Posts by Nicole James

It looks like the forum has been hacked again.

So, the reality is that practically every culture throughout almost all of recorded history has celebrated a holiday dedicated to the sun and light during this season. I celebrate the federal holiday called Christmas exactly as it is because I personally find the symbolism quite compelling. Next year, I plan to start a dedicated thread for holiday cards covering all the different aspects of this season—just so no one accidentally feels slighted or offended...

Look, this isn't some exclusive club reserved solely for believers or high-level theological debates—you can find plenty of those forums out there, whether they focus on Islam, Catholicism, or whatever else. Here, everyone is welcome to dive into discussions about religion regardless of where they stand, and honestly, I think the best conversations happen when we look at things from different angles, not just through a strictly theological lens.

Besides, it seems a bit strange that you're taking issue with the greeting, especially since your access to the religion forum was revoked. I really hope you aren't resorting to using clones again to get around things.😉

Hannah Watson85 said:I’m honestly a little lost here, sorry 😬. I’ve been using FF—I actually downloaded CheekyMonkey or WTF at one point—but then I just hit a wall and had no idea what the next step was. Could someone please walk me through some basic instructions?

Just look for the "new user script" option, enter a name and a domain (it doesn't really matter what you put there), and hit OK. From there, you just copy and paste the script, and you're all set. If the system asks you which text editor you want to use, you'll just need to point it toward Notepad.exe.

Taylor Gonzalez79 said:I don't think I'm actually going to switch back to Chrome right now. I already jumped over to FF just to deal with this forum, and I ended up installing a few add-ons just to get everything running smoothly. Honestly, this site is such a mess—it’s frustrating. And yet, here we are, acting like masochists by coming back for more. 🤣

The script works perfectly fine in FF without any issues. You just need to install GreaseMonkey and you're good to go.

We’ve decided not to open this thread—mostly because it seems to be leaning toward critiquing the forum's structure and settling scores with atheists right out of the gate, which is exactly what we’re trying to steer clear of. If you’d like, feel free to start a fresh topic, provided it has a much more clearly defined direction for the discussion.

Frank Moore4 said:This is just another textbook example of how inhumane these self-proclaimed animal rights activists can be. Honestly, half of them probably haven't even walked a dog on a leash, let alone handled actual farm work or livestock. They claim they’re "protecting" animals, but they’d happily step over a human being to do it.

Unfortunately, this is just more evidence of how twisted these Western "liberal values" have become. It’s honestly shameful that our local police aren't stepping in to deal with people like this and filing formal criminal charges for their threats and harassment. At this point, we probably need the courts—and maybe a psychiatric evaluation—to get a handle on them.

What exactly does a psychotic eco-fascist—someone who thinks calling for a lynch mob is a legitimate way to settle scores—have to do with liberal values? There have always been various kinds of deranged extremists, and there always will be.

All right, I've taken note of the complaint book entry. We’ll decide how to move forward with this topic once we've had a chance to reach a consensus among ourselves.

Talk soon!

Look, you didn't get a strike just because you spoke up—it happened after you were warned to wait, ignored that warning, had your post removed without any penalty, and then only brought it back once you complied.

The thread was being totally hijacked to nitpick the moderators and how this whole forum is run, so it was completely justified to lock it down until we can figure out a better way to handle it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with how Chris Peterson53 handled things.

Alright, so we’re keeping this thread locked until the moderation team can sit down and hash things out. EOD

Kyle Carter2 said:Thanks, and take care.

You're very welcome—take care. 👋

Kyle Carter2 said:Having a level head is definitely an asset—I'm all for it—but I have to wonder about discussions that require actual subject matter expertise. Take, for instance, deep theological debates regarding things like the Roman-Byzantine filioque clause, or the nuances between purgatory versus various celestial realms. There are so many instances where even I, acting as an admin, can't quite tell if a thread is drifting off-topic, being hijacked by trolls, or just turning into straight-up spam. How is anyone supposed to catch that when they don't even grasp the core concepts being discussed, right?
Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Well, I’m certainly not the only one here. Veronica is Catholic, and I'm guessing Islamic is probably what she identifies with. Plus, Blue bird seems to be an encyclopedia on everything under the sun. I'd say we've got ourselves pretty well covered.

I’m also just a regular user over on the science forum—I don't claim to be a scientist by any means...

This isn't some religious forum where moderators get appointed based on their ideological leanings. It's disappointing.

Susan Price30 said:—not at all—you just copied this from some atheist website, which is basically what you've been doing for years now—mostly just posting these half-baked or distorted quotes, always using the same old talking points, these little pamphlets... for years, whenever the word Bible comes up, here you are, acting like some scholar trying to enlighten everyone with your crooked citations from the Old and New Testaments. LOL.

Besides, I already explained above exactly where the issue lies and which part of the quoted text was incomplete or inaccurate—even though we’re only talking about one or two verses, you didn't even provide them in their entirety or show how they actually read in the original.

And honestly, I have no interest in getting into an argument with you; if anything, I'm interested in hearing the administration's stance regarding this issue and an explanation as to why such things are permitted.

So, let me say it again. I haven't seen a single quote yet that can't be found in an official translation of the Bible, so I really don't know what we're even discussing here.

Susan Price30 said:^^^ I’ve included a link to the thread so everyone can see the comments—including those from others—regarding the controversial posts (especially on the last and second-to-last pages). Any instances where incomplete or out-of-context excerpts from the Bible are being cited have already been reported, so everything is perfectly clear. What more is there to do? Should we send a formal petition to Vatican City?

So, you're saying they aren't outright fabrications, just taken out of context? Honestly, do you really expect the moderators to act as the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes "correct" biblical context?

Susan Price30 said:I have a question that I am genuinely curious about:

On serious subforums where the actual goal is to encourage high-quality discussion—and presumably attract a high-quality "clientele," I guess—inserting quotes that don't match the original text, or any quotes that are suspicious or inaccurate in any way, usually results in them being deleted, moved, or the user getting a warning immediately without much fuss. Or, if the opening post contains such errors, the entire thread is shut down or wiped clean.

So why doesn't the same standard apply to the subforums focused on specialized, specific topics—like Religion or, in this particular case, Spirituality?

Why is it allowed on those specific boards to blatantly misrepresent, for instance, the Bible—which is what we are mostly talking about here—by pulling quotes out of context until the message and meaning are completely lost, or even worse, just posting outright fake quotes???

Here is my point:
Topic

This is especially egregious when someone isn't doing it by accident or out of simple ignorance—maybe once or twice—but rather does it consciously and consistently; in other words, with intent.

What should the response be then? Are we supposed to permit or even encourage this kind of behavior just because misquoting a source—whether it's a news article, the Bible, or anything else—is considered someone's "civil right," a "moral duty," or whatever else they might claim? lol.

P.S. If a discussion is centered on a Catholic issue, the original source should be a standard Catholic Bible—not, say, writings from a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. So, the possible excuse that "different editions exist" doesn't really hold water, because it is actually quite easy to specify what constitutes the original and relevant source for Catholics, for Mormons, or for Buddhists.

As dustyranger64 points out, issuing a warning for misquoting only applies to quotes attributed to forum members.

Altering quotes from external sources can be penalized, but it isn't mandatory—it depends entirely on the situation. Since you haven't provided a specific quote, I can't offer any more insight than that.

Byron, I’m going to lay out the facts one more time for you.

Fact 1: The decision was made to lift all partial bans across the board.
Fact 2: This call was finalized only after the new rules of the organization were officially published.
Fact 3: These partial bans are being removed from users sequentially—it isn't just happening to you.

You haven't received any special treatment here, and there is absolutely no reason for a partial ban to be applied to your account. If you're truly insisting on being banned, we might be able to accommodate that request—but let’s be clear: that wouldn't be "correcting" some perceived favoritism you claim to have had, it would simply be granting a ban upon request.

Jacob Lewis5 said:That wasn't psychoanalysis—it was just an analysis of a specific phenomenon: this intense, driving need some atheists have to lash out at believers. I was simply trying to figure out how to interpret that behavior and offered one theory.
You should have given me a reasoned argument for why you were psychoanalyzing the topic itself—rather than just deleting my posts while they were busy hurling insults (not these fabricated ones, mind you)—but when it comes to the believers, you don't touch them.
Is there actually any context where discussing the impulse of atheists to trample over believers is allowed, or is that just a forbidden subject?

Speculating about the motives of other forum members isn't welcome here. Quite frankly, it didn't meet any of the criteria for being an acceptable topic under our community guidelines. I clear out those kinds of threads regardless of who starts them or who they are aimed at. It really isn't practical for me to sit down and explain the rules individually to everyone when they are already clearly laid out.

Since this is an appeal regarding a deleted thread, I consider the matter settled and am closing this.

For now, I’ve gone ahead and cleared out those off-topic posts. A formal complaint has been filed—the admins will review it and take action if they feel it's warranted—so there's really no need for any further comments until then.

That wasn't actually the topic at hand—it was just some amateur "psychoanalysis" being tossed around by forum members.

The community guidelines clearly dictate how new threads should be started.