Posts by Brian Edwards6

reddriver35 said:I don't know about you, but I disagree. This is easily the best skin available. On most other forums, the interface is just an absolute headache.

A classic, through and through.👍

Richard Wilson4 said:The idea that Biden is somehow this massive crowd favorite is equally flimsy, yet nobody seems willing to actually challenge it...

Didn't the election results provide all the proof we needed?🤷

Austin Parker8 said:I've dealt with all kinds of nonsense from you, so I'm not even gonna bother...

I completely sympathize. I've also been through the ringer with him—he even went as far as offering an apology once. Truly harrowing stuff.🙂

Steven Clark2 said:I will gladly offer my own perspective on this matter. 🙂

No, I don't believe so. In my view, most of the moderators are doing a perfectly respectable job. If someone happens to make a mistake, I would argue those instances are simply exceptions to the rule. After all, what else could one expect? Perfect moderators overseeing an imperfect community of users? I suspect that neither I, nor anyone else in this world, would be any better.

I couldn't agree more. I’m signing off on this one.👍

Austin Parker8 said:Yeah, I guess most of them probably do okay... what did I expect?.. I guess I just expected they wouldn't be able to help being unfair... I mean, what do you really expect from a regular guy once you hand him a little bit of "power"? Fairness? Or for them to stay humble? Nah... that'd be the exception to the rule...

The reality of the situation is that they actually hold some level of authority, and with that comes the obligation to exercise it. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect that those subject to that power won't exactly be thrilled about it. Nobody enjoys being reprimanded or getting caught on the wrong side of the rules. As my grandmother used to say back in the day: "Other people's messes always seem to smell a whole lot worse."👍

Austin Parker8 said:Yeah, I guess most of them probably do okay... what did I expect?.. I guess I just expected they wouldn't be able to help being unfair... I mean, what do you really expect from a regular guy once you hand him a little bit of "power"? Fairness? Or for them to stay humble? Nah... that'd be the exception to the rule...

If we define arrogance as simply exercising the authority one has been granted, then yes, they are being arrogant. But that’s exactly what they’re tasked to do—to swoop in right when you least expect it. It's reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.😉

Betty Myers14 said:Let them go, Giza, there is no need to get so worked up. They claim Warsaw can’t be compared to Maksimir, but honestly, let them have their delusions. It doesn't bother me one bit.
When they finally run out of bread crusts and head out to those protests, you and I will just sit back, grab a cold beer like civilized people and true fans, staying well clear of the fray. We'll just enjoy the show while pointing fingers at Adler, Adam Collins4, and the rest of them, shouting to the crowd, "Get him, he's the one standing against Jace!" ☕

And then, we shall open a dedicated thread to express our full support for Karamarko, who was such a poor soul, being threatened by those bare-handed protesters while he sat a mile away in his office, watching the whole thing unfold on television in a manner quite reminiscent of our dear Tactum. Who knows, perhaps Tactum will eventually become a moderator on this forum, but by then, you and I will likely be nothing more than high-ranking state secretaries. 🤷

You aren't entirely wrong; the chaos at the stadium was essentially a revolt against big capital and the seizure of public space, which feels almost as absurdly similar to those protests in Warsaw. It’s almost comical.🤣

Kudos to the moderators for all the hard work.👍

William Green4 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but I think your position is essentially an oxymoron—sorry, I just can't see how those two ideas could possibly coexist.

Let’s just lay everything out on the table and look at the facts.
I find myself wondering why the police wouldn't just work with the authorities to ensure we can actually walk along public sidewalks without having to navigate around massive construction barriers. It feels like a fundamental question of accessibility—why can't they facilitate a way for us to move through our own streets by simply removing those constant obstructions?
What exactly is private property doing occupying public space?
You see, it’s never quite that straightforward...
If we were to actually step into a heated debate right now, I suspect that after maybe ten exchanges, things would quickly spiral out of control and the insults would start flying. It’s simply because there is a fundamental gap in our understanding; you just don't seem to grasp the core of my perspective.
There is a fundamental principle at play here that we often overlook in our modern age: what belongs to the public sphere simply cannot be reclaimed as private interest. Once something enters the open air of public discourse, it ceases to be a matter of individual seclusion and becomes part of our collective reality. It’s much like how a landmark in the middle of Manhattan isn't just a backdrop for one person's life, but a shared piece of the city's soul—once it's out there, it belongs to everyone.
It’s a bit like trying to reroute a major interstate through the middle of a cornfield in rural Iowa just because you want to build a private driveway to your basement. You can't simply ignore the massive logistical headache and the sheer scale of the infrastructure involved just to satisfy a small, personal convenience.
I honestly feel like my neighbor George would want to step in and protect you from the shadows, but at the same time, I think a judge would hand down a massive fine just to ensure you never even consider trying something like that ever again.
I honestly can't quite grasp the foundation upon which you’re building your argument, nor can I see the logic that makes your position valid.
It seems like you’re just playing the part of a troll because you lack any real grasp of the situation; instead of actually engaging with the facts, you're just shouting that same tired mantra about private property over and over again.
Thanks, and all the best.

It isn't simple, but it's certainly more straightforward than this. That fence was put up in full compliance with current municipal codes (and all the necessary permits), so it can't just be moved on a whim.🤷

William Green4 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but I think your position is essentially an oxymoron—sorry, I just can't see how those two ideas could possibly coexist.

Let’s just lay everything out on the table and look at the facts.
I find myself wondering why the police wouldn't just work with the authorities to ensure we can actually walk along public sidewalks without having to navigate around massive construction barriers. It feels like a fundamental question of accessibility—why can't they facilitate a way for us to move through our own streets by simply removing those constant obstructions?
What exactly is private property doing occupying public space?
You see, it’s never quite that straightforward...
If we were to actually step into a heated debate right now, I suspect that after maybe ten exchanges, things would quickly spiral out of control and the insults would start flying. It’s simply because there is a fundamental gap in our understanding; you just don't seem to grasp the core of my perspective.
There is a fundamental principle at play here that we often overlook in our modern age: what belongs to the public sphere simply cannot be reclaimed as private interest. Once something enters the open air of public discourse, it ceases to be a matter of individual seclusion and becomes part of our collective reality. It’s much like how a landmark in the middle of Manhattan isn't just a backdrop for one person's life, but a shared piece of the city's soul—once it's out there, it belongs to everyone.
It’s a bit like trying to reroute a major interstate through the middle of a cornfield in rural Iowa just because you want to build a private driveway to your basement. You can't simply ignore the massive logistical headache and the sheer scale of the infrastructure involved just to satisfy a small, personal convenience.
I honestly feel like my neighbor George would want to step in and protect you from the shadows, but at the same time, I think a judge would hand down a massive fine just to ensure you never even consider trying something like that ever again.
I honestly can't quite grasp the foundation upon which you’re building your argument, nor can I see the logic that makes your position valid.
It seems like you’re just playing the part of a troll because you lack any real grasp of the situation; instead of actually engaging with the facts, you're just shouting that same tired mantra about private property over and over again.
Thanks, and all the best.

And there we have it—a masterclass in reasoned debate.👎

William Green4 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but I think your position is essentially an oxymoron—sorry, I just can't see how those two ideas could possibly coexist.

Let’s just lay everything out on the table and look at the facts.
I find myself wondering why the police wouldn't just work with the authorities to ensure we can actually walk along public sidewalks without having to navigate around massive construction barriers. It feels like a fundamental question of accessibility—why can't they facilitate a way for us to move through our own streets by simply removing those constant obstructions?
What exactly is private property doing occupying public space?
You see, it’s never quite that straightforward...
If we were to actually step into a heated debate right now, I suspect that after maybe ten exchanges, things would quickly spiral out of control and the insults would start flying. It’s simply because there is a fundamental gap in our understanding; you just don't seem to grasp the core of my perspective.
There is a fundamental principle at play here that we often overlook in our modern age: what belongs to the public sphere simply cannot be reclaimed as private interest. Once something enters the open air of public discourse, it ceases to be a matter of individual seclusion and becomes part of our collective reality. It’s much like how a landmark in the middle of Manhattan isn't just a backdrop for one person's life, but a shared piece of the city's soul—once it's out there, it belongs to everyone.
It’s a bit like trying to reroute a major interstate through the middle of a cornfield in rural Iowa just because you want to build a private driveway to your basement. You can't simply ignore the massive logistical headache and the sheer scale of the infrastructure involved just to satisfy a small, personal convenience.
I honestly feel like my neighbor George would want to step in and protect you from the shadows, but at the same time, I think a judge would hand down a massive fine just to ensure you never even consider trying something like that ever again.
I honestly can't quite grasp the foundation upon which you’re building your argument, nor can I see the logic that makes your position valid.
It seems like you’re just playing the part of a troll because you lack any real grasp of the situation; instead of actually engaging with the facts, you're just shouting that same tired mantra about private property over and over again.
Thanks, and all the best.

What a textbook example of passive-aggressive commentary. And then we wonder why people end up getting banned.🤷

Susan Price30 said:... you were simply terrified that the forum user in question would leak and forward your bizarre private message so that was your way of preventing it; now that she's banned, she can't do it anymore...

If you ask me, the individual involved showed an incredible amount of patience toward that particular user, though that’s just my humble take on the situation.🤷
As far as private messages go, administrators have the access to read them anyway, so banning someone doesn't actually solve that specific issue.👍
Besides, if private messages were treated with the same disciplinary standards as public comments, half the people here would have been gone ages ago.👍

rowdyhawk10 said:... There is only one single reason why I am not a moderator, and it's something you just can't grasp...

Perhaps we are talking about a level of Grace that is incomprehensible, given that it originates from an unbeliever?😉

P.S.: My last sentence (along with the others) isn't intended as an insult—if anyone took it that way, please accept my apologies—it was merely a reference to a discussion in the religion section regarding God's Grace and my own inquiry into where such grace comes from when practiced by "unbelievers" (or conversely, when withheld by "believers").👍

William Green4 said:I didn't have anything better to do than sit there reading about religion and scrolling through the corner reserved for banned users.
After sitting with my thoughts for a while, I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem hasn't actually been resolved at all; if anything, we've just circled back to the very beginning of it. 😉

There are far too many of us here for there not to be some level of friction and discontent. It’s nothing new. If everyone sat down and had these discussions politely, without the insults or the shouting matches, we’d certainly have fewer problems—but then again, it wouldn't be much fun, would it?👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

In that case, it looks like you and I are both equally invited—or perhaps equally uninvited—to weigh in on this discussion.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

More. I am not.🙂

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

The topic at hand is "what’s going on in Religion," and honestly, the mods are an essential part of that whole dynamic. Regarding your specific contribution, you were actually the one who brought up questions from other subforums and pushed a thesis that had nothing to do with the actual subject matter, effectively derailing the thread into a completely different debate—something about "hilarious sinless conception." But hey, no harm done; we're all human after all.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

The issue was actually resolved in the comment right before your first one. Everything following that is just unnecessary noise.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

I don't believe so, though since I've already laid out my reasoning, there's really no point in me repeating myself.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

It’s exactly this kind of attitude that sparks these arguments in the first place, rather than anything you personally did. For instance, if I happen to be a Catholic and you’re an agnostic, things get heated. Or is this whole thing happening just because I’m Catholic? I knew it...😉

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

My apologies if I misread the punctuation at the end of some of those sentences in your comment. When you wrote, "Do you think that makes sense?", I took it as a rhetorical question directed at the general public rather than a direct inquiry. My mistake.🙏

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

That’s only true if you aren't being objective. In a situation like this, a moderator shouldn't be jumping into the middle of the debate, but they should be able to spot someone being abusive, dismissive, or purely provocative quite easily. For instance, if the topic is something like eyelash extensions—which, frankly, is a concept I struggle to wrap my head around—I wouldn't bother policing most of that conversation as a male moderator. However, if one user decides to call another a "cow," a "whore," or some other equally vile slur, then I’d conclude very quickly that the discussion has veered off the rails. For those more subtle nuances, we have the report button for a reason.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

As I’ve already pointed out, there isn't exactly a need to dwell on their motivations, but one can certainly recognize what constitutes an insult, a smear campaign, or blatant provocation. Beyond that, there's the sheer annoyance of watching someone attempt to force their unsolicited opinions on people who couldn't care less about them in the first place.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

Anyone who feels "punished" usually has some underlying need to justify their own behavior, and this is just one potential excuse. For instance, people constantly accuse Veronica (which is always interesting to watch) of playing the "punishment card" via rowdyhawk10, while most of us aren't even sure why she tolerates certain things in the first place.🤷

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

Exactly. Mockery will be penalized, but asking concrete questions won't. Not every disagreement with the majority constitutes a provocation or a dismissal, even though the majority (which happens quite often on the religion threads) tends to take offense immediately. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively insulted. It all comes down to how you carry yourself as an individual, regardless of whether you are a believer or an atheist.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

I participate minimally, but I follow along extensively.👍

I ended up picking up a few bans over on Reddit. I still vividly remember the reasoning behind one of them: apparently, I wasn't allowed to bring everyone else down with my depressing commentary (admittedly, I’m exaggerating a bit since I'm writing this from memory, but that was the gist of it). After that, I took a moment for some deep, internal soul-searching and realized the moderator actually had a point. So, now, no matter how bleak my comments might get, I make sure to tack on a smiley face 👍 at the end, and everything has been smooth sailing. Those bans are ancient history. Isn't that what compromise is all about, anyway?👍

P.S.: Just to clear up any confusion, the "terrifying" moderator in question was Sam Green73.👍

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

Because this is an open forum designed for the exchange of ideas from all perspectives, not an echo chamber for like-minded individuals. If people want a space where everyone agrees, they can find specialized forums or private groups with much stricter membership requirements.👍

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

I don't quite see it that way. As a believer myself, I actually find that I clash—and let's be honest, "clash" is a polite word for argue—with other believers more often than I do with atheists. A discussion is a discussion, and an argument is an argument. If you aren't fighting over one specific point, someone will inevitably find another one to pick at.👍

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

Why discriminate? For a moderator, the priority should be competence; personal leanings ought to be irrelevant (or at least they should be). To spot someone being provocative within a thread, you don't need to hold a specific faith (or lack thereof)—you just need to be able to read objectively, which is something anyone can do when they're focused.👍

nimbleseal74 said:Maybe it's because we saw it plastered all over tanks, warships, and fighter jets while they were busy tearing through America?

Perhaps that's why?

Look, most of our neighbors have spent plenty of time trying to tear us apart, yet we don't go making a fuss over their flags.🤷
Let's leave the politics at the door; the man was simply asking a question on Law Forum.👍

I think we’ve got all the bases covered here, though overall, I’d say the forum is doing just fine.👍

I should probably add that neither your take nor mine is particularly objective (not that I'm claiming any higher ground here).👍

granitewolf6 said:It’s not just that, though—why aren't they even starting threads in the banned users section? I mean, seriously, what's the deal? Who's pulling the strings here? Does anyone actually believe Brad has given up drinking? It's like watching a construction worker celebrate a non-alcoholic beer—totally pointless.

Sit, boy!👍

Nicole Nelson77 said:I honestly feel like regular people deserve an explanation. We have a right to know, especially since both of them hold such significant positions...

It’s no different from if the FBI were to arrest Joe Biden and we just weren't allowed to know the reasoning because it was considered some sort of "internal" matter. ☕

Why should they be privy to that information? At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their privacy, and I’d argue the only thing truly relevant would be an actual court order from a judge.🤷

urbanhawk17 said:Look, let’s be clear about one thing: there is absolutely zero tolerance here. None. Zero.

The most effective—and frankly, the only truly fair—way to handle moderation would be to implement heavy fines. If people actually had to open their wallets every time they behaved poorly, I suspect we’d see a very rapid shift toward common sense and decorum.👍

urbanhawk17 said:Look, I don't think I'm the only one voicing these concerns. Honestly, if you polled the entire forum, I’m fairly certain 90% of the users would have something to say about your behavior. Yet, here you are, stubbornly doubling down and refusing to pivot. I have to wonder—what exactly is the end goal here?

We’ve already touched on the percentages. If we were going by those numbers, it would mean roughly 144,000 forum members are all complaining about him at once. I haven't sat down with a calculator to be precise, but I highly doubt that's actually the case.👍

Lisa Morales4 said:It seems like some of you forum users can't help yourselves—you just have to shut people down with bans or intimidation tactics whenever someone expresses an opinion that doesn't sit right with your particular worldview. It’s a bit much, isn't it? It’s honestly exhausting watching the moderators stifle any real dialogue. They seem determined to misinterpret every single word uttered by anyone with a differing opinion, effectively shutting down the conversation before it can even get started. It feels like they’re just jumping in to kill the momentum and lock everything down, regardless of how productive the discussion actually was....

The first part isn't happening simply because they lack the capacity to pull it off—which, frankly, is their biggest flaw—whereas they are more than capable of executing and actually utilizing the second part. I suppose one could argue that’s just one of their legitimate tactics for fighting back.🤷

Lisa Morales4 said:... we just need to take a moment to actually define what freedom of speech, tolerance for dissenting views, and parliamentary procedure really mean.

Most people on this forum could probably use a refresher course on those concepts.🤷

And if we’re going to pretend this forum is modeled after a parliamentary system, then perhaps we should all start using our real names. That way, we might actually face some level of formal or legal accountability for the things we say and do. But since we aren't doing that...🤷

I honestly don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up over proselytizing. If you look at this subforum, almost everyone is busy preaching their own gospel while simultaneously trashing anyone else's. We all seem to be pointing fingers at Shady because he currently holds the power to sanction different viewpoints (whether those views are justified or not, it doesn't really matter), but if we were actually sitting in his chair, we all know how things would playout. It certainly wouldn't be some promised land.🤷

Furthermore, regarding faith itself: a truly solid belief system should be resilient enough to withstand missionary efforts, rather than cowering from scrutiny or, in worst-case scenarios, being suppressed. This applies to everyone here, regardless of what they believe, but it’s especially relevant when looking at one's own creed. If a religion has managed to survive two bloody millennia, I highly doubt a single moderator on a forum with 160,000 members—which, by the way, is more people than live in my entire hometown—is going to pose any real threat to it.👍

cosmictinker21 said:I suppose I could dig up a few old sayings my grandmother used to swear by...

There’s another classic one floating around: "Every dog has its day!"👍

It really just comes down to having enough patience.👍