Posts by cosmicotter9

frozengull2 said:Hmm....
Look, the Apostles (the guys who actually hung out with him) basically chose death—and not a pretty way to go, either—when they were pressured to deny Him... once they started building Christ's Church!?
I don't know about you, but that fact alone is enough proof for me of Jesus' greatness, holiness, and status.

Plus, this tiny group of people—who back then were rejected, marginalized, poor, and persecuted, all led by Jesus' words—literally changed the world!!
Isn't that absolutely mind-blowing!?

I mean, plenty of teachers have come and gone, but only someone truly special can kickstart something like this...

Right?

Btw; the work of the Holy Spirit is so obvious in people who truly convert that there's no "earthly" explanation for it. People change from the ground up (OVERNIGHT!!)...
Some of Jesus' biggest, most terrifying, most relentless persecutors became His greatest supporters after being touched by the Holy Spirit... willing to face death for Him!!?
Just saying...
Same goes for... just look at the lives and testimonies of hundreds of Christian saints over the last 2,000 years!

What more do you need, man!?

a better paycheck

I can already see yet another one in a long line of garbage adaptations

Nicole Myers said:I honestly felt bad for you guys after reading that article. 🤦

If my people were getting slapped with fines every single time I let a little fear get the better of me, we’d be broke by now. 🤦

It’s a shame they didn't just leave you stranded alone in the middle of the woods then. 😁

I’m a huge Ferrari fan, but I honestly feel for Charles Leclerc. These Italian amateurs are going to cost him the championship.

Lawrence Garcia5 said:You're still living in some alternate reality where Ferrari actually has the faster, superior package.

The cars are pretty much on par. Red Bull has incredible straight-line speed, while Ferrari handles the corners better.

The movie is going to be absolute garbage regardless, just like the first one, so I seriously doubt there will even be any reason to bother with a boycott.

Alright, let's get to it.

����������

Is there any way you could look into lifting my ban a little sooner? ��

Listen, could you at least enable private messaging for me? I've got some business deals in the works that require a bit more discretion.

Why is this taking 48 hours instead of 24?

I honestly have no clue why I was banned in the first place. The topic was just about who everyone would want to take out on a date; I didn't realize the moderators were too busy for dating.

Anyway, I’d appreciate it if you could lift the ban since the 24-hour mark has already passed.

Thanks in advance, Jeremy Johnson18. 😁

Alright, I'll get that taken care of for you—and then some. :D

btw, give my best to Nico :P

🤣
Of course. Any dissenting opinion is instantly labeled as "trolling." I suppose the membership badge is doing its job then—protecting colleagues from the burden of having to actually provide an argument.

Since you're already here, be a dear and just slap a restriction on my entire policy settings. It would save me the headache of eventually getting banned for trying to rationalize anything with these party-line zealots, regardless of their political stripe. Besides, it'll save me from any future interactions with you.

So, I’ve been placed in isolation for "extreme trolling."

What I fail to grasp here is... where exactly was this "extreme trolling"?

To quote Chloe Campbell95 and her reasoning in its entirety:

So, you're admitting you came here intentionally to "screw with" or provoke the "sheep"?
See, we consider that kind of behavior to be extreme trolling.

Okay, maybe I could have phrased things more elegantly, but I honestly don't see where I admitted to coming here to screw with or provoke anyone. For starters, I didn't say people were out to get the sheep; I said there are CERTAIN individuals who deliberately provoke others just to trigger the Democrat crowd and make them look like fools. I think that distinction is fairly obvious from my post, and even from several other comments in that thread.

I have no idea how this was interpreted as "Hey guys, I'm here to mess with you because you're idiots." Especially since I believe I explained my viewpoint quite civilly and responded to the individual without resorting to insults or trolling. To quote Chloe Campbell95's controversial reply:
As far as online debates go, sure, I can get heated, but I'm just telling you how it looks when a supposedly progressive and intellectual faction descends to the level of a bunch of hillbillies. I say "supposedly" because of the constant labeling, defamation, and general disparagement coming from your side. And again, you aren't twelve years old; being heated isn't an excuse. I believe most people are intentionally trolling here just to make you all look like fools.

Once again, how did Chloe Campbell95 manage to read that as "I'm screwing you over because you're sheep"?

Moving on, the second warning:

"Trolling"

Again, what part of this is trolling? Is it mentioning that certain users will say anything just to "justify" something regarding the Democratic platform? Like that one user, who spent the whole debate jumping down people's throats for allegedly spreading lies, only to pivot to "so what?" once it turned out what they said was actually in the party platform.

Why doesn't moderator Chloe Campbell95 react to all those posts where the Democrat crowd acts like lunatics, hurling insults at other users like calling them "sandwiches" or "bots," or organized attacks for "lying" and "planting info"? But of course, Chloe Campbell95 always has plenty of time to issue bans to anyone with a different opinion.

I would really appreciate it if someone other than Chloe Campbell95 looked into this case and lifted my ban. I wasn't trolling, nor did I "admit" to anything (or do anything else that Chloe Campbell95 had to invent just so they could slap me with a ban).

Why don't I want Chloe Campbell95 handling this? Because they aren't impartial, and their moderation is clearly selective. In other words, they let the Democrat crowd get away with everything, while for anyone who disagrees, they practically fabricate incidents—like my supposed admission.

Regarding impartiality—as I noted earlier, I didn't see a single person from the Democrat camp get banned for attacking, disparaging, or insulting other users, or even for making racist remarks about minorities (specifically that one user who claimed certain groups are nothing but beggars or thieves, then played dumb later claiming she couldn't be a racist because she has such diverse friends).

Naturally, I'm the one getting banned here because I kept pointing out her racism. It seems I'm the one at fault for reminding everyone, rather than the person actually typing the racist comments.