Unfair moderation by Veronica N.

I am kindly asking the administrators to look into this and provide some clarity regarding moderation
Chris Peterson53 on the Religion thread.

It feels really disheartening to see this particular moderator flag my posts as trolling,
all while allowing actual trolling from certain users—like the user
dino.mustafic in the Lourdes thread—and even engaging in it herself despite being a moderator.
From what I understand about the forum rules, a moderator is supposed to be neutral,
but in these instances involving Chris Peterson53, there seems to be a heavy dose of bias and non-objective
moderation.
I make sure to report inappropriate posts whenever it’s truly necessary, but lately, the moderator's reaction
has been nonexistent. Especially over the last two months. It feels like people are just allowed to do whatever they want in these topics, yet
when I respond to their posts, I end up getting red cards with 35 penalty points,
under the guise of either "personal arguing" or being accused of "attacking someone's character." 🙄

There is a palpable sense of intolerance that I read in Chris Peterson53's posts toward the
Roman Catholic Church. This implies that I am neither attacking her personally nor
making any insinuations; I am simply reading what is written and offering my own commentary.

In my opinion, these kinds of outbursts from Chris Peterson53 don't help foster
constructive dialogue among users, but rather fuel religious intolerance
between us. Being called out and told that the "Roman Catholic Church is
alpha and omega," along with other "epithets," crosses the line of good taste and feels like
an intrusion into my identity and my convictions as a Roman Catholic believer. It feels like a systematic
belittling and dismissal of what I believe in and what guides me as a believer through the Doctrine.
And all this comes from a moderator's position.
I have never done anything like this to Chris Peterson53 herself, and frankly, I don't know or
care what her religious views might be.

So, is this lady actually allowed to act this way?
Things that we, as regular users, are forbidden from doing—things that are simply indecent.
The same goes for the constant mockery and dismissal of the declared Dogmas of the RCC, which affects
those who respect and strive to follow those Dogmas and Church Doctrine. I don't think any moderator
should be doing that. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but to stubbornly insist "I am sure"
and then, when met with a response to that "I am sure," punish my post instead of the one
assisting in her provocation—specifically the user dino.mustafic. That same user, speaking as a Muslim,
shows clear intolerance toward the topic of Lourdes, and it seems to be openly supported by
the moderator. It's fine to state a view, but the persistent trolling that is so obvious
goes unpunished, leaving it up to anyone's individual judgment. Why should it be any different?
And it isn't the only instance where such posts on that topic go unsanctioned.

It's also incredibly hard to stay calm in the face of malicious provocations when you know
that if you say anything in response, you'll be hit with a card or a ban. Within
two hours, I was hit with 70 negative points. I already had 20 from before,
so it isn't hard to conclude that the goal is to get me banned and stop me
from posting altogether. Especially since there have been hints pointing in that direction.

It's true that I often respond to provocations, but it's only because of the moderator's
delayed or unwanted actions. There have always been provocateurs, and there always will be,
but personal animosities stemming from arbitrary pro-decisions shouldn't result in
encouraging provocative users to continue their behavior unchecked. This just sharpens tensions and disrupts
communication within the threads. Instead of calming them down, the moderator is encouraging them. It feels like déjà vu from the Religion thread.

Examples of moderator Chris Peterson53's trolling in the Lourdes thread:

A classic case of moderator Chris Peterson53 trolling during that thread about praying to the saints,
here is an example of what a prayer to Marty looks like:

Some examples of the penalties handed out:

I’m sincerely asking the admins or head moderators to look over this. I’m not trying to excuse myself
or point fingers at anyone else's mistakes, but honestly, the pressure has become such a burden
when you're just trying to write freely without offending people. Constantly
being accused of making things personal is baseless, and the resulting sanctions feel just as pointless.
There is a big difference between noticing someone's hostility in their posts and actually
"attacking their character." The focus should stay on what they are actually writing,
not on the person behind it, whom nobody really knows anyway. Still, some people take things way too far, so
even my own replies aren't always perfectly polished for the reasons mentioned above. That doesn't make it right—I'm just human, andnot perfect. But I try to move toward Perfection (like many believers do), which is God alone,
not some random person's idea of "perfection." At the same time, as much as I can, while still being respectful,
that doesn't mean I won't challenge false religious doctrines that get served up daily
to Roman Catholics.

Respectfully,

Susan Brooks83

We can't really see the sanctions, and from what I've read, those entries aren't just trolling 🤷

I messed up the links to my infractions in the previous post. Here they are.
Just stating this. This is the part I have left.

Dear Susan Brooks83,

you have received an infraction AT Reddit

Reason: Trolling and repeatedly attacking personal viewpoints, while making accusations of moderator bias.
-------

-------

This infraction carries a 35-point penalty and could lead to restricted access for the duration of its term. Please keep in mind that serious infractions don't expire.

Original Post:
I’m honestly feeling a little lost on this one. I was reading through some discussions recently, and I can't help but feel like there's a massive disconnect happening. It feels like people are losing sight of what actually matters when it comes to our faith and how we live it out. Sometimes, it seems like the focus shifts away from the core teachings and turns into something else entirely—something more about following rules or sticking to certain traditions rather than the actual heart of the message. I find myself wondering if we're all just going through the motions. It’s a bit discouraging, to be honest. I try to stay centered, but when you see how much noise there is, it's hard not to feel a little overwhelmed by the confusion. Just my two cents, I guess. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself.
Quote:
Quote:
Chris Peterson53 says: Check out the post
And what does anyone's actual opinion on the RCC have to do with this? (And we're talking about someone well-known to you and the rest of us, too...) Is the topic here really about the personality of a specific person, or is it about prayer? The fact remains—which you’ve already admitted—that the RCC prescribes the prayers themselves.

It isn't about anyone's personality. It’s really about their stance toward the RCC. That attitude just isn't...
"It’s only known to me and a few others"—that kind of attitude can really come across as negative in a post, because...
You say things like that out loud. Honestly, what's so strange about it? The RCC has its own specific doctrine and its own prayers.
Doctrine is either followed or it isn't. There really isn't any middle ground.

Quote:
What’s really at the heart of this whole debate is how they represent or endorse this endless loop of prayers. It gives people this sense that there’s only one "correct" way to pray if you actually want to be heard. And then there's the idea that these prayers are being directed toward human beings—whether they're still with us or passed on—simply because the RCC has declared them saints.

It’s not just about the RCC, either. We also have prayers to the saints, and honestly, it's up to the individual believer whether they actually want to offer those prayers or not.
...or they just don't want to pray. They've been declared Saints by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Since the Holy Father Pope signed off on it, there’s absolutely nothing standing in the way.
For honoring and praying to the Saints.

Quote:
That’s exactly why we end up in this situation—just like with Marty's prayer. Believers get stuck thinking they have to repeat something a specific number of times to make it work. Of course, from your perspective as someone who follows everything the RCC prescribes or mandates, there’s nothing to argue about. For you, whatever the RCC dictates is simply Alpha and Omega.

For me, it’s all about the Holy Trinity Alpha and Omega. My faith is still a work in progress—constantly being shaped and strengthened within the embrace of the Mother Church.
It’s just like all those other Roman Catholics out there who actually want to follow the doctrine and respect the rules.
When it comes to the whole idea of "repetitive prayer," there are actually plenty of other prayers out there where repetition is used multiple times.
Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory be to the Father. For example, the Rosary of Jesus Christ, the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angelus, and so on.

Quote:
People who point out errors, intentional deceptions, or blatant manipulations within the RCC—or more accurately, those who refuse to accept that the institution is beyond reproach and aren't afraid to voice their own views—are seen by you as people who are just spitting on the RCC.

If you see it too—if everyone else sees those supposed "errors, intentional delusions, and blatant manipulations" within the RCC and all that—then what are we actually looking at?
If you're trying to insult the Church, just a heads-up: there are plenty of other places and forums where you can go to say that kind of thing.
Write it down. And obviously, use my full name and surname.
You can also reach out to the Archdiocese Chancery to set up a visit, so feel free to help yourself.
It shouldn't be like this—just throwing around baseless claims and hearsay, mudslinging at the RCC whenever someone feels like it.
It just doesn't sit right with him. It doesn't align with his views, how he sees things, or what he expects from life.
And of course, this is nothing more than a direct attack on the RCC! What else could it possibly be?
Besides, if you're acting as a moderator, you really ought to stay neutral. Otherwise, you're just encouraging religious discrimination.
With views like these being aired out in public.

Quote:
Now, that’s quite an argument!

That’s a really solid point. Honestly, the mocking feels totally unnecessary and just isn't right.

Quote:
Regarding the answer to that question Vessa asked—which I was actually wondering about too—it wasn't like anyone specifically called you out to respond. You just kind of felt like you had to step up. Anyone could have jumped in. That was really the intention behind it.

Of course, I wasn't exactly asked to chime in here, but your take on Vess's text was pretty transparent.
So, I’m trying to lead toward a logical conclusion here. Vess basically just trashed my entire point. It goes without saying that I need to respond. There are only a handful of us on this PDF who actually talk about Roman Catholicism, and what we...
It was "intended," I'll leave that for the readers above to decide.
All the best,
Reddit
__________________

you have received an infraction AT Reddit
Dear Susan Brooks83,

you have received an infraction AT Reddit.

Reason: Persistent trolling and personal attacks against other users.
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=22885124

Reddit
__________________

you have received an infraction AT Reddit
Dear Susan Brooks83,

you have received an infraction AT Reddit.

Reason: Spamming and personal bickering.
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=22157132
Quote:
Quote:

User X says: Check the post
Why are you so tense?
Just relax a little.
Don't take everything so seriously.
And don't force a laugh.

This is an American forum and the standard writing is Latin script. Though I know
how to read Cyrillic too. Stop spamming and stop projecting.
All the best,
Reddit
_________________ P.S. The second post was in Cyrillic; the user behind it was deleted by a moderator because
it contained very provocative and rude content with nationalistic undertones. It was clearly hate speech and
has been sanctioned accordingly.

you have received an infraction AT Reddit
Dear Susan Brooks83,

you have received an infraction AT Reddit.

Reason: Excessive use of caps lock.
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=22767715
Quote:
Quote:
User Y says: Check the post
Don't be like that, Andy. Take a reprimand as a blessing. Look at what the Lord says about correction in Revelation 3:19: "Those whom I love I reprove and discipline."

From whom? What, is this some cult trying to correct me? User Y, I only tolerate you because I feel sorry for you, but don't push me with calls like that.

All the best,
Reddit
__________________
Adagio

you have received a warning at Reddit
Dear Susan Brooks83,

you have received a warning at Reddit.

Reason:
-------
Please send all personal comments via private message rather than in the thread.

-------

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=22768703
Quote:
Quote:
User Y says: Check the post
Did Jesus ever tell anyone, "don't talk to me anymore"?

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Reddit
__________________

You’ve really gone to a lot of effort to replicate this entire string of posts—though clearly not enough to include the ones where you’ve been straight-up trolling for ages—just to fuel yet another one of your conspiracy theories aimed at yourself.
Sometimes I'm your "persecutor," sometimes it's just Shady.
And then suddenly, you’re accusing us of ganging up on you personally.
The reality is this: there is hardly a single topic where, if any criticism or observation regarding the RCC is raised—and yes, I have meticulously read dozens upon dozens of your posts across various subjects—that you don't immediately pivot into this desperate need to defend the untouchable sanctity of the RCC. In doing so, you derail the conversation entirely. You stifle everyone else by shifting the focus toward "their famous stances"—as you’ve openly stated—toward their personalities, or by issuing these twisted threats that God will know and punish them for their "lies and spitting on the RCC." You call out moderators, you point people toward the local Diocese office as the place where they should supposedly take their grievances against the RCC—implying, by your logic, that they have no right to express such things on a public forum. You publicly dictate how participants should behave, acting as both a moderator and a fellow user—all while ignoring complaints and appeals filed through the proper channels. You even challenge the very idea that a moderator is allowed to have their own opinion about the RCC—heaven forbid they actually express one! Go ahead, show me a single instance where I personally wrote anything truly inappropriate about the institution that would incite hatred, or where I advocated for attacking it or encouraged people to leave because of it! You frame every single warning—whether based on actual forum rules or clear trolling (which your own snarky comments like "now I'm going to get banned" prove)—as a personal attack on you and the RCC, labeling it as spreading hate. You react to every single word—not sparing us semantic debates in the middle of religious discussions—dissecting syllables and meanings just to argue that someone else meant something different from what they actually wrote. You don't even hesitate to drag old conflicts back to life, even when the user involved was already sanctioned for their outbursts.
You take it upon yourself to react to every unintentional provocation from any user, completely disregarding both the forum rules and the freedom of speech of others (even though you complain about yours being restricted). When people ask you to stop reacting—to let the moderators decide if something actually meets your criteria—you simply ignore them.
And then you turn on the moderators because they didn't validate your judgment! Because they didn't penalize someone according to your specific yardstick and your personal assessment!
It is your right to defend your faith (who ever stopped you?) and it is your right to defend the institution you belong to (again, nobody is stopping you) but it is absolutely NOT your right to suppress anyone else's opinions or views regarding the RCC, and least of all your right to make it about the personalities of your interlocutors.
You are not above the rules that apply to everyone, and you are certainly not above the freedom to hold an opinion about the RCC institution!
On multiple occasions, I have personally asked you not to react to every single thing a person says; I've pointed out your behavior, but you immediately dismiss every well-intentioned note, viewing it as a personal attack on you as a member of the RCC!

I am not going to list every single one of your posts here—I doubt this PDF has enough space to hold them all—but anyone looking for an objective perspective can start by reading your posts from the last few weeks.

Chris Peterson53 said:You really went out of your way to reply to this whole string of posts (though not enough to address the ones where you've been straight-up trolling for a while now) just to fuel one of your conspiracy theories about the mods targeting you personally.
I guess I'm your "persecutor" then. Or maybe it's just Shady.

Yeah, sometimes I put in the effort if it's necessary.
I have never once claimed there was some moderator conspiracy against me, or anyone else
on this forum. In fact, I've been publicly against those kinds of "options."
If there was a certain level of animosity from Shady regarding my posts, that’s true,
right from when I first joined the religion sub-forum. I was literally being redirected to www.catholics.com, long before I started "trolling."

Whether you are "my persecutor" or not... well, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.
The same goes for Shady. Your "moderation" style is starting to look more and more like his. This tactic
you're using now—trying to sneakily pin "personal moderator conspiracies" on me—doesn't work
for me, and I doubt it works for other users either. It feels like a malicious projection, something
we've seen happen before to other users who had a few
things to say about unfair moderation.
Of course, it immediately gets labeled a "conspiracy theory against the mods." Strange, though, how
you didn't mention any other moderator, just Shady. I have absolutely nothing personal against him,
but I do have issues with his moderation style quite often.
I never went running to the administration to complain about him, or any other moderator for that matter. I think I've only complained
publicly about getting a strike twice, and I did call out his moderation
once, right before the two new moderators were chosen. I don't think my assessment was wrong, and I wasn't
an isolated case of someone being unfairly sanctioned by him.

And now you're accusing us of teaming up against you personally.

Who exactly have I "accused" of acting against "me personally"?
I believe this post was about your unfair moderation, not about
Shady or the other moderators. So, trying to throw mud at my character
to discredit me doesn't help your case. I can't stand dictatorships,
especially workplace bullying, whether it comes from a man or a woman. And doing that while
invoking the forum rules—which I follow just as strictly as any other user—isn't working.
I suppose I should just take it because I am a Roman Catholic, but for what? To let
those who aren't allow themselves to indulge in petty behavior? I could do that, if I wanted to be
a victim of someone's ego, or if I wanted to suffer for a higher cause.

The truth is, there's hardly a topic where, if any criticism or observation regarding the Roman Catholic Church is made (and I've carefully read dozens upon dozens of your posts on various topics), you don't dive headfirst into defending its untouchability or sanctity. In doing so, you derail the conversation, shutting down others by pivoting back to "their well-known stances"—as you've stated publicly applies to both you and others—or attacking their personalities. You even make veiled threats that God will know and punish them for their "lies and insults toward the RCC," you call out the moderators, and you tell people to go to the local diocese if they want to lodge complaints, implying they don't have the freedom to do so here on a public forum.

The truth is, Chris Peterson53, I have just as much right as any other participant here to express
my views, and to defend both my faith and the Roman Catholic Church. As for those other
insinuations of yours, I don't even want to bother commenting because they’re just an attempt to twist my
words and stances. They've been taken out of context in a desperate attempt to present lies.

You publicly dictate in threads and posts how others should behave, acting like both a moderator and a regular user—while ignoring complaints about certain areas.

Really? I'm not some forum educator or a dictator like Idi Amin, and this subreddit isn't my property, Chris Peterson53, nor are
the users my subjects. We don't live in a dictatorship. Just because I might write in a post that something is
impolite doesn't mean I'm laying down laws. I don't ignore the place for complaints and grievances;
I use it, but I can't disclose everything I receive via private message, specifically regarding your
constant complaints. So, it's not true that things are being forced on me. Isn't that the same question for you? What
are you trying to dictate to
me regarding how to behave?

You attribute every warning to either the forum rules or intentional trolling (which is indicated by your open remarks at the end of posts: "now I'll get banned").

My little comments like "now I'll get banned" or getting a warning shouldn't be surprising; I'm not
the only one making such statements. From what I can read, users often
write things like that, so what of it? I haven't noticed anyone calling that out, and a little humor doesn't hurt
anyone, does it?

You launch personal attacks against yourself and the RCC, labeling them as spreading hate. You react to every single word (not hesitating to engage in semantic debates in the middle of religious topics), dissecting syllables and meanings just to prove someone else said something different from what was actually written. You don't hesitate to revive old conflicts, even though the user involved was sanctioned for their misconduct.

Hate speech exists, Chris Peterson53, there's no denying that, but a moderator needs to
recognize and sanction it. They shouldn't let it escalate into a conflict,
only to call for intervention later, as you are doing here. 🙄 The claim that I "don't hesitate to
revive old conflicts" isn't true, because that user wasn't immediately
sanctioned for their behavior. It only happened after the fact, and that's not the first time, Chris Peterson53. It's the same as the way my
posts get penalized after a period of 5-7 days, for instance, on your end. ☕

You take liberties, disregarding both the community rules and the freedom of expression of other users (yet complaining that yours is being restricted), reacting to every unintentional or intended provocation from any user. You simply ignore requests not to react, or asks to let the moderators decide if something is what you perceive it to be.

I have freedom of speech, thank God, so from whom would I need to "take" it? Community...
I try my best to follow the forum rules, really, I do. But why shouldn't I respond to something that...
That’s just not true, and what about my enrollment status? I didn't ignore the requests, and you know that isn't the case.
What you're saying is true. I always leave the final call to the moderators, though sometimes their decisions on posts get to me.
Trolls might throw someone off their game, sure. That much is true. But who actually manages to stay unfazed by them? 🤷 No, more.
Trolls are out here posting whatever they want, but how is it that the moderator isn't handing out any sanctions after all this?
Instead of reporting inappropriate posts, they just ignore them—and then they turn around and write exactly what they wrote here.
That’s just sad.

So then you go after the moderators just because they didn't agree with your take! Because of this...
Or maybe the person you judged by your own standards didn't actually get punished the way you suggested they should have!

Which moderators did I call out, and where? Especially since they supposedly didn't respect my...
"An assessment"??? I honestly have no idea where I supposedly "assessed things by my own standards," nor where I "suggested and..."
She "decided" that should happen??? To whom exactly? Stop making things up, Veronica. 🙂

It's your right to stand up for your faith. Who ever told you that you couldn't? You have every right to stand up for the institution you belong to. Honestly, nobody has ever stopped you from doing that. But look, it’s really not your place to go around censoring anyone else's opinion—or their thoughts on the RCC, for that matter.And at the very least, you're resorting to personal attacks instead of actually addressing the issue.

Unfortunately, I can't share the contents of private messages. If I could, I'd post this text right here.
I would’ve been absolutely torn apart. Just shredded by arguments. That’s all there is to it—the whole "nobody listens to me" thing.
It felt like they were trying to limit me. It’s just like how they try to intrude on my personality—and honestly, my private life too.
Hey Mailo, it’s just you and Shady doing this, even though you guys have private messages for stuff like this. Why don't the other moderators step up and do the same?
That’s enough about their personality. ☕
When it comes to my "thoughts on the RCC," I’m not targeting anyone’s character specifically. I’m just...
I am calling on... Publicly bashing the RCC... though, if you look closely at what you're actually saying, there's more to read between the lines.
I just signed up. And let me make one thing clear—I’m just a regular user here, despite being a moderator. It doesn't really do you any favors. Being neutral is important, but I’m just not seeing that in your posts.
That’s exactly why you’re reacting so strongly and just echoing everyone else. It isn't the first time you've done this after I gave you a warning.

Look, you aren't above the forum rules that apply to everyone here. And especially, you aren't above having your own opinion on the RCC as an institution.
I’ve personally asked you more than once not to jump in and react to every single thing someone says. I’ve pointed out your reactions before, too.Look, you just used to take every single well-meaning suggestion and turn it into a personal attack on your identity as a Roman Catholic.

I never actually claimed to be "above the forum rules." Honestly, I respect them more than anything.
What can I even say? Honestly, everything you just wrote says enough about your take on "freedom of thought regarding the RCC institution." 👎
It’s true that you personally asked me not to react to every single provocation, which...
I used to respect you. That was until you started saying things... stuff I can't even put into words here.
I can't exactly share what was said in that private message. Veronica N., please, just think about what you're writing and who you're targeting.
With falsehoods. 😉

I’m not going to try and list every single one of your posts here—I don't think this PDF could even hold them all if I tried. But, honestly, if anyone wants to get a real, objective sense of where things stand, they should just start scrolling through your posts from a few weeks back. That'll give you the full picture.

If anyone actually wants to get the full, objective picture here, they really ought to go back and read every single one of my posts from the very beginning.
I’ve been writing—not just for a few weeks back, either—but I also write posts about you and Shady as well.
The moderator (since you mentioned him in this post).
It’s the same deal with the private messages being sent to my account, too. There’s definitely something going on there.
I've been posting quite a bit lately—mostly about faith, the Cross, and the RCC. It’s just my way of sharing thoughts, both on my own views and reacting to what other people are saying in different threads.
What was actually the breaking point that led to picking those two new moderators, especially after my departure and when another user stepped down too?
On the PŽK.
Everything happening right now... it just feels like they're putting you in the spotlight as a Christian moderator. Or maybe I'm wrong.
Imagine if a Muslim believer decided to launch a modern attack against a Roman Catholic. But the way they go about it...
It makes them almost identical—at least in my experience. If that’s actually the case, it shows, for instance...
The thread about St. Bridget of America was locked on my end as a moderator, along with all the replies.
Is Shady answering questions from forum users on the PŽK? Or is that just standard practice?

So, Chris Peterson53, it looks like this ongoing "Religion PDF cleanup" project is still going strong. Here we go again.
Things are looking up because of how much you're stepping up. Besides, your "plan" is already pretty well known. 😉
All they say is that you need "immense patience," while simultaneously taking shots at Susan Brooks83 just to make a point.
It’s just pure character assassination. It is pretty obvious that people can't stand seeing Susan Brooks83 post certain things, even though they aren't actually doing much of anything.
We need more expert, scientific perspectives if we’re actually going to confront some of the claims being made by people in this PDF. 😉
The yardstick you’re using to judge and condemn others is pretty much set in stone—but I’ll leave it at that. ☕

Anyway, I’m not really looking to get into a back-and-forth debate with you here. I just wanted to say thanks for reaching out and sharing your thoughts.
The way you handled that... I'm honestly wondering what the admins think about it. Is that actually allowed?
Is this kind of user degradation by a moderator actually allowed? Like, is it even within the rules for a moderator to act this way?
Writing posts that express negative attitudes toward, specifically, the Roman Catholic Church?
A moderator's job should be about keeping things orderly and maintaining peace within a thread, not fueling the fire or encouraging hostility.
When it comes to the Church as an institution? Then we’re talking about calling out and slandering anyone who actually steps up to defend the faith and the Church.
By painting them as unfit under those forum rules and moral standards—using all that typical insinuation and projection they're known for.
Just for them... but for whose glory? Is it the moderators' authority or God's? Honestly, they probably know the answer themselves.

Susan Brooks83

........
What’s happening right now is nothing more than a calculated attempt to push you into the spotlight—to frame you as the face of Christian moderation—isn't it?
Suppose a Muslim extremist decides to launch a modern attack against Christians. However, the way they go about it—well, that changes everything.
You’re making them almost identical—at least in my experience. And if that’s actually the case, it really goes to show, for instance...
The thread regarding St. Bridget of America was locked by you—acting in your capacity as a moderator—and here are the responses.
Is Shady answering the questions from forum members over at the Rosary group? Or has this just become the standard operating procedure now? says:

[/B]
One would need actual expertise and scientific rigor if they truly wanted to confront the crowd of people represented in this PDF. 😉
The yardstick you’re using to measure and judge everyone else is already set—and frankly, I'm not going to say anything more than that. ☕

🙂
I’m not going to go through the trouble of repeating your entire post—I'll just pull out this specific section and dismantle it instead, because if I tried to address everything, we’d be here forever. This particular part actually proves exactly what you were trying to deny at the very beginning!
And then there’s the constant citing of posts from some other user—posts that I didn't even sanction or delete myself!

When it comes to how moderators handle things—look, any moderator should be able to step in and explain or clarify a forum rule to any user. It shouldn't matter who actually closed the thread, moved the post, or handed out a sanction in the first place—especially when the moderator who originally took the action isn't even online to explain themselves! Why should we be left in the dark?

Honestly, continuing this debate with you feels like a complete waste of my time—there’s just zero point in it. I might as well just stop circling the drain and reiterate exactly what I’ve been telling you from the very beginning:

Defend the faith—because I certainly intend to defend mine, and believe me, I’m already doing it!
Look, I’m defending the RCC—I made my personal stance on that crystal clear from the jump—but for heaven's sake, don't go about it by reacting to every single tiny little critique. It’s as if this was directed personally at you—at your very character and who you are as a person.

If you’ve gone out of your way to identify as a believer who aligns himself with the RCC—well, that’s your business! But don't go acting like it's everyone else's responsibility. It isn't the fault of those people who don't look to the Church or follow its lead the same way you do. Why should they?
Look, I’ll give you this much—I agree that you have your calling, and I fully respect that. But let's be honest: the way you go about it? It’s completely unacceptable.
Isn't that exactly what I was pointing out just now?

Don't you dare try to pin discrimination or hate speech on me—because I am absolutely not spreading any.
And for heaven's sake—stop citing those moderator rules regarding freedom of speech on every single topic whenever they chime in as regular users. When they’re posting as mere participants in a thread, they aren't acting as mods; they're just expressing their own personal opinions—an absolute right they possess!
Your whole concept—this idea that moderators should somehow exist in a vacuum, stripped of any personal opinion on a given topic—is nothing more than a total illusion!

Look, get this straight: there is absolutely no conspiracy happening between Shady and me against you—so you can stop worrying about that, Susan Brooks83!
Look, between the two of us—and I mean strictly between us—we certainly hold a few grievances against one another, but we don't go airing our dirty laundry in public!

Listen, Angel, I’m calling it—this conversation is officially over for me!☕

Chris Peterson53
I think I’m losing my grip on this. I keep trying to make sense of everything, but the more I dig, the more confused I get. It feels like I’m just circling the same drain over and over again. I want to believe there's a logical way through this, but honestly? I'm struggling to find any solid ground at all. Just feeling a bit lost today. says:
Talking to you feels like a total waste of my time at this point. There’s just no sense in continuing. I might as well just keep repeating the same things I've been telling you from the very beginning, one way or another.

Of course that’s how it works. It’s been like this from the very beginning, and honestly, that's exactly why things keep playing out the way they do. You act like you're above everyone else, always positioning yourself as if your opinion should be the final word on everything. Then, you go about belittling anyone who tries to talk back. He just needs to realize it. ☕

Stand up for the faith. I’m doing my part as a Christian to defend it, too.

Yeah, thanks for the heads-up. I see what you mean.

The RCC is defending itself—but I already told you exactly where I stand on this matter.But that doesn't mean you should react to every single little comment. It feels like it was aimed right at my personality—like it was directed personally at me.

I was served something completely different than what I expected. Honestly, it wasn't even necessary at this point.
Trying to make this about my personality? Honestly, if that makes things easier for someone, then fine. Go ahead. 😁

If you identify as a believer who aligns yourself with the RCC, that’s your business. It isn't really anyone else's concern—not even for those who don't view the Church the same way you do or follow its path like you do.

I’m a believer, and I really try my best to follow Jesus Christ while listening to the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrine.
What does it actually mean to identify with something? 🤷

I agree that you have your calling—I truly do. But I just can't get behind the way you go about it.
Isn't that exactly what you were pointing out just now?

You should be in a position where you actually have the authority to approve or deny my request, but you just don't.
Just a little reminder to yourself: stop attacking the RCC. You keep doing it, over and over again. Just... stop.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Christianity, despite how much you keep trying to tie it back to that.

Don't go accusing me of discrimination or spreading hate. I promise you, that’s not what I'm doing here.

I'm not interested in playing dirty or twisting words. Just... please, read what I actually wrote first, and then we can talk.
Wait, where did I actually mention you doing that? That’s about it.
It’s funny how people process things. Everyone seems to have their own way of taking everything so personally.

Also, please don't go posting rules about moderator freedom of speech on any topic when they're just participating as regular users. When they do that, they're simply sharing their own personal opinions—something they have every right to do.
The idea that moderators shouldn't have any personal opinions on a topic is just a fantasy.

The rules are set by the site admins, not by me personally. What I shared was simply
my own take, and the admin will probably look into
whether anyone is overstepping their authority as a moderator. I never actually said that mods
should "be people without any right to a personal opinion." That isn't true, and honestly,
it's a total misrepresentation of my point.

Look, there’s no conspiracy between Shady and me against you, Susan Brooks83!
Personally, the two of us might bicker privately, but we don't bring that out in public.

Why should I care if you two are teaming up or not? 🤷 I'm not
suffering from paranoia, thank God, enough to think that way. 😁 It's obvious that the pattern
you both use to issue sanctions is almost identical. 🙄
And there's nothing for me to "understand"—I'm just observing what you both do. Do I have
the right to notice that, or do I need permission? Whatever you two hold against each other
is your business; whether you keep it private or air it out is entirely up to
you. 🤷

Take care, Angel. For me, this conversation is over!☕

Bye, Chris Peterson53, like I said before. ☕

The posts from moderator Veronika N. speak volumes about the attacks on
the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI, who leads the Church
as Supreme Pontiff. I can't help but feel a certain unpleasantness regarding the assistance
given to certain handles—for instance, dina.mustafica, rowdyhawk10, and a few other
"parachutists." The "teachings" from rowdyhawk10, who belongs to the Word of Life sect,
can't be considered teaching of the RCC, which he left, as he mentions in
his own posts. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they operate under the mask of Christianity.
I cannot, nor should I, judge personal matters of faith,
but as a believer, I can't just stay silent about the negative influence being exerted
on the RCC through such views. Of course, these things aren't sanctioned,
but they are exactly why these things happen in the threads. When a Catholic
responds to the same nonsense, they get a reply from Veronika N. claiming they are being framed,
and so on. It’s clearly visible in the links.
So, a Catholic is left with two choices: either get dragged into arguments, or remain silent about the nonsense
of certain sectarians and their provocations (all under the guise of Christian love), or simply
withdraw from the Religion forum. That would actually suit those individuals perfectly,
allowing them to spread delusions—of which they themselves are great victims—without interference. They could then lead
many who aren't in the faith, or those searching for help, into something that isn't
good, even though they are just trying to find their way.
What is achieved with this kind of moderation from Veronika N.? Looking at the posts, I can see that
even members of the Orthodox faith seem to agree with her
"characterization" of the RCC and the Holy Father (since the RCC and its Doctrine
were the reason for the schism years ago). Great efforts are made within the Church
for ecumenical progress and coexistence, so fueling this negativity is
truly sad. It's also sad that this isn't recognized by those
who should be recognizing and sanctioning it. A moderator shouldn't act this way,
regardless of their personal beliefs or stances. By definition, a moderator
is meant to moderate and present content, whether positive or negative.
With the same authority she holds, Veronika N. can freely carry out personal animosity
toward the RCC, all while hiding behind "Christianity." Those who attack the RCC are attacking
me as a believer, and I believe they are attacking other Roman Catholic believers too.
Because the RCC consists of believers—everyone who declares themselves as such—it is a living Church, an earthly, traveling one,
not just temple walls. As Jesus said: "I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would cry out."
Lk. 19:40. After that comes Jesus's weeping over Jerusalem.
And the same could be said for what is happening in the Religion forum threads:
spitting on the RCC and the Holy Father, as shown in the links, while emphasizing
something where the foundation is sand rather than the Rock. As it says in the part regarding Jesus's weeping
over Jerusalem... "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

So, please, go ahead, Veronika N. and company, without my presence and personality, which seems to bother you so much,
and this time, I truly mean what I wrote. I wasn't here for myself or my own goals, but for God
and His purposes. And He does not force Himself, just as I don't want to, even though Veronika N.'s
posts tried to portray me as someone I am not.

Thanks to all the people of good will, and even to those who aren't. If I have harmed
anyone in any way, hurt them, or anything similar, please forgive me, because there was no
malice intended. And I forgave everyone for all insults a long time ago; otherwise, I wouldn't
be able to write that I haven't. My thanks to the administration and moderators for...
They let me access the forum and were mostly kind to me, aside from a few outbursts from
two moderators.
I want to thank all the users I’ve chatted with, and even those I
didn't, who still took the time to read my posts. Since I joined this forum with respect, I want to leave with that same decency
because, honestly, I’ve been "slapped down" too many times over on the Religion sub-forum. It feels like nothing I
wrote to the admins to ask for help will actually change anything, since we're dealing with
moderators after all.
Maybe I'll see you all again in better times.

I wish you all God's blessings and peace. 🙂

Greetings everyone
Without getting bogged into the specifics of the current issue, I want to draw attention to one vital point that seems to be overlooked from the jump. Over in our Religion subforum, we have the Book of Complaints, which stays pinned at the very top. That thread exists specifically so people don't just vent directly here on this public subforum. First off, dear Susan Brooks83, you didn't actually post in that thread to seek a direct answer from the moderators regarding this matter. 🙂 Furthermore, the forum rules clearly state that before making a public complaint, you should first reach out to a moderator via private message to ask for an explanation. This is what the administration asks of every single member. You only turn to the Book of Complaints if a moderator ignores you and refuses to respond. And then, if even the six of us—who collectively moderate the Religion subforum—ignore you there, only then should you come to this main board to tell the admins that we moderators are persecuting you. I just wanted to clarify the proper procedure. This forum has nearly 100,000 members; imagine the chaos if a new thread was opened here for every single grievance. I hope you agree with my reasoning. I’m sure you are all interested in following the established procedures and rules. 🙂

In my view, Veronica N. shouldn't have even spoken up here after the Book of Complaints was bypassed. She really should have just directed you to address it there first, as that is the protocol. 🤷 It was kind of her to step in, though; I’m convinced she did it simply to point out some procedural lapses and prevent future friction... all in the interest of helping you settle into the forum atmosphere, rather than any attempt by us to persecute you. 🙂

Best regards,
rowdyhawk13

________
P.S. Regarding the accusation that hate speech is being directed toward a certain faith—specifically the Roman Catholic Church—by ideologically challenging it... I have explained this many times: this is a liberal forum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. One cannot complain if someone writes, "Jesus didn't exist," and call it spreading hate or attacking the RCC; one can simply advise a dissenter to "take that up with the bishop."

Finally, I want to point out that moderators are human beings with their own philosophical, religious, and personal views. If they are expressing their beliefs honestly—that is, precisely as they believe and think to be true (and the title here does mention honesty)—then it might be considered somewhat dishonest for moderators to write things they do not truly believe.

rowdyhawk10 said:Without getting bogged down in the actual issue at hand, I want to point out one crucial thing. It’s something that gets overlooked right from the jump. Over on our Religion subforum, there's this specific topic... Book of Complaints And that topic is constantly pinned right at the top of the Religion subforum. It was originally set up so that everyone could post their thoughts directly here on this board... First off, Susan Brooks83, you didn't really weigh in on that thread or try to help us find an actual solution from the moderators.

rowdyhawk10, don't call me "dear." You didn't just step into a conversation; you stepped right into the middle of a mess. And yeah, it's true—I really didn't say anything.
Regarding the Book of Complaints thread. Believe it or not, I somehow managed to miss it, even though it’s supposed to be a "top topic."
No, once it was open, I read through the Rules just like I was supposed to. As for commenting on the Book of Complaints, I’d rather stay out of it—unless a forum member starts pointing fingers and acting like they're the judge and jury, looking down on everyone else. That's my first issue.

Look, it’s right there in the forum rules: before you go making a scene in public, you're supposed to send a private message to the moderator first to ask for an explanation. The administration asked every single member to follow this process. You should only head to the Book of Complaints if a moderator completely ignores you or refuses to give you an answer.

Anyway, I followed the forum rules and reached out to the moderator first, before taking my complaint public.
I respect everything the administration asks from every single member. My moderator hasn't ignored me, either.
He went on and on with his "lecture." Just constant bold text and exclamation points at the end of every single sentence. I honestly think that's just...
According to the forum rules regarding calling people out.
Because of the forum rules, I can't really give a full "lecture" here. That would be more than enough for me.

And then, if you’re being ignored by all SIX of us moderators—and yeah, we run this religion subforum together— And then you just come onto this forum and tell the admins that we moderators are out to get you. Look, I just wanted to point out how the process actually works. With nearly 100,000 members on this forum, just imagine the chaos if everyone started opening new threads on every single card. I hope you guys are on the same page with what I’ve laid out here. I'm pretty sure we all want to make sure we're following the right procedures and sticking to the rules.

Personally, I haven't had a single moderator ignore me. Every time I've reached out to ask for clarification, they've been right there to help.
Something isn't adding up. I mean, rowdyhawk10, this whole thing about imposing... Six. The moderators who would just "ignore" me.
It just doesn't hold up as an argument. Just like what... It’s just not working. I'm trying to suggest that the moderators are targeting me, but it's not landing.. 🙄 What is...
You can't deny it—there’s a clear personal bias against the Roman Catholic Church coming from your side, and honestly, from the moderator, Veronica N. as well. It's pretty obvious there's an animosity toward the Church, and it extends to my posts too, whenever I just try to share my own views and thoughts.
I find myself stepping up to defend both my faith and the Roman Catholic Church, which stands as the true bearer and teacher of Roman Catholicism. My stance on this is...
As a believer, I am fully committed.
These personal grudges—sometimes they flare up, sometimes they fade—you both end up airing them out. I might even go as far as to say...
equally, in your posts.
Whenever I push back, and it isn't just me, the results are just a few bans within minutes, which adds up
to the same old thing. So we just spin in circles; you hide behind the forum rules, while the users feel like their freedom of speech—or rather, their freedom to write—is being squeezed tight.
It’s the same in private messages, where I’ve personally tried to reach out several times, hoping to settle things peacefully, but I can't even share the "results"
of those talks, nor the details. It makes me wonder, how long am I supposed to let someone make a fool out of me?
But honestly, it feels so calculated that I don't even have the energy to prove anything, because based on past experiences
with other users and my own, these things are usually shut down immediately. The moderator is always right, especially rowdyhawk10, and now Veronica N. too. I know your instructions well, rowdyhawk10, regarding complaints,
specifically about your moderation, and by extension, the predictable outcome of those complaints.
So, that's the procedure. 🙂

Also, regarding your comment about opening this thread in the Book of Complaints.
Threads used to be opened there before, and they still are. I wrote here automatically, just like I mentioned at the start of this post. But now, I'm thinking about a user who complained in the Book of Complaints, only to end up with a permanent ban right after her complaint—strange, coming from moderator Veronica N.
Was that "accidental"? 🤷
I'm not here to defend anyone, but I truly don't understand what caused that particular user, musky, to earn
so much animosity from Veronica N.? And why such a harsh penalty?
Was it because she told Veronica N. she was trolling threads because she couldn't understand them? ☕ There are plenty of usernames on the Religion PDF who actually deserve that kind of status due to how they write, yet they continue posting without issue.
They troll with mindless posts. I actually found musky's comments to be useful and smart at times, and I think other users did too. Even though I had some heated exchanges with her myself. Personally, I'm sorry she doesn't write anymore.
😢

In my opinion, Veronica shouldn't have even spoken up here after the Book of Complaints was bypassed. She should have just directed you to address it there first, since that's the procedure. 🤷

If you say you don't know, then why are you writing about what Veronica N. should or shouldn't have done?
And as for the accusation that I'm disregarding procedure, it wasn't intentional on my part.
I ask the admins to please take this into account. I posted in the Book of Complaints automatically.

It’s kind of her to do it anyway; I’m sure she did it to explain certain oversights and prevent future disagreements... all in the interest of helping you fit into the forum atmosphere better, not because we are persecuting you. 🙂

Best regards,
rowdyhawk10

Which is exactly what I thanked her for, after her reaching out and once again publicly humiliating me.
As for "explaining certain oversights," it seems forum users are always making mistakes, while moderators are apparently
flawless—specifically you and Veronica N. Personally, it looks like I'm just a special case, according to your interpretations.

"Future disagreements"—no thanks, rowdyhawk10 and Veronica N. I've had quite enough of you two practicing your rudeness on my
face. My failure to "fit the forum atmosphere"? It seems I'm just not good enough. 🤣 What a strong and "constructive" atmosphere this is. 🙄
Credit goes to the rare exceptions trying to make a difference here. Honestly, it would be more accurate to say this Religion PDF is a vacuum—a space without any real atmosphere. Once an actual atmosphere arrives, we'll likely see people crashing back down to earth due to gravity.
As for who, what, or whether you, rowdyhawk10, and now Veronica N., are persecuting... that's for you two to deal with.
I really couldn't care less. I know exactly which tactics you use; nothing can catch me off guard because we already have an answer for everything. Well, maybe not for *everything*.

________
p.s. Regarding the accusation that hate is being spread toward a certain faith—specifically the Roman Catholic Church—by ideologically undermining it... I've explained this many times myself: this is a liberal forum. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You can't complain if someone writes, "Jesus didn't exist," and call it spreading hate or attacking the Roman Catholic Church, then tell a dissenter to "take it up with the diocese."

Sure, your explanation is incredibly mature. I'm not talking about simply writing:
"Jesus didn't exist." We are talking about so much more than that, things you clearly either can't understand, rowdyhawk10, or simply choose not to. Your own posts about the Cross and many other things you continue to post in these threads prove that point.

And now, with Veronica N. assisting you. Yes, that counts as an attack on the Roman Catholic Church and the faith of Roman Catholics. Whether that qualifies as persecution is something someone will have to decide. If a follower of Islam were to act that way, it wouldn't
do you any favors. The same applies to a moderator like Veronica N. Yes, this is a "form" of hate, a spreading of religious intolerance,
more so than anything else. Personally, I have never entered a thread where Muslims are posting just to claim Prophet Muhammad doesn't exist, or to call the Holy Quran something ugly or write various negative statements. I've seen plenty of such negativity regarding my own faith presented by you and your like. Regardless, those aren't my thoughts on
your faith, and I would never permit myself to act that way. This kind of thing is how wars start.
Instead of avoiding such statements, you tirelessly keep spreading them, thereby encouraging reactions of isolation
between different faiths and fueling uncivilized debates among believers. Instead of being sanctioned, these actions are quietly approved and encouraged.

rowdyhawk10, you're labeling people as "dissenters" on this forum? Just like your incorrect quote of my text: "Take it up with the diocese." That isn't how I wrote it.

I also want to point out at the end that moderators are human beings with their own philosophical, religious, and other views. So, if they express their convictions honestly—meaning exactly what they believe and think to be true (since "honesty" is even in the title)—then it might be somewhat dishonest for moderators to write things they don't actually believe.

True, we are all just human, and only God sees a person's heart, so He will be the one to give
the final word on anyone's "honesty." Only once. That's what I believe. Before that, we can all
look into our own hearts and correct what we feel is dishonest,
neither toward God nor toward man. Personally, I can only look into my own heart and...
Trying to fix me? No. If you're just constantly pointing out my flaws, trying
to mold me into your own image while staying exactly the same yourself, that’s not going to work.
Not with me. I only accept what is actually good, and I want to embrace that. I can handle constructive
criticism, but this? What was said about me certainly isn't that. It’s just a bunch of distortions
and malicious projections.

I came to this forum with politeness, and I want to leave with politeness too—which is why I've already left. I respond
out of courtesy to your posts.
Like I said before, goodbye rowdyhawk10. Hopefully, we'll see better days, but
those aren't happening on this Religion PDF. 🙂

The current state of the Religion PDF feels more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suUfiBHFpyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euyC5V5HDCw

🤣

Susan Brooks83 said:The current state of the Religion PDF is more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suUfiBHFpyY 🤣

So, interesting enough? 🙂 How do you all generally envision this forum? Like this? Best,

rowdyhawk10 said:So, you think it's interesting? 🙂 How exactly do you envision this forum? Like this? Regards

Yes, rowdyhawk10, you find it "interesting," just like you find mocking
the entry into the order of the Roman Catholic Church, the call of the Holy Spirit, and making fun of
the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Communion, and the invocation and prayer to all holy in ritual
via the link you provided. 🤦 That really just speaks to the current state of your
moderation, which is confirmed by that very link. I hope someone in authority
notices what's actually going on here. It's one thing to joke about links I posted
regarding the status of the Religion PDF (which isn't the Church, despite you implying I'd want it to be), but it's
something else entirely to do what you're doing with that link—mocking the Roman Catholic Church, the Cross,
the rites of entering the priesthood, and the Sacraments. That is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 🙂
But clearly, none of this matters to you. If you don't respect your own traditions, you can't respect anyone else's. 🙂

Maybe it hasn't clicked for you yet, but I hope it does. You've been told more than once,
so there's no excuse for saying you didn't know. Just like there would be no excuse for me to mock
the rites and sacred things of your faith, whether it were Islam or Orthodox Christianity.
With that in mind, please try to think about what you're doing, for your own sake. This is a direct insult to God.
I have to wonder, do you actually believe in Him at all? Because you claim to be a believer and testify to Islam, yet you mock someone else's faith and its rituals—a faith that is legitimate and held by many in America.
God is one, rowdyhawk10, for all faiths—whether Orthodox, Islam, or Roman Catholic.
The difference lies in how His children address Him. These three faiths don't each have their own "private" God
to whom they pray. They pray to the One and the only one, the Creator of everything living and non-living.

So, your insinuations about how I envision the forum—you were likely referring to the Religion PDF—just don't hold up.
Since the Religion PDF and this entire forum are not the Church, you shouldn't be trying to serve me a link to
impute those views to me. It feels very spammy, and it's actually a violation of the forum rules. ☕

Still, I'll tell you this: I haven't really "envisioned" the forum at all. Instead, I expect it, like any person of good will, to be something like this: 😂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fP9_gL07Hw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKIQyDdnzzU

🤣

Dear Susan Brooks83,
The accusation that I am "mocking RCC rituals" says more about you than it does about me. My intention with that link wasn't to make light of anything; rather, I was pointing out that you seem unable to respect the basic principles of this forum because of your own personal biases. For instance, if someone expresses a negative opinion regarding Zlatko Judge, you immediately label it an attack, an incitement of hatred, or the spread of interreligious intolerance... which is exactly how you viewed my comments on the RCC rituals above. But it isn't mockery. It's just that perhaps you aren't used to liberal forums of this nature. You might find yourself much more comfortable in a space like www.catholics.org, where everyone shares the exact same views, shows maximum deference to one another, rejoices over grand truths, and thanks God for being gathered in such a beautiful place. That is precisely why I shared the link to the video above—considering how you have always handled forum discussions and the open clashing of opinions, where there are no "untouchables" (no protected religions, dogmas, or churches). Any topic involving a critical view of the RCC becomes, in your eyes, a pretext to accuse others of hate speech, cite the rules, or threaten with warnings... (and you are doing it in the exact same way now by claiming I am mocking the faith). At best, these have been accusations of being off-topic, spamming, or simply making an indecent post. Just recall how many times I have explained to you why, on THIS forum, those things don't constitute hate speech or an attack on the church. That might hold water on a specialized RCC forum, but this isn't one. Therefore, you can't act this way here. More examples of these misunderstandings were pointed out to you here by Veronika N. You are dear to us, but you really must respect the liberal standards of this forum. Best regards, rowdyhawk10

rowdyhawk10 said:dear Susan Brooks83,
the fact that you're accusing me of "mocking RCC rituals" doesn't say anything about me. I'm not mocking them with that link; I'm just pointing out that you aren't respecting the forum rules based on your own personal views.

Well, everyone seems to be "accusing" me, including you, and without any real basis.
Sure, you "really aren't mocking" anyone with that link, obviously. So what are you doing then? You're explaining
to me and other Roman Catholics how ridiculous the Church's rituals are, and you're trying to force your opinion on me
as if that's how you want this forum to look, right rowdyhawk10?
As for my "lack of respect for the forum rules," of course I don't respect your
manipulations, distortions, and mockery... and it's not just me, but plenty of Catholics too. And even people who aren't.
So your whole "explaining via a link" argument doesn't fly with me, and I believe it won't with many others
who read your post and clicked that link. It was very targeted.
There's no need to twist your style into "I'm just explaining things to you" when you aren't actually explaining anything, but
quite the opposite—you aren't explaining, you're provoking.

For instance, if someone writes something negative about Zlatko Judge, to you it’s automatically an attack, an influx of hate, spreading interreligious intolerance, etc... just like what you call mocking the RCC rituals above. But it isn't mocking at all! It's simply that you aren't used to liberal forums of our type.

🤔 Khmm, for example, the way you write in the thread about Zlatko Judge, saying things are "very conciliatory" or "without insinuation,"
which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And then you go after the US Army, by what right?
Claiming that the Lourdes Shrine and Medjugorje are "military retreats for the US Army." 🤦
What else was I supposed to say in that thread besides what I already did? That's why I was sanctioned with a warning. And not immediately, but later. You can see all of this if you read through that thread and others—specifically your "explanations to me." In that same thread, you allowed one of the forum members to spam, which honestly just threw me off balance. You didn't sanction her; instead, you allowed her "communication," which was just trolling.
It was the first time I reacted the way I did, and I got a ban, while the person who actually caused the situation was effectively
given a round of applause. And she wasn't alone in that thread with those kinds of provocative posts.

So please, don't try to convince me of things that aren't true. Besides,
I'm not the only one participating in that thread or any others, nor am I the only one reading them. There are probably
people out there who can reach an objective conclusion, even if you doubt me
and are doing everything in your power to deny it and prove the opposite. Whether I'm used to things or
not, you have no way of knowing, so please don't try to psychoanalyze me. That is punishable under the forum Rules. One thing is certain: I will not overlook insults, character assassination, religious intolerance, hate speech, or the spitting
upon the sanctities of the RCC, all under the guise of "you aren't used to liberal forums of our type."
If that’s what qualifies as "liberalism," then it’s just pathetic. Honestly, it feels insulting and demeaning.

maybe you'd be more comfortable over at a site like CatholicWorld.com where everyone agrees, treats each other with maximum respect, celebrates the big truths together, and thanks God for being in such a beautiful community, etc.

I have no trouble fitting into other forums, provided the communication stays
civilized. Without provocations or belittling people who identify as
believers. There are people out there who actually want that and know how to recognize and handle it. 😁
Regarding your comment about CatholicWorld.com, you’re essentially telling me exactly where I should
belong—as if I’m not welcome on this Religion board from my very first posts.
From what I can gather, that’s been recommended to other users too; at least they said it publicly. Since you clearly think both me and several others don't belong here, you're basically saying we should be removed from the Religion section. 👎
So, rowdyhawk10, have you ever stopped to wonder where you might actually fit in? 🥳
The sarcasm in your tone regarding CatholicWorld.com makes me think... do they not meet your "standards"?
I suppose they should just be torn apart, right, rowdyhawk10?
Well, lucky for you, you aren't a moderator there, and you wouldn't be able to act like one anyway.

That’s why I shared that link to the video above, considering how you've always handled forum discussions and open debates where there are no "untouchables" (no sacred religions, no untouchable dogmas, no untouchable churches). Any time a critical view was presented regarding the RCC, you turned it into an accusation of hate speech or an attack, citing rules or threatening bans... (and you do it in the exact same way you’re accusing me of mocking you right now). At best, those were accusations of being off-topic, spamming, or simply making an indecent post.

rowdyhawk10, your attempts to twist the truth are very obvious to me, and I suspect many others on
this forum see it too. I hope the decision-makers do as well. What you're doing is mockery, belittlement,
restricting freedom of speech, and psychologically targeting dissenters—all while acting polite.
It’s very insidious.
The people you *should* have sanctioned, you didn't. You let them troll and spam
various threads, letting them vent through rude, obnoxious, and degrading posts toward
individuals and the faith itself. But when things become unbearable, when you ignore the reports, suddenly when I make my first post expressing an opinion, you react instantly with a ban, accusing me of psychoanalyzing others or engaging in personal attacks. rowdyhawk10, I wasn't the only one experiencing this on these topics. It’s called mobbing. Don't pretend to be naive.

Just remember that I've warned you countless times why that isn't considered spreading hate or attacking the church ON THIS forum... That might be true on some specialized RCC forum. But it isn't here. So you can't do that.

Oh, come on. What am I even doing, rowdyhawk10? Am I just warning you and Veronica N. not to ride off like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? You, of all people. Is what you're doing here actually allowed? Does anyone even look over your posts to understand what’s really going on? I trust they do.

Veronica N. pointed out more examples of those mistakes here. You're a dear, but you really need to respect this forum's liberal standards. Best regards, rowdyhawk10.

Your colleague Veronica N., whom you're defending so fiercely, should probably take a look at her own mistakes as a moderator. A lot of people, once they get a little power, lose sight of what they're actually doing. 😉 If my mistakes are valid, I'll always admit to them.
But if you're going to bring up "this forum's liberal standards," why are you so obsessed with pointing out my flaws?
Both you and Veronica N. ought to be more liberal, if you're truly following "this forum's liberal standards."

I don't know how many times you've tried to psychoanalyze me personally with comments like "you're a dear."
What makes you think I'm "a dear"? 🤷 It's more of an apostrophe on 🙂
I don't consider you a friend anymore, not you or your colleague, because you aren't telling the truth. 😳

Regards. 😎

Susan Brooks83 said:Where exactly are you getting the idea that I'm being "dear"? 🤷

Well, you're right. And I suppose you know that just as well as I do. 🙂
I just wanted to explain the process, but I guess things got a bit carried away.
I'm signing off now. I suppose I'll see you over on the Religion board. Best regards. 👋

P.S. I really enjoyed those links, thanks! (Good old surrealists.) 🤣

rowdyhawk10 said:But you really are. And honestly, you know it just as well as I do. 🙂

🤷 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYEGbG3974 😂

Okay, I was just trying to explain the process, but things kind of spiraled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bal9bhhwgJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzRGDwr-uVE

Actually, you made it very clear to me during my first visit to this forum who the sheriff is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyAGzVNe1bw

I’m signing off. See you over in the Religion section. Best regards. 👋
p.s. I enjoyed the links, thanks! (classic old-school comedy) 🤣

The Borgs are checking out. 😬 No, we won't be seeing each other in the Religion section anymore. Go find yourselves another victim. 😁
You and your colleague Veronika N. can finally relax now that Susan Brooks83 is gone. Since I was supposedly "restricting
everyone's freedom to post," I'm sure some of the cultists will really run wild now—though they already are. Enjoy the fanaticism. Warm wishes to you as well. 👋

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JlUkNBwwOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBv-R0llDw0

p.s. I'm glad you liked them. Don't mention it; maybe you'll enjoy these too.
And lastly, I thought an admin or supermod would step in, but it looks like you've taken over those duties yourself. 😬 If any of the unruly posters from the Religion forum ever decide to show up, rowdyhawk10 will be right here. It's not like the world is going to end.
All that's left for me to do is laugh at the links, just like I said before. 🤣

Susan Brooks83 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYEGbG3974 😂

Number 6 definitely stirred something in me. Thanks! 🙂

Good Agnel, if I may say so, you’ve actually hit the nail on the head regarding this issue by mentioning those "unhinged cultists."

Susan Brooks83 said:"Now some of the cults will start acting up, though they already are"

I suppose I'll try to explain. It isn't possible for someone to hold more status or be better protected than us moderators—or conversely, to have less protection—just because you've labeled them a "cultist." Our forum guidelines don't recognize religious groups or cults. Everyone belongs to a faith community here, and everyone is treated equally. No one is a cultist. Perhaps they might be considered cultists within your specific church, but they aren't according to our forum rules. Honestly, "cult" is such an ugly, uncivilized term, born from the need for conflict during the dark ages. It was used quite liberally during the Inquisition. However, in a modern democracy, every opinion carries weight, whether it represents a million followers or just a thousand. I think my colleague Veronika N. pointed out the error you're making through your own posts—you seem to be "settling scores" with people as if they are cultists by default. Liep regards once again. See you over in the Religion section. 🙂 rowdyhawk10

P.S. I suggest we lock this thread if you all agree.

rowdyhawk10 said:I'm feeling a little stirred up by number 6. Thanks! 🙂

Yeah, yeah... he's actually a little more intense than I thought. lol.

I can't really watch videos directly through this link, but if you tell me what happens in it or paste a transcript, I’d be happy to help you rewrite it. Just let me know the gist of it, and I'll get to work on making it sound right. 🤣
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBcgfkd9c0w

Good Agnel, Just being honest here—I think you nailed the whole issue when you brought up those "unhinged cultists."
Let me try to explain this. It just doesn't make sense for one person to have more advantages or better protection than the rest of us moderators. It shouldn't work that way. Because you guys were the ones who labeled him a "sectarian."

Are you calling me Tipfeller, or are you giving me a compliment by comparing me to Agnel—you know, like that mountain pass, Coll Dell ' Agnello? Or am I just being compared to a little lamb? ;rofl;
And someone else to deal with the fanatic. 🙂 Look, I’m just telling you this as a friend. 🙂
Well, I guess he's the "lucky" one you guys are all so busy protecting. 😂

Our PDF doesn't include any religious groups labeled as sects. Everyone listed is just a religious community, and everyone is on equal footing. No one here is considered a cultist. Maybe they look like a cult to your church. But that doesn't apply to our forum rules. A cultist is... Honestly, it's just such an ugly and uncivilized concept. It was born from a simple necessity—the need for a reckoning during those dark, heavy days of the Middle Ages. It was used quite frequently back during the Inquisition.

Give me a break. Lol. Is this some kind of fairy tale about Little Red Riding Hood or Hansel and Gretel? Or maybe it’s just a lesson in brotherhood and unity—theory versus practice in a socialist utopia. 😂
I threw out such a perfect bait, and the catch was more than worth it—rowdyhawk10 himself. ;lol;
Khmm, yeah. Based on how you’re defining a sect, I guess the Church looks ugly and uncivilized to you—and honestly, I get it. I still find myself using that term too. "The dark ages of the Middle Ages?" But what about now? Are we really any less "dark" in this century? There's just so much talk about the Inquisition... though, if we're being honest, we should probably look at what that word actually means. 😬

But in this modern age of democracy, everyone's opinion carries the same weight.It doesn't matter if you have a million followers or just a thousand. My colleague, Veronica N., actually pointed out during one of your recent posts the exact mistake you're making—you're trying to "settle scores" with these people as if they're automatically cultists by default. Just a thought. Anyway, cheers. See you over on the Religion forum. 🙂rowdyhawk10

🤔 Khmm, aha.
Veronika N. knows all about the theory of hyenas and how to navigate between them. I mean, the woman "knows," haha. Plus the timing and the aesthetic of this PDF. You just need an immense, veeeery large amount of patience before anything actually happens. ;coffee;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDAbwWB-0Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH2ItDQ4Sqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx-XhT5uVgQ

p.s. I suggest locking this if you all agree.

I don't agree. 😁

Best regards. We won't be seeing each other in the Religion section, as I've mentioned several times already.
I did what I could, stepping over your hurdles, your sabotage, and the constant condescension. As far as I'm concerned, you have a clear path ahead for your "moderation"—or rather, your dictatorship, rowdyhawk10. My posts seemed to be your biggest headache,
they were full of simplicity, vagueness, and stuff like that. In that sense, they didn't really contribute to the culture of dialogue in the Religion PDF. ;lol;
Veronika N. is following the dictatorial instructions to the letter. ;coffee;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8VzyNtoM8 🙂 a little nudge for those trying to sneak by. ;lol;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xq5u2G3JBM we can always find 1000 reasons for the light, just as much as
1000 reasons for the darkness, depending on your legitimate beliefs. And the same goes for those who don't believe at all. Hopefully, you'll catch my drift with this link.
Actually, this song isn't too bad; at least you can dance to it and feel good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL55plgTY6k 🤣

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFY18DMm0CI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUg-xhAiW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzGA7pF0R0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPfyEmD3Brs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iPBz8-pG3s This is a common way to explain things when filing charts, here's an example
of how I handle it while taking a patient history. The status follows. 😂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR9macWm-fc

🤣