Posts by Susan Price30

slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

Maybe it's because he stopped...

Brenda Cook4 said:Hey, take it easy—that’s insulting the American people! 😬

Everything is fine until it becomes an insult to national minorities, I guess.

Walter Brooks5 said:First off, I was sitting here wondering what on earth you were trying to get at.

Then I spotted the edit tag at the bottom of the post and realized you probably just typed something totally awkward, like this ???

Am I hitting the nail on the head here?

If whatever you wrote is still hanging around in some archive or your computer's memory, feel free to shoot me a PM. Honestly, my curiosity is piqued—I'm dying to know what actually prompted you to wipe out the entire content of your post.

Well, I didn't want to keep going about something (which I saw later) that was already resolved, and I wasn't sure if you'd think it was okay for me to give advice regarding those complaints (about someone constantly misquoting the Bible in debates, constant trolling, or how they always use the same quotes from the Old Testament that have nothing to do with the discussion or Christian doctrine, etc.). 🙂But I'll send you a copy of that post via PM... cool.

So, they definitely shouldn't have handed Unknown a "hate speech" card. It feels like a total blunder, because otherwise, we're looking at a blatant violation of the US Constitution and our right to free speech. The user was just expressing an opinion on this forum. If someone felt targeted by his critique, they have every right to file a private lawsuit. But if we start entertaining the idea that criticizing a public figure warrants a penalty for "hate speech," then we’ve truly lost the plot. Honestly, I'd expect ninety percent of the users on the politics board to be banned if they dared to criticize any government official, past or present. For God's sake, how far has this special pleading gone?

It’s highly likely Parsifal shouldn't have been given 10,000 points out of pure whim either. It seems a person isn't even allowed to write if someone else simply decides so (without consulting the sub-moderators, which is usually the protocol, btw)

I'm just pointing this out as a perfect example—to address your surprise. We were all equally baffled during another recent thread when a user named Parsifal (who, after everything, is a believer, a Catholic, and a solid analyst of various faiths—largely thanks to this forum 😁) suddenly received 10,000 points just like that... because someone felt like it. Apparently, that's just how things work now.

(And that's even more glaring considering the aforementioned Unknown had already been penalized in the Religion section—I assume because he tended to clash with others by mockingly twisting personal beliefs or misquoting the Bible without much real argument; yet his penalty was removed while everyone else stays stuck. etc., etc...)

William Bennett53 said:If I may offer a comment... (if not, I ask the moderator to please delete this)

Personally, neither as an American nor as a member of the Catholic Church, do I feel even remotely insulted when someone insults Bozanica. An insult directed at him doesn't constitute an insult toward me. Let me explain using a parallel: suppose it was 2008 and someone called Sanders a thief—should that offend me simply because Sanders, acting as Prime Minister, served as a representative of the American people? I intentionally chose this specific example since Sanders was, by then, effectively convicted, making the logic clearer; however, even if he hadn't been, the principle remains the same: an insult to Sanders is an insult to Sanders alone. In the same vein, an insult leveled at Bozanica, Josipovic, Leki, or Milanovic is an insult to them, not to all of us. Furthermore, regarding the labeling of Bozanica as a Taliban, I perceive that perhaps as a somewhat offensive comparison—highlighting his intervention in the secular nature of the education system by equating it to the violent methods used by the Taliban. But in my personal opinion, it falls far short of being classified as hate speech, even toward the man himself.

Sure, but I suppose it also depends on the context in which it's all written, especially if it's coming from someone who constantly does this—one way or another. And on Religion, it's mostly the same group of people writing the same things over and over... well, for about 9 or 10 years now. New people don't really show up for any reason, and some of the older, more prominent ones have permanently stepped away. As for what, how, or even why certain people write there, it's easy to see when someone has been voicing their views in the same spot for years, right? (And often on the same or similar topics that logically loop and repeat quite a bit.)

We'll probably need to revisit this topic in 2014 anyway if we end up having a separate entity for every single state.

The thing is, based on all the actual indicators and data out there, I don't see Scotland actually getting its "own state" in 2014.

....and frankly, your constant spinning of this issue on the subforum has become exhausting for everyone involved, I guess...

hollowtrucker77 said:Why would the United Kingdom be particularly important to America?

Because of the European Union.😍>

p.s. My only real concern is whether a massive, breaking news story might get buried under a mountain of random posts. For instance, if the Queen were to fall seriously ill and withdraw from public life back in 2013... or if the Republican Party were to fracture following a massive scandal—both of which are being whispered about unofficially right now—would such an event warrant its own dedicated thread, or should it just stay tucked away within the chaos of the Collective thread?

urbanorca said:I think this is a mistake. Grouping everything regarding the United Kingdom under one collective thread doesn't work; that nation is far too significant on the global stage, and particularly vital to the interests of America. It seems like forum members tend to ignore news when major countries are tucked away in a collective topic.

I'm just not sure... if we follow this logic, any news at all—even the smallest update—will end up dumped into that collective thread without its own dedicated topic and maybe just two or three replies. 😉It would all land in the subforum meant for World events, which makes it feel irrelevant to any other nation, since often these things don't impact anyone else anyway. Isn't there a specific main subforum designed exactly for those kinds of things?

Sorry, I didn't catch this yesterday. I know Morgan Rodriguez57 better than anyone. Do you want me to just drop his playlist here? He’s taught me quite a bit.
As for now, I can't really step into moderating ego since I don't follow him or visit Religion.

I can't speak for everyone else, but calling out me and Morgan Rodriguez57 like that—plus those comments about someone having the potential to "kill people"—is way beyond an apology. Honestly, they should get a red card for that; it isn't funny or even remotely okay. (Especially considering others have been slapped with 50-point penalties for much less.) And please, don't address me directly; I have no idea who you are...

rowdyhawk10 said:Just a quick word regarding this thread. I don't intend to dwell on the whole Parsifal situation. I've stated my piece and tried to be clear without being offensive. I believe ego understood my point, so there's no need for me to repeat myself. We are all adults here, and I hope we can all move past these petty issues. It's more dignified to rise above them.

I feel the same way, though my reason for posting here was to ensure the new administration—who might not be fully aware of certain history—eventually reviews things that those of us on Religion know happened but were never corrected... specifically, looking into who banned certain users who contributed so much to Religion. If those bans were done unilaterally instead of in consultation with the other mods, then maybe that's why things played out the way they did... (that's just a thought, anyway).

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I’m still a degenerate; nothing has changed... 😉 😍

Yeah, just get on with it... not everyone needs to know everything. 🤣

As long as you don't have a gun in your closet, it's fine. 🙂

By the way, I finished my part because I figure they'll either delete this or close the thread any second now.

Peace.

rowdyhawk10 said:That’s why we shouldn't use accusations like "arbitrariness" or "capriciousness." We all have our flaws; nobody is a perfect machine.

Everything should be resolved with goodwill and friendship. This is our shared forum, a community that means a lot to many of us. It certainly means a great deal to me, as I've spent a significant part of my life here. Therefore, everyone needs to do their best—both you, Susan Price30, and ego—so we can resolve this "issue" together. Everything should be settled peacefully and without harsh language. Thank you.

It's easy for you to say—you don't have a stake in this like some of us do.😁

Jokes aside... but I wrote "just because" out of whim because giving anyone that many points goes against the rules. Sorry rowdyhawk10 (to everyone), and happy holidays to you.

@ ironseal10, Morgan Rodriguez57 was a moderator for Ljes, by the way, and was a very good, mild-mannered mod. Since I've moderated Religion and (later) Literature on two different forums, those claims about someone's "intolerance" or "papal arrogance" just don't hold water...

And one more thing: I don't think tolerance or being open minded is proven when you support someone who agrees with you, but rather when you argue your own point or accept a differing view without insults or mockery, right?

ironseal10 said:....

Perhaps you missed the point. The crux isn't about who believes what or who represents which faith—whether in real life or this digital space—as long as they possess and demonstrate tolerance for diversity. In other words, someone's personal stance only becomes an issue the moment it suggests intolerance; otherwise, it remains a private matter.

One can be a person of faith and still believe that everyone else has the right to be whoever they choose to be. For instance, a Muslim who doesn't impose their beliefs on others or pick fights with anyone—simply holding their own views while respecting others—is exactly the kind of attitude any moderator should have, especially here in the Religion section.

If, on the other hand, a moderator lacks even basic tolerance for diversity—or worse, is driven by a personal vendetta and acts antagonistically—then one has to wonder: what on earth is such a person doing in a leadership position?

* Regarding the issue you're raising: naturally, if one side attacks aggressively using every means at their disposal, the other side will defend themselves just as fiercely. This makes a level-headed, cool moderator all the more necessary, 😉rather than someone who simply adds fuel to the fire.

rowdyhawk10 said:Maybe we should reconsider and take a different stance, because decisions regarding partial bans are never made unanimously by the moderation team. Back when I was a moderator, those kinds of decisions were often made without consulting the rest of the crew. We were all caught off guard because the decision felt completely disproportionate.

Precisely. At least the decisions that weren't made in consultation with the rest of the team should be reviewed.

Take the case where Parsifal was given 10,000 points on a whim, or when innocent users were labeled "religious fanatics," or even the case of Toze being hit with a permanent ban instead of a partial one, which was the standard practice back then. All of this happened during a time when partial bans were being handed out far too easily.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:this feels almost like a threat to me...

It sounds like pure vengeance to me—"vengeful anger," if you will, given everything else that’s been said, though only he knows his true intent.

Moderating any subforum requires motivation, doesn't it? That raises a question: what kind of motivation would drive someone to volunteer their time for free to moderate subforums 8, 9, or 10 for nearly a decade, especially when they hold such a negative attitude toward the very topics they oversee? It’s strange... or rather, 🙂 it isn't just strange, it's unfair.

rowdyhawk10 said:

I believe hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the Religion subforum. I suggest the current moderation team for Religion review the previous decision regarding his partial ban in the spirit of goodwill. Greetings to all.

I agree with former Religion moderator rowdyhawk10, and if I may, I have one question for the administrators...

Do you believe it is appropriate or desirable for someone who—as they themselves have testified multiple times—possesses a strong antagonistic attitude toward religion in general, and toward believers and those representing faith (especially the Catholic clergy, the Pope, etc.) to moderate such a sensitive and demanding subforum dealing with these issues (and for no less than 8-9 years, lol)?

post

link
I am not fueled by hatred; I am angry. I am angry because from a very young age, I have felt pressured to conform to "the flock." Because since childhood, I have been discriminated against due to my convictions. Because thanks to a government that has bowed to Vatican dictators, no one has ever even attempted to offer any protection. I am angry because, time and again, I am declared amoral from the pulpit, branded a potential criminal, and judged for my lifestyle even though I have never harmed anyone—all while they try to silence me by labeling me a hater. I am angry because they seize every opportunity to turn their worldview into state law, forcing me to dance to their tune whether I want to or not. I am angry for my friends who struggle deep into adulthood with fears and shame instilled in them during childhood, and for those who have been stoned, ostracized, and bullied because of their sexual orientation, often to the applause of the pulpit and comments that they deserved it. I am angry because they parasitize the taxpayers' money. I am furious when they try to explain to me that my wife's role is predetermined to be a housewife and that she shouldn't selfishly pursue a career instead of staying home to raise children.

And no, there is no "cure" for me. There is nothing that will calm me or shut me up as long as the church keeps sticking its tentacles into the social and my private spheres. Who knows? Perhaps we are all more angry now; maybe I'll live to see a day where I can finally find some peace...

(I think that last sentence is key here)
__________________

Wouldn't it be preferable in an "ideal world" for such a task to be handled by someone who is neutral and calm—free from "vengeful anger" (?)—and tolerant of all worldviews and beliefs? (I honestly don't know how intense antagonism and the tolerance required for moderation can go hand in hand; I don't know how others here view it...)

And regarding the lifting of the partial ban on one believer it seems this won't happen as long as someone like that is moderating Religion, for the reasons mentioned above...

(Personally, I find the absurdity of my own partial ban there almost funny 😳 because I wouldn't even write on RE except perhaps on new PDFs being edited in a slightly different way)... what surprises me more is that anyone who could potentially be biased is in a position to decide on someone's partial ban, block, or anything else...

Charles Fox10 said:Two strikes in just two days for breaking rules that normally carry a 30-point penalty over a month? First there’s an explanation on the thread after an inquiry, and then they clear the violation for commenting on the moderation topic... you really think that isn't just pushing a user out the door?

Providing a high-quality explanation of what isn't allowed is also a form of harassment.

Sure, but those moderation interventions—if we can even call them that—right next to an already active moderator on the thread are exactly what triggered that reaction. Then comes the warning, treating people like they’re back in elementary school. All this happens after giving out two or three points for pretty trivial stuff, while actual off-topic rambling or straight-up provocation goes unchecked. For instance, you had another user jump into the thread just to drone on about dual citizenship and voting rights once their ban expired on a completely unrelated topic.

So it wasn't really about whether it was two, three, or thirty points on a record. It was more about what he—Blues D—perceived as "inconsistency" or just poor moderation tactics. Not that the admin was doing anything wrong, obviously; they moderated the thread from the start exactly how they thought was best.

I don't mean to overstep here—just offering a bit of context, if you'll permit me. From what I understand, BD has already moved on, so even if he wanted to clarify anything, he’s no longer in a position to do so.

Of course you won't

By the way, the original post was already edited before you got to it—just a quick typo. I was clearly referring to the "Catholic clergy." I highly doubt there is any group where such a high percentage of people are pedophiles. However, anyone with a basic grasp of logic and scientific research wouldn't conclude that taking holy orders inherently makes someone a pedophile.

I assume not, because it reads like a mindless generalization designed just to troll.

Regarding the part in bold, what specific percentages are we talking about here? Or are you just guessing (as you said) and assuming things without providing anything concrete? It hardly qualifies as an argument, other than your constant tendency to generalize.

On another note, I support the Bastin appeal—specifically those remarks regarding the occasionally overzealous "politically correct" trends on certain topics, or even the "censorship" used to push one group's interests ahead of everyone else's. That feels fundamentally wrong and improper for a platform like Politics...

I was just about to type out—for instance, radical feminists and such—but I see someone beat me to it.

By the way, why does he insist on obsessing over the same thing fifty times across three different threads😕 when the original topic is locked anyway?

the atheist spirit within the moderation of the Religion PDF...

All of that—within discussions, mind you, nowhere else 😁—could easily be countered by solid (theological) arguments from someone who actually knows their stuff.

As for what someone personally believes, that is their own business and their own right. That is perfectly fine, provided that moderator authority isn't being abused due to personal intolerance (or anything else), I assume.

Daniel Ward87 said:Religion influences how people act, and sadism definitely has its own behavioral component. So, why shouldn't we discuss whether there's actually a connection there? Many sadists were also deeply religious, such as Albert Fish, the notorious serial killer. We don't know exactly how much religion impacts sadistic behavior, but it's an interesting topic to explore.

What’s wrong with having that kind of discussion on a forum specifically designed for—discussions?

Like what, for example?

As for "Albert Fish," as far as I know, he wasn't even religious (in the true sense of the word)... if anything, he was better known as the Brooklyn Vampire... specifically, they called him the 'Werewolf of Wysteria,' the 'Brooklyn Vampire,' the 'Moon Maniac,' and 'The Boogeyman.'

Like most mass murderers, he was someone diagnosed with severe mental illness—he was sick—plus someone who was literally obsessed with the occult, with zero interest in religion or ethics.

I'm saying all this because the parallel you drew doesn't really feel like a solid argument (as a response to the opening post, anyway). NHF.🙂

slywolf45 said:Look, comments like mine are perfectly standard from a guy's perspective. It’s just how things work.
To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less whether I get a red card right now or not.
Look, if she wants to act like a cranky old lady going through menopause, that’s her prerogative. Let her.
I can't stand that behavior, regardless of whether I'm dealing with men or women.

Look, just go to a bakery and eat some pastries. Seriously.

I don't really care about that either.

The bigger issue is that the topics shouldn't be spread thin across two different subforums—like having World News and Politics cover the exact same thing—only for this guy to come crawling back here complaining because his thread got shut down after he spent all day trolling and being toxic... unbelievable.

slywolf45 said:Someone really needs to buy some pads for silentridge3.

Listen, brother (or sister).😁They really should have shut down those kinds of arguments on the news right from the start—you know, like when they closed that thread after things spiraled from just being rude to actually hostile. But hey, I guess that’s why we’re here... on this forum.