Posts by Richard Nelson84

From what I can see, you didn't actually get flagged for insults. You should really take a look at the LJS rules regarding inappropriate communication.

The moderator has read the first post along with everything else. They feel that insults and playing doctor aren't the right way to communicate here and definitely break the rules. ☕

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to shut this thread down. I’d just suggest everyone stick to the rules and keep the conversation classy. If this kind of behavior were allowed, we wouldn't even need moderators in the first place! Trust me, nobody wants these discussions to devolve into petty playground bickering!

With the full support of the Apple moderators, the request to remove the partial post has been denied.

redbear2 said:Look, I'll be blunt: I find it hard to take this whole idea of being open seriously. My impression is that most complaints aren't even taken seriously to begin with. By definition, a complaint comes from a totally different perspective than the moderator handing out the penalty. Honestly, there have been several times when moderators didn't even explain their reasoning to me. Even when they did try, I proved them wrong, and then I was just labeled "rude" and ignored. I've also been told my appeals won't even be looked at unless I act polite. That is the exact opposite of critical thinking and being analytical! If someone is right, their attitude doesn't matter. Pointing fingers at "rudeness" feels like an emotional reaction used when there are no actual arguments left. Don't you think?

It’s honestly tough for me to take a user seriously when they have dozens of pages of penalties and constantly file partial appeals on PZK for every single thing. You're one of those users who thinks people are targeting you personally or picking on you. And don't even get me started on those incredibly tasteless public appeals. It's nearly impossible to have a normal conversation with people like that. I think that's the real issue nobody talks about here; my gut tells me the "troublemakers" are the ones complaining while the silent majority just follows the rules. I used to be an "average" user once, too, and I'll admit I sometimes felt like moderators were on a personal vendetta. But once I became a moderator, I realized that almost never happens. Seriously, moderators deserve credit for the time they spend making this place a better community. That's why I believe most complaints are baseless—moderators really do try to be fair and professional.

cosmicangler50 said:Exactly. That's the whole point.

Got it.

If you think a different subforum would be a better fit for this topic, just let me know and we'll see what can be done.

I’m assuming we're talking about this thread.

If the author wants to move this discussion over to a different forum, just reach out to one of the moderators at LJES. They'll be happy to move the topic to the right spot for you.

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

First off, you were totally off-topic. Second, the reason I asked you to provide links is because you dropped a string of really heavy claims—like saying watching porn changes sexual orientation which leads to Stop Child Abuse, and that bisexuals make up 91% of those cases based on some study you mentioned without actually linking it. For such dangerous claims, you absolutely must have proof.

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

I cited a study involving over 4,000 participants. These aren't just beliefs; they are facts. Sure, we could argue the study isn't applicable to the entire population because it focused on offenders who were already processed by the legal system, but it still says a lot about certain tendencies. Interestingly, Dr. Abel conducted a similar study about twenty years prior on offenders who hadn't been caught, and the numbers were pretty much the same, except for the frequency of the offenses, which were much higher. Just Google it; I'm not sending a link.😈

Again, you were off-topic, so I don't see the point of this complaint.

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

I provided the study where I pulled the data from. You are free to check it yourself.

Going back to the start of my post: for any identical or similar claims you make on that thread, I will always demand links. Otherwise, it's just trolling.

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

I have no clue what you're talking about, and honestly, I couldn't care less! That thread wasn't shut down because of you; it was closed because the original poster specifically asked for it to be ended.

If that thread had stayed open, I wouldn't have spent much time talking about child abuse anyway. It would have been completely off-topic!

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

I just flew through this, and honestly, I’m seeing zero evidence to back up those claims. There’s nothing here to suggest that porn addiction shifts someone's sexual orientation or increases the risk of child abuse. Plus, the idea that most offenders are bisexual? Doesn't hold water. In fact, some parts of these links actually prove the exact opposite!

Matthew Ortiz13 said:

@Matthew Ortiz13 - all the actual research shows that porn addiction doesn't drive the development of pedophilia, nor does sexual orientation (being gay or bi) play a role in its emergence. In fact, modern psychology views pedophilia as a sexual orientation in itself. Studies indicate that most pedophiles are actually straight, not bi. I suggest reading the book Stop Child Abuse where you'll find the data I'm talking about along with plenty of other info. I’d ask that from now on, you provide links for any claims you make, otherwise I’ll have to issue a warning. Consider this a moderator's warning.

The guy starts this thread on LDS asking for a scientific discussion, then turns around and just spits out his own opinion. He joins the debate without providing a single shred of research, instead citing literature that doesn't follow any actual studies and relies more on what someone *thinks* rather than hard facts. Meanwhile, he denied me the chance to post my sources (because apparently, I didn't realize we were supposed to be having a "scientific" debate). So, he just asserts things, threatens people with warnings and penalties, but doesn't follow his own rules. When I asked to close a thread before, he never did it, but now he's jumping in within a few hours because someone else asked to close a different thread, effectively blocking me from presenting research that proves he's wrong. And then he immediately jumps to threatening me with sanctions. This is already the third moderator who's just trolling.

According to the rules of this forum, this moderator is straight-up moderator trolling. I wonder if he'll get hit with a 35 or 45 point penalty?! I'm betting he won't. Just like that other moderator who trolls by pushing nonsense, like claiming you need a permit just to exist.

I really think moderators should be barred from participating in discussions. Some of them don't even know the basic rules of this site, while regular users are expected to read them cover to cover. Then you end up with a moderator who trolls more than ten participants combined on their own thread.

I'm dropping the research links here, and I honestly hope this moderator at least gets a warning for the trolling.

http://salifeline.org/article/pornog...n/his-recovery
http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...lia-worse.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

All these studies—yet there is only one major global study showing two specific correlations regarding pedophilia: one relating to childhood trauma and another to pornography addiction. The other single study ever conducted shows that pedophiles are NON-HETEROsexual. — those are direct quotes from a MEDICAL STUDY on PEDOPHILIA. 🙂

PS. That book he’s recommending talks about child abuse in general—physical and psychological violence. It isn't just about pedophilia, but a much broader spectrum of violence against children. Nowhere in that book does it mention the only world-renowned study involving psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and biochemists. 85% of pedophiles never commit child abuse, 10% are addicted to pornography, and only 5% are actual child abusers. That was the finding from the 2008 study. So, the moderator really stepped in it with his nonsense; he missed the mark on the literature entirely, because that globally recognized study happened in 2003, while the book he mentioned was published in 2001. Forum users absolutely love it when moderators troll them or when mods act uneducated, which is why I think they should be kept out of debates. When they participate, they aren't doing their jobs objectively; they let their emotions take over and try to flex their power when they realize they look foolish—it's classic moderator trolling.

Feel free to ban me if you think that’ll somehow clear things up for you. Though, honestly? I doubt it. 🙂

P.S. We seriously need a sub-forum called: Report the Moderator. You know, a place where mods could actually rotate out after handing themselves red cards because they're trolling their own community. Is that even possible when the whole platform is run by trolls? It feels like the average user here knows the rules better than the actual moderators who "enforce" them just because they're acting out of spite.

You're making claims again without showing a single shred of proof!

Look, I don't see the point in filing an appeal. You haven't been banned, and there aren't any actual sanctions against your account. All you got from me was a simple warning to back up your claims with evidence next time. As a moderator, I don't see anything wrong with that!

I’m sure you understand there’s a massive gap between modern medical views and religious doctrine. Looking at this ruling, that teacher just isn't being consistent with her own faith's teachings. Even if she didn't explicitly use the word "perversion," she really should have called it a severe perversion, which is exactly what her church teaches. If I were the parent of those kids, I’d definitely be questioning whether my children are actually learning the values I want them to hold regarding homosexuality.

Nicole James said:I’ll step away from the main topic for a second.

The Supreme Court recently handed down an acquittal for a religious instructor, ruling that her comments didn't actually label homosexuality as "depravity" or a "disease"—instead, she merely characterized it as "disordered" and "contrary to natural law." This really gets me thinking—for all the parents out there whose kids are enrolled in religious education classes, are you actually aware that there is roughly a 5% to 10% chance your child might be gay? I can't help but wonder how those kids feel in those moments, sitting there while they are told their own inclinations are nothing more than "disordered" or "against nature." Honestly, what kind of damage does that do to a fragile adolescent psyche—listening to such things about feelings they don't even fully understand themselves?

I can tell you from experience that it feels anything but good. Being told there was something wrong with me caused me plenty of issues during early puberty, though luckily I moved past that mindset. It’s just not okay to hear people talking about you in such a nasty way during class—whether it's religion or any other subject! You just stare at the floor, turn bright red, and wait for the lecture to end.

As for that acquittal, it doesn't surprise me much. If a professor can claim homosexuality is a disease and still get cleared by the Supreme Court, why wouldn't a teacher get the same treatment for calling it "merely" unnatural?

andjeo29 As specified by:
The whole LJS is a mess, and that’s an understatement!

Fair enough. If that's how you see it!

quietfox384 said:Just you, man! Moderator LJS can't explain why one thread ends up in the general section while another gets slapped with an 18+ tag.
I only gave two examples. You really think I can't find more? 😁

I already gave you my take on both examples. You can list them all you want, but I honestly don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. It’s not like we went around deleting or locking your threads. In my opinion, you're just being dramatic for no reason. I really have no clue what you hope to achieve with these posts. 🤷

quietfox384 said:And what on earth does any of this have to do with the need for registration?

If you aren't logged in or don't check the site much, you won't be able to see the LJS 18+ section.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how that PDF is organized. The 18+ section is such a tiny file with hardly any active threads, so there’s zero chance of anyone getting confused. Nobody is going to stop posting just because the layout isn't exactly to their liking. 😁

One of the real issues here is that that specific section is hidden from unregistered users, and there are tons of them. At one point, the entire PDF was invisible to guests. It’s honestly no surprise they rolled that back so quickly.

quietfox384 said:Would you date someone with a disability? Let’s talk about it! This is our official mega-thread for that exact question.
Would you ever consider dating or marrying a man living with PTSD?

The disability discussion is over on the regular LJS board, while the PTSD topic is moved to the 18+ section!
I have absolutely no clue what logic they're using! 🤷

I’m the one who started the PTSD topic in the 18+ section myself. Nobody moved it there. Honestly, I don't see any reason why they would!

quietfox384 said:How can you get the most out of a blowjob?
Would you date a guy with a small dick?

The first thread is on a standard LJS board, and the second one is tucked away in the 18+ section. That also makes zero sense to me!
These are just two examples. I’m sure there are plenty more out there!
Can we at least clean this up a bit, since we're stuck with LJS (18+) anyway?

I can't really speak to those two examples. The 18+ section was set up before I stepped into the moderator role!

Editing a PDF isn't the issue here. The real headache is that once topics get moved over there, they go completely dead overnight. They switch from being super active to totally ghost towns. If you ask me, I'd rather we just don't move anything at all.

silverridge11 said:Is there any chance we could get an LGBT subforum set up over at Lowe's?

It all really depends on how many people show up and what we decide to talk about!

silverridge11 said:There are tons of high-quality threads on this topic! I honestly feel like it’s getting a bit old when every single thread just turns into a discussion about being gay.

Like what, for example?

We’ve touched on topics regarding transgender issues and sexuality a few times lately, but nothing really gained much traction. Personally, I don't have any issues with it at all. In fact, I actually think the idea is pretty great!

Regarding... A hangout spot for gay guys! He should spend more time chatting in the general discussion threads instead of just focusing on LGBTQ+ topics. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I linked a specific gay topic to this one. Usually, it’s the other way around! Most of the regular members just drop their questions right here in this thread rather than taking the initiative to start a brand-new topic.

I honestly don't think we have enough active LGBT members to pull off an entire dedicated PDF group just yet. That said, there might be enough interest for a few high-quality, specific topics. Personally, I’d be pretty stoked if something like that actually happened! 😁

Here are the LGBT topics recorded on... I'm ready to get to work! Just send over the content you need me to transform. I'll make sure everything sounds like a natural, upbeat American voice while following all your specific rules for names and locations. Let's go! I can't see any list here! You forgot to paste it. Send it over and I'll get right on it!

The Struggles of Being Bisexual - Mega-thread
Transgender identity and gender transition.
The Gay Guys' Corner - Vol. 3
Lesbian experiences, thoughts, opinions... and everything else! Let's talk! Looks like lesbians aren't on the list! 😲)

Transgender partners. It’s not on the list!

We could also throw this topic into the LGBT conversation! Asexuality - The Mega-Thread! .

There’s still a ton of content on Lowe's covering the LGBTQ+ community that I haven't linked yet. Plus, there’s a whole bunch of other threads where those topics overlap with the hetero community!

casualcanyon3 said:You call that a high-quality debate? She twisted my words, attacked my character, and when I tried to clarify what I actually meant, she just doubled down. She even tried to provoke me by claiming I have some weird scale for labeling people! That wasn't a fair or productive discussion. And yeah, once she pushed my buttons, I definitely snapped back a bit harder.

If you set aside the part where things turned into a personal vendetta, the actual debate was fine. It wasn't much different from any other topic here. You both held your ground and defended your views as best as you could.

casualcanyon3 said:Look, I’m not here to pick fights. If someone wants to give me a warning or a ban, go ahead—it won't break me. All I'll say is that in all my years on this forum, I have NEVER complained about another member, nor have I ever filed a report on anyone. Never!

I’ll be giving this user a very wide berth from now on.

I don't get this at all. I see this attitude on Microsoft all the time. As soon as someone shows up with an opposing opinion, it almost always ends up exactly like this.

Nothing makes me happier than debating people who disagree with me. But hey, it's your right to avoid talking to people you don't vibe with, so feel free to do that.

Sarah Stewart72 said:(1) Honestly, you have bigger fish to fry with Barack Obama...

Taken out of context, it looks like he’s insulting you by calling you mentally unstable. But that isn't the case here. Looking at the full conversation, it's obvious his reaction was triggered by your It certainly didn't happen in Leonidaland and if we're talking about fair moderation, both your post and his should be flagged equally.

But I don't see any reason to do that. Okay, you guys got a little heated, so what? Neither of you crossed the line—not in my book.

Points 2, 3, 5, and 6 aren't controversial at all, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Point 4 is the only one that's actually an issue. But again, looking at the context, the labels used in that part of the post clearly aren't directed at you, so they shouldn't result in a ban. The only thing I take issue with in that section is this Alain bit, because he wrote it specifically just to push your buttons, but that's not really something we can sanction anyway.

Sarah Stewart72 said:Everything in one post. And obviously, it's clear that person has massive issues, but the point is I'm not being paid to put up with this, so I wouldn't if you guys would be so kind.

Just like you aren't being paid to endure this nonsense, as you call it, we moderators aren't being paid to moderate based on what other users want. Just because you think there's a problem doesn't mean one actually exists. We will review every appeal, of course. But in my opinion, I don't see a reason to flag the post above.

Sarah Stewart72 said:My questions are: can users stay peaceful on the forum amidst this kind of garbage, is this kind of behavior against the forum rules, and would I be sanctioned if I responded to him the way he deserves?

I'll just address the bolded part. You gave him exactly what he gave you. I don't see anything wrong with that. Microsoft isn't some sterile PDF where every single "clash" has to be suppressed. Personally, I think that's actually good for Microsoft. You both acted a bit sharp, but other users stayed out of it, and in my view, no rules were broken. If you wanted to go after him with insults, that's a different story, and that definitely won't go unpunished.

Sarah Stewart72 said:Most importantly: would these words be sanctioned if they were aimed at one of the moderators?

This falls under the jurisdiction of the CIA, but personally, I wouldn't sanction his posts or yours.

Sarah Stewart72 said:And he doesn't stop there—he’s actually lobbying the moderation team! On top of that, he expects me to apologize to him, even after a string of insults he's thrown my way for reasons only he knows. Apparently, it's just because I have an opinion. Unbelievable.

Lobbying the moderation? Honestly, I couldn't care less what opinion you, he, or anyone else holds. My job is to moderate objectively, and that is exactly what I aim to do.

What I see on Microsoft is that a good number of forum members get easily offended whenever they run into someone with a different perspective. Then, suddenly, there's a massive uproar over every single word. People threaten to quit the thread, invent insults, and intentionally twist the context of posts. And this isn't just about you. Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

For me, the bigger issue was the debate between you and casualcanyon3, where you both went much further than you did with Leonid. Both of you included elements in your posts that could have earned you a warning, but I decided not to act because I believed it could evolve into a high-quality discussion—which I think it did.

Finally, I don't think this is about the specific post you linked; it seems to be about a private conflict between you two. If you read the posts in this thread, it's obvious you just can't get along. But I don't really care. If you can't resolve your disagreements, just use the ignore button. Or learn that people aren't always going to agree with you.

EDIT:

Sarah Stewart72 said:Don't hold your breath. I am not playing any games with you or anyone else, and calling someone a "professional curiosity seeker" is a blatant insult. I won't discuss my profession or whether it's relevant here. All I see is a continuous stream of insults that I simply don't need. Luckily, there is a very easy way for me to avoid them too, thanks.

Again, I truly don't see how you've reached the conclusion that this is a blatant insult.🤷
I didn't quite get the first post you linked, but I definitely don't get this one. Let the other moderators and those in charge of this appeal review my stance, but it looks to me like you are misinterpreting other users' posts. Whether you're doing it on purpose or not, I have no idea.

David Foster80 said:Look, if someone decides to label themselves in their own bio, well, that's their business. What am I supposed to do about it? ☕

You're splitting hairs. By your logic, the aggressor and the victim are basically the same because the victim fought back using the same tactics as the aggressor. 😉

Besides, let me repeat: I’m not a moderator. A moderator actually has to maintain some level of decency. Because at the end of the day, I’ll get flagged for what I say, but a moderator won't.

I only read what you wrote. Nothing else! ☕

David Foster80 said:Look, if someone decides to label themselves in their own bio, well, that's their business. What am I supposed to do about it? ☕

You're splitting hairs. By your logic, the aggressor and the victim are basically the same because the victim fought back using the same tactics as the aggressor. 😉

Besides, let me repeat: I’m not a moderator. A moderator actually has to maintain some level of decency. Because at the end of the day, I’ll get flagged for what I say, but a moderator won't.

You can say whatever you want, but true class is about staying polite—even when the person you're talking to is being completely out of line.

I just want to point out how hypocritical you're being! 😁

David Foster80 said:Look, if someone decides to label themselves in their own bio, well, that's their business. What am I supposed to do about it? ☕

You're splitting hairs. By your logic, the aggressor and the victim are basically the same because the victim fought back using the same tactics as the aggressor. 😉

Besides, let me repeat: I’m not a moderator. A moderator actually has to maintain some level of decency. Because at the end of the day, I’ll get flagged for what I say, but a moderator won't.

Everyone deserves a little respect, no matter what their job title is. Even moderators should keep things civil! I'm in! Let's do this! You get a warning if you break the rules. Honestly, I think it’s way worse if a moderator slips up, though. Not only do they catch a strike, but they also get a massive reprimand from the higher-ups. Trust me, you definitely don't want to experience that! 😬

David Foster80 said:Who exactly am I offending?
I just said that any decent admin would have stripped her of her moderator status immediately after that sentence. Where’s the insult in that?

And as for "sinking to her level"—first off, I’m not a moderator. Second, I just match people's energy. If they talk to me like that, I talk back the same way.

And that lady mentioned before? She’s a moderator. Period. Now go back and read your own post again. ☕

David Foster80 said:Who exactly am I offending?
I just said that any decent admin would have stripped her of her moderator status immediately after that sentence. Where’s the insult in that?

And as for "sinking to her level"—first off, I’m not a moderator. Second, I just match people's energy. If they talk to me like that, I talk back the same way.

Then you've lost all right to complain about someone being rude when you're acting exactly the same way!

David Foster80 said:Since most of the people hanging out in the Women's Corner and Complaint are women, yeah, you definitely insulted them. This whole thing where you play dumb and try to insist that shit isn't shit? That’s just your classic way of communicating. Typical.

Oh, poor thing. Someone hurt your feelings, didn't they? They didn't speak to you in that sweet, perfect tone you were expecting. *Sniffle.*

Look, you’re moderating a public forum with thousands of people scrolling through. If you honestly believe that being a mod gives you the right to hand-pick who you answer based on whether you like their tone or not, then your capacity for this job is way lower than I originally thought.
Honestly, this administration is an absolute joke.

And there you go, off on another one of your tangents.

Well, here we go... finally. The ultimate trump card for every moderator who hasn't got a clue what they're doing: "I'm a volunteer!"
Look, nobody’s forcing your hand. You don't have to do anything if you don't want to.

That kind of statement is the absolute rock bottom for a moderator. It’s pretty obvious you don't get it—you're here to serve the community, not the other way around. In any normal US-based forum, a decent admin would have stripped your permissions on the spot for saying something like that. Right away. Got kicked from the moderation queue.

If you honestly think this moderator’s communication style isn't appropriate, then you shouldn't be stooping to their level. This entire post is a perfect example of that, especially the bolded part where you attack someone who has nothing to do with this.

As for the complaints about locking threads, isn't it standard practice on ZK to lock topics once they get too heated?

Sandra Adams66 said:Unless there's some glitch with the settings, they should still be coming through. You'll see them just like posts from ignored users in a thread > if you click on them, you can actually open them up.

Alright, I just ran a test using an account I put on my ignore list. I got the message on the clone, but nothing showed up here. This isn't like when I can't see a post because someone is ignored and I can't even click to view the message.

🤷

amberfox4 said:Alright, thanks! You're right, maybe it's better just to stay quiet.
I did report them, though. So, if they're on my ignore list, does that mean they can't message me anymore?

No problem at all.

If they're on your ignore list, they can still try to send you messages, but nothing will show up in your inbox. That way, the person spamming you won't even realize you've blocked them out. 😁