey Fox84, Brenda Cook4, Rachel Sanders2... We expect to hear from other active participants of the Dervish Lodge as well. Peace Peace to all. 🙂

Request to merge "Tiki" thread into "Religion" PDF in Feedback & Suggestions · Oct 27, 2009

Please bear with us for a little while longer. Consultations are currently underway.

We are striving to develop the best possible solution and ensure we act appropriately. In the meantime, please feel free to share your thoughts—whether you agree or disagree—regarding the recent proposal from the Dervish, for which we are grateful. We especially welcome input from those who have been actively contributing to the Tekiju all this time. Peace be upon you.