Posts by Steven Clark2

mistywolf17 said:The issue is that his thread was merged with another one. Once that happens, it technically isn't "his" thread anymore, which explains why he can't find it under his own posts. I believe that's essentially what he was trying to convey. 😉

Aleluyah. 🙏

jadetrucker43 said:Well, there is a reason why you should just click on the Find all threads started by no Nick button... It exists for a purpose...

Perhaps if you had read the introductory post, you would understand. I searched for the thread four separate times, but simply could not find it. I eventually realized it had been merged only after I used the search function to look for the word "collection."

I chose that specific term because I have the first two introductory posts saved in my Word document. I don't recall using the singular noun "collection" very frequently, yet there it was—my thread had been merged into an old one that hadn't seen activity in two years.

I was completely unaware that threads could be merged without any prior announcement or notification.

Lindy:

Are you aware of how many different threads are posted here every single day? Someone just starts a topic based on the first PDF they stumble upon, and it is impossible for the moderators to reply to every single person individually. You just have to wait for the right time when a thread is being moved and then you'll see it. If you didn't catch the move happening, that isn't the fault of the mods.

Yes, I am reasonably aware of the volume, though the distinction here is that my original thread had about three pages of posts before it was moved without my knowledge. I am not suggesting the moderators are specifically to blame. While they were the ones who moved it, the thread certainly didn't migrate on its own. 🙂If merging a thread without notice is the standard procedure, then fine, I accept that.

silentsailor5 said:No one is actually obligated to give you a heads-up. It’s entirely up to the moderators whether they decide to leave a redirect on a merged thread or not; in your situation, I assume they aren't exactly 🙂

Really? 🙂 And why wouldn't they notify me? How am I supposed to track down the thread afterward? 😕 I certainly wouldn't want someone moving my own posts around without letting me know. 🙂

Jacob Foster11 said:If you navigate to your own profile—you just click on your username next to your post, right above your avatar—you will find a section labeled Statistics where you can locate every single post and thread you have ever started. 😉

And do you truly believe I haven't experienced the exact same thing? 🙂 I included links in my post so you can see for yourself; the thread I initiated was simply merged without anyone ever reaching out to inform me or providing any sort of notification.

I’ve been scouring the site trying to find the thread I originally posted back on April 9, 2009, at 1:53 PM 😁

I honestly thought the moderators had deleted it, so please accept my apologies if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion. 😍

However, what actually caught me off guard wasn't just the disappearance, but rather this specific question:

Why was my thread moved—1) without any notification to me, and 2) merged into a discussion where the very last reply was dated April 19, 2007, at 10:51 PM (link), which is nearly two full years before my original thread was even created? 😕

To be clear, while my topic might be "old" by today's standards, I really needed to access some information I know I left there, and I wanted to review my own notes. I was quite surprised to find it missing entirely, and I only stumbled upon it by pure chance while searching my browser for the word "collection."

Does it truly make sense to relocate a thread like that without notifying the author, especially AFTER all activity on the original discussion had ceased? 😕

If my memory serves me correctly, I remember starting that conversation myself, along with a few other forum members.

Is it even worth asking such a thing? It feels a bit unusual to me, which is why I'm reaching out. 🙂

Quote : Nicholas King

placidmarlin3 said:And besides, who's to say that certain moderator hasn't had her own mental breakdown because she was being played for a fool?☕
We've heard from several people that Toco's contributions to that specific sub-forum were quite decent, if not excellent, and it's certainly not a case of him being just some low-level spammer or a typical troll.
Furthermore, don't worry, Steven Ruiz could have handled this without making a public scene very, very easily—just like she's done every single time before—though I highly doubt the admins would have taken her word for it blindly either.😍

I think you're fully aware of that yourself; it just seems like for some reason, it's more fun to defend a pathetic moderator than to admit she screwed up and suggest she offer at least a basic apology.
At the same time, it's fascinating to watch how strictly everyone enforces the rules when an image is just a few millimeters over the limit, yet when there's an obvious violation of the actual guidelines, everyone suddenly becomes an expert philosopher and pretends nothing happened.

You guys are pathetic. Just scrap this whole circus of so-called "rules" and let everyone act however they want.

It might be a little difficult to hear something like this on a forum like this one, but I believe it is only human—and perfectly normal—to admit when you have made a mistake. 🤷 It is simply part of being human to forgive and to let go. 🙂

Quote : Nicholas King

placidmarlin3 said:And besides, who's to say that certain moderator hasn't had her own mental breakdown because she was being played for a fool?☕
We've heard from several people that Toco's contributions to that specific sub-forum were quite decent, if not excellent, and it's certainly not a case of him being just some low-level spammer or a typical troll.
Furthermore, don't worry, Steven Ruiz could have handled this without making a public scene very, very easily—just like she's done every single time before—though I highly doubt the admins would have taken her word for it blindly either.😍

I think you're fully aware of that yourself; it just seems like for some reason, it's more fun to defend a pathetic moderator than to admit she screwed up and suggest she offer at least a basic apology.
At the same time, it's fascinating to watch how strictly everyone enforces the rules when an image is just a few millimeters over the limit, yet when there's an obvious violation of the actual guidelines, everyone suddenly becomes an expert philosopher and pretends nothing happened.

You guys are pathetic. Just scrap this whole circus of so-called "rules" and let everyone act however they want.

Either we respect the rules, or we don't. And frankly, that applies most strictly to the moderators. 🙂

Quote : Nicholas King

Benjamin King2 said:A duty to publish?!? For whom?!? And why should anyone even care who you're bickering with over email, a DM, or whatever other medium—it's all noise. That's your private business, so deal with it privately.

A private message is "private" for a reason—that integrity shouldn't be compromised under any circumstances.

Except in truly extraordinary circumstances. 🙂 If there happen to be any threatening messages that could pose a genuine risk to anyone's safety, then such communications absolutely ought to be brought to the attention of the administration—not to us regular users, of course, but directly to the administrators.

Steven Ruiz said:No, you've got it all wrong. I wasn't saying it was okay, it's just that it isn't strictly forbidden... 😉
The President's post actually had a specific goal, which was to stop certain people on my PDF from constantly lobbying for Toco to be added back to the PDF list again...
Personally, offensive messages from the President don't really get under my skin, since I spent so much time as a moderator and have dealt with plenty of them before, so generally speaking, I just ignore those kinds of messages from the President and delete them...
As far as I'm concerned, I've already told the administrators that I am more than willing to take a warning or even a ban if this turns out to be something punishable... 🤷

On the other hand, it's honestly absurd that someone who abuses the President's messaging system just to harass someone over nothing—especially since they were banned months ago—and clearly shows such contempt for the rules by acting like they're above them, is also so incredibly ready to weaponize that exact same system and set of rules the moment they feel like they've been wronged in some way...

Does that mean it's allowed? 🙂

As far as I am concerned, I told the administrators that I am prepared to accept a warning and/or a ban for this if it turns out to be punishable. 🤷

You are being far too harsh on yourself. 🙂 There is absolutely no need for you to face a permanent ban, or even a warning, just because of a single mistake you made. 🙂

Justin Walker24 - are you aware that there used to be a rule stating that PP could not be posted publicly? At least, that is how I understood it; I just don't know when exactly that rule "disappeared" from the guidelines. Please, someone correct me if I have misremembered anything.

Steven Ruiz said:Actually, sending private messages isn't against the rules here (except on a few specific sub-forums), though sharing someone's private info like their full name or anything like that is definitely a no-go...
The DM mentioned above didn't actually contain any private details at all, unless you count the sender being a bit rude...

@observer, the sender hasn't been penalized, and the administrator hasn't been asked to take any action against them either...
That said, we have definitely handed out punishments before for people sending weird or offensive DMs on the forum...

If I recall correctly, there was a time when posting PMs themselves was banned, not just the disclosure of private info. Those two things aren't necessarily linked.

You aren't an infallible moderator (which, frankly, is a condition most moderators on any forum suffer from), nor is anyone else in this world. So, regardless of how hard you try to justify it, it simply doesn't hold up. You made a mistake, but what can you do? Move forward, and everything will be fine. 🙂 Don't dwell on it too much, but please don't try to convince anyone that posting PMs is acceptable when others clearly disagree. 🙂

Nicholas King said:I honestly believe that less regulation is always better. It’s a massive gray area—I mean, what one person considers "unsolicited info or harassment" is entirely subjective... for instance, I personally get bombarded with data about phone numbers, bra sizes, and all sorts of nonsense. That's pretty disturbing to me, too. 😍

If you actually intend to claim that constitutes harassment—then by all means, go ahead. And if you feel so strongly about it, why not just violate the rule regarding posting PP and give us all something to talk about? 😂

Nicholas King said:It’s actually quite simple if you just add one tiny detail: "posting private messages is prohibited without the author's permission." And there you go—wishing everyone the best of luck. The person claiming it didn't happen will either agree to let the message be posted (and then screw themselves) or refuse to allow it (and thus screw themselves by essentially confirming the message exists in the first place).

Before we implement this prohibition—which, in my humble opinion, is a sound idea—perhaps we could consider something like this first:

Any form of sending unsolicited information, harassment, provocation, or insults to other members via private message is strictly prohibited.

Believe it or not, some American forums even enforce permanent bans if a member constantly harasses, insults, or provokes another user through PP messages. 😲

In addition to this rule, I believe the most constructive step would be to establish a robust reporting system for problematic private messages. This would allow more people (specifically, the editorial team) to review the problematic content, ensuring that decisions regarding such messages and the users who send them are handled fairly and thoroughly.

Sam Green73 As stated by:
I attempted to look that up according to the current regulations.
I haven't been able to locate it.

I’ll be a bit provocative here, as something just occurred to me—is there actually a rule within the regulations that... It allows. Does it also provide the option to publish the contents of private messages? 🙂

Just because there isn't an explicit rule prohibiting the sharing of private messages doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior. On the contrary—there isn't a single regulation that actually permits it. 🤷

My suggestion—and please bear with me if this comes across as overly cautious—is that we should probably tighten up the language regarding PP within our Rules. I truly believe that narrowing the scope would make everything much more transparent and clear for everyone involved. 🙂

Daniel Ward87 said:Yeah... dealing with people spewing nonsense at the moderators is really the Administrator's call...

That said, I'm with Michelle Alvarez8—leaking private messages in public isn't right 👍. But think about this: what if the Admin drops a ban because someone sent an insulting PM to a mod, and then that user goes to the KzB complaining they have no idea why they got sanctioned? How do you prove it without showing the message? If the reason just says "due to an insulting PM," people are going to start spinning stories, claiming it's fake or demanding proof—even though the rule against sharing PMs still stands 🤷

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87, I have to say, this really is a double-edged sword. As an administrator on another forum myself, I’m genuinely torn. Does it actually make sense to issue a ban just because someone is sending offensive private messages to one of our moderators? 🙄

I wouldn’t go so far as to say "yes" or "no," but I firmly believe the administrator maintains the right to withhold publishing offensive private messages sent toward moderators. In my view, making such things public serves little purpose, except perhaps in truly exceptional circumstances—though I sometimes get the impression that our entire concept of ethics is built solely upon those rare exceptions.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the contents of a PP shouldn't need to be made public, except perhaps in truly exceptional circumstances. It is my sincere belief that we must remain vigilant regarding potential misuse; after all, what is to stop a malicious administrator or moderator from issuing a ban based on the supposed contents of a PP that never even existed in the first place? 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:These are just your hazy assumptions and biases, stemming from whatever reasons or blind spots you have. I won't bother going into detail or commenting further, as it's frankly pointless... it only serves to prove that even after I've repeated my explanations over and over, you still don't seem to grasp what I'm actually talking about.

You don't seem to grasp what I'm telling you. Let me give you one last explanation—though I suppose FlashG already understood it.

So, this part is what's being disputed:

It's also problematic that you're essentially just confirming the exact same statement.

What does the symbol of the cross mean to a Buddhist (who, mind you, is an equal member of this forum just like any Christian)? Absolutely nothing.
To a Muslim, the cross doesn't mean anything.
To an atheist, the cross means nothing.

As non-Christians, I suppose we have just as much legitimacy to preach Love as you Christians do.

You don't have the right to label non-Christians as Satanists.
They can't exactly call me the devil just because I preach Love without mentioning the cross.
One couldn't really say something like that to other non-Christians either—atheists or Buddhists, for instance.

To me, the cross doesn't mean anything at all, but Love does.
I suppose I still have the right to preach about love, even if I am an atheist.
As much as you and FlashG do, since you both are Christians, you have that same right.

How would you feel if someone wrote to us Christians:
"Anyone preaching love while linking it to the cross is actually Satan"?! 🙄

That is exactly how your offensive statement sounds to us Christians: "Anyone who preaches love without the cross is the devil."

No one has the right to anathematize another person or label them as Satan (someone who doesn't share their faith) based solely on their own religious beliefs.
Since when does this principle apply to the Religion subforum?? 😕

Matthew Wilson50 said:Oh, come on, just ban her already and get it over with. 😉

So, you’re actually betting on a high number? 🙂 Personally, I think we might settle for something quite meager at first. 😁

Haha, why on earth would that be any of your concern? 🙂

feraltrucker5 said:The question of how to handle transgender individuals is a global issue. There have even been lawsuits filed after transgender people were kicked out of establishments for using women's restrooms.

I believe that a major American news outlet should take a bold, historic stand that serves as an example to the rest of the world, rather than continuing to discriminate against those who are different.👎

I’m proposing a rally in support of Cruel where everyone shows up dressed in dresses.🙂

😕 I am a bit confused by your statement. Is that truly your stance, or is it just something said for public consumption while the actual reality is quite different? 😕 I am referring to that bolded section. Is it true that this forum is among the most progressive in the United States—fine, let's say it is—but is it also true that we shouldn't discriminate against people who are different? And I mean specifically here on this forum.

Honestly, the grades people are pulling in Religion class are just embarrassing. It’s truly a joke. 😂

rowdyhawk10 said:EDIT: No handle used. Please refer to the community guidelines on PZ.
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=432483 (specifically the section titled: "Topics you initiate...")

Could you be more specific? What exactly are we talking about? 🤷

If my reasoning is correct, one of the people presenting the most arguments is actually Kom1.

I have to disagree. Kom1 is simply someone who, in a certain sense, bolsters your specific ideology while attacking a viewpoint you happen to oppose—one that you are actively fighting against. 🙂 In reality, both of you possess absolutely ZERO substantive arguments —you are merely relying on anecdotes and romanticized versions of the facts. I could argue against both of you individually on any thread within the Religion sub-forum. 😁 He dismisses any evidence that doesn't suit his narrative, just as you do. Both of you are driven by a similar (and deeply personal) ideology rather than logic. I don't have an issue with the ideology itself, and I certainly have even less issue with you two (heaven forbid!), but I do appreciate seeing concrete data instead of fabricated stories being presented as indisputable truths. The fundamental problem is that neither of you views these issues within their proper historical context, nor do you seem to have much grasp of it. I will address those concepts properly in the relevant threads, but here, I am simply pointing out your demagogic portrayal of the situation—as if we are all fools, while you two, who are quite lost on the subject matter, are somehow enlightened, which is simply not the case. 🙂 You truly don't realize what you are writing about, and please understand, this isn't meant as an insult; it is simply my professional assessment. From my perspective, you and he are on the exact same level. Neither of you relies on actual authorities or serious experts regarding the topics we debate; instead, you lean on Brandon, Trevor link, and Kosidowskog—none of whom qualify as legitimate scholars in the fields we discuss. Honestly, I would be embarrassed to cite them, particularly Kosidowskog, in a serious academic discussion. 🙂>

I would truly appreciate it if someone could walk me through this—rowdyhawk10, I am looking specifically at you—and explain how you arrived at this post:

I must admit, I find myself feeling a bit out of my depth here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. It seems to me that we are often too quick to judge without truly considering the underlying complexities of the situation. While it is easy to take a firm stance, there is a certain dignity in approaching these matters with more nuance and patience. Perhaps if we all took a moment to reflect before reacting so strongly, we might find a bit more common ground. I realize my perspective might seem overly cautious to some, but I truly believe that empathy is just as important as being right.

I could have easily been handed a red card for scoring a massive 250 points (!!!), based on this reasoning:

The blatant misuse of unverified claims and baseless assertions to manufacture a false sense of truth is truly disheartening. They are attempting to weave insinuation into reality, yet they have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support their accusations of hate speech. Take, for example, this specific statement: "unidentified 'defenders of Islam' have been threatening his life for quite some time... perhaps they have finally carried out their intentions." It is a dangerous game to play when you lack any factual foundation.

What exactly makes that particular post so problematic? 🤷

I would also appreciate it if someone could explain this post to me:

I must admit, I find myself somewhat out of my depth here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. It seems we are all circling around the same fundamental questions, though perhaps from different angles. Looking at the points raised by Steven Clark2, I can't help but feel there is a certain validity to his perspective, even if it feels a bit unpolished. There is an earnestness to his argument that demands respect. However, when I consider what Christian Torres3 mentioned earlier, I begin to see the complexities that we might be overlooking. We cannot simply brush aside the nuances of such a significant topic. It is quite easy to fall into the trap of being overly certain, and I am certainly guilty of that myself from time to time. But if we are to have a meaningful dialogue, we must strive for a level of intellectual honesty that transcends mere opinion. We need to look deeper than the surface level of these debates. I truly believe that if we approach this with a sense of genuine curiosity and mutual respect, we might actually arrive at some semblance of clarity.

The explanation follows:

The deliberate dissemination of unverified claims, coupled with subtle undertones of hate speech, is deeply concerning. Take, for instance, the assertion that a Russian priest was killed by Muslims—a claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated to this very day!

I am asking this specifically because you were the first one, rowdyhawk10, to label the Cross as the ultimate evil. You’ve even hinted at similar sentiments in several other places, making overt statements that are frankly much more severe than the one you are currently condemning so heavily. I find myself truly perplexed—how is it possible for someone to issue such high-level bans for minor infractions, yet walk away completely unpunished when they commit far more egregious offenses? 😕

Drew Reed6 said:Look, this response you just gave is a perfect example of how not to conduct a debate. We have drifted away from the actual evidence at hand, so you really shouldn't be claiming that I—or any of us—lack proof.

There is absolutely no need to take offense, and it certainly isn't my intention to insult you, but the fact remains that you lack substantive evidence for what you are asserting. 🤷 What you have is merely an interpretation of existing data; Roger Barrett2 explained quite clearly how you operate. Please don't be surprised when someone critiques your methodology—it isn't a personal attack on your character. Personally, I think you're a decent person—or at least, you were. You’ve always carried yourself with dignity, even if I did take a few jabs at you on purpose. That wasn't out of malice, but rather a desire to return the energy you were giving me. 🙂

Even if you had phrased it that way within the correct thread, it would still be improper. It isn't productive to engage in a discussion where you and others like you simply swoop in and declare that there is zero evidence.

Regardless—my stance is that you don't grasp this subject as well as you think you do. And I will reiterate: criticizing your arguments and your methods is not the same as attacking your person. Just don't forget that you’ve labeled me quite a few times simply because we disagreed. There is no need for that. Believe whatever you wish, but let's try to exchange ideas in a civil manner.🙂

So, if you aren't willing to explain yourself and prove you're right, then there's no point in participating. If I explain why my claims are proven and you respond like this, then you're just trolling.

It is a complex topic, and I am under no obligation to prove anything; I am simply expressing my opinion.

For instance, you cited a specific work from New York City regarding the trial twice, claiming it was the definitive work on the trial of Jesus Christ.

No. I stated that it was the work of a legal scholar, a piece that earned accolades at Harvard Law School. I have read it, and I actually own a larger edition of the same text. I am not certain the author addressed every single point, nor do I agree with him 100%, but his work is much closer to the truth of what actually transpired than you and your Bible (Brandon).

However, no objective person would agree with you that what you wrote in your post even pertains to the trial of Jesus Christ. Your post focuses solely on jurisdiction, which is a secondary issue at best regarding Pilate's trial.

Aha, well, that really should have been your approach on threads where you lacked the standing to offer objections or provide the information I was presenting—information you clearly didn't even know existed. Do you realize that 99% of the users on this forum (as with most others) are essentially "starved" or suffering from a total lack of accurate data? To be perfectly honest, I find your reliance on outdated, obsolete sources quite amusing. But I won't dwell on that. I have no desire to insult you; you seem like a decent enough person, but the core ideas you are pushing are fundamentally flawed. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you aren't actually concerned with what the truth is; rather, you are simply preoccupied with defending your positions at any cost. It is an exhausting endeavor, and frankly, even more exhausting for me to attempt to prove anything to you.

When I attempted to explain this to you, you remained completely silent.

Oh, is that so? 😂 Perhaps if I hadn't been present, but in most of the posts I replied to, you failed to demonstrate or prove anything concrete; you simply doubled down on your own narrative. I feel like a fool for wasting my time on you, as you didn't even acknowledge or respect the points I raised. An honest person would act differently. Furthermore, I remain certain that you have no real grasp of this subject, given that you rely on one-sided information, stale sources, and inaccurate or half-truth facts. When you form a stance and then refuse to consider criticism or provide actual answers to it, what is the purpose of the discussion, other than indoctrination and persuasion? 🤷 If our goal is merely to convince one another, there is no point, nor is that my intention. However, as far as having wasted my time—yes, I certainly have, and I don't intend to do so again. A perfect example is when you write eleven or twelve posts in a row; if that were permitted, one would have to ask: what is the purpose of all these romanticized narratives and conspiracy theories surrounding every topic you touch? Pick one subject and stick to it. Do not expect me to read twelve consecutive posts just to reply to every inaccuracy you've included; I have moved past that style of discourse, and I find it quite draining.

That is all. Best regards. 🙂

Roger Barrett2 said:The books I read contain quite a lot of text, certainly, but that isn't the issue. The real problem arises when a massive amount of text is written without any sense, structure, or logical flow. And that is precisely what you are doing.

It would appear that is the case. 🤷

I have no desire to debate obvious nonsense, as it simply isn't worth my time, effort, or knowledge.

Precisely, which is why I have given up on writing here. 🙂

Most of your assertions—though certainly not all—are baseless and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the material, so there is little point in me attempting to refute them.

Occasionally, it does make sense; it allows you to build yourself up and make progress. 🙂 That is my own experience. 🙂

The issue with most people on this forum is that they don't learn from others; they merely insist on their own stubborn views. I try with people like that—if it works, it works; if it doesn't, I withdraw, much like you have done.

Amen. 🙂

Happy New Year to you all. 👍