CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Admin, please look into the fake visions from Blessed Parsifal again

Admin, please look into the fake visions from Blessed Parsifal again

Started by hiddenpuma75 · · 👁 4 views · 37 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants hiddenpuma75Benjamin Taylor6Michael Anderson2restlessbear9rowdyhawk10Nicole JamesSusan Price30Morgan Rodriguez57urbangull90ironseal10wanderingheron52Jason Clark7steelskipper5Christian Torres3
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#1 ·
1 )
Wandering through the various corners of this forum, I’ve noticed a strange pattern emerging for the third time: a wave of fake sightings of Blessed Parsifal 😲
.

2. Just take a look at these links to see how certain users (specifically restlessbear9 and Michael Anderson2) have been swept up
in this hysteria of false visions regarding Blessed Parsifal, where they somehow convinced themselves that someone using the handle ciceipica was actually Blessed Parsifal
.

Oh, Parsifal...

It’s truly sad to see what you've become, Parsifal. You went from being a positive force who wrote inspired posts—
which, granted, were often a mountain of unprovable nonsense, but at least they had soul—
to becoming one of those pathetic fools who can't grasp even basic 7th-grade middle school material.

Personally, I feel bad that you're permanently banned, but that’s hardly an excuse to act this pathetic...

I wonder, what is Eris going to say about all of this?
------------------------------------
And one more thing

3. This time, the moderators haven't (at least 🙄 ) committed the same injustice they've already twice repeated—banning people without justification or proof, including myself and several accounts they assumed were Parsifal. So, let me issue a preemptive warning to the administration: I am not that user ciceipica, nor do I know them.

4. As a precaution, I’ve actually sent a private email to that user
while they are still active on the forum and reachable.

5. Perhaps they’ll get back to me; if so, I’d actually appreciate the chance to meet the person who is being falsely accused of being my incompetent shadow.🙂
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#2 ·
6.
It’s honestly pathetic that the administration allows my writing and my ideas to be censored
on a public forum, and that I'm facing a permanent ban for discussing religion just because I happen to rub Nicole James the wrong way.

7. It is equally disgraceful that the administration remains silent and refuses to take any action
regarding the two previous incidents I’ve already documented right here.

8. It’s truly low of the forum administration to permit this moderator (a fake liberal at heart), Nicole James, to implement a whole new level of censorship—

accusing innocent users WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF of being "clones" (like hiddenpuma75) and then banning both individuals, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with one another (they simply share the same ideas 😉that the forum inquisitors find distasteful).

9.
It is pathetic to see a public forum censor and partially ban someone who has been contributing here for ten years and has more open threadscreated 😲
than the religion moderator Nicole James has ever written in the entire section!

10. This really highlights your sense of justice, your intellectual honesty, and the true nature of how this forum's inner circle operates.

Even though you all swear in the local coffee shops that you're liberals and free-thinkers who have nothing to do with the GOP, organized religion, or systemic injustice—claiming you're "above" that kind of stuff...

11. ...all that changes the moment you step onto this forum and turn into little dictators, moderators, and inquisitors,
preventing the publication of those IDEAS and silencing the people you personally dislike.😉

12. Oh, how truly pitiful is your intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty,
you moderators and administrators who sit in silence while allowing censorship and false accusations against people and their ideas on a public platform.
Benjamin Taylor6 Benjamin Taylor6 Regular
577 messages
joined Apr 2017
#3 ·
Now there’s someone else claiming that Blessed Parsifal made an appearance during the Evolution. Apparently, it's this person:

I don't buy it for a second—it just doesn't feel right. Their writing style is completely different from his.
Michael Anderson2 Michael Anderson2 Active Member
77 messages
joined Jul 2013
#4 ·
I owe a sincere apology for that unverified insinuation I made earlier. It turns out there is only one true Parsifal; everyone else is just a pale imitation of the real deal. It seems your teachings got a bit lost in those less blessed branches—mentally speaking...
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#5 ·
Michael Anderson2 said:I owe a sincere apology for that unverified insinuation I made earlier. It turns out there is only one true Parsifal, and everyone else is just a pale imitation of the real teacher. It seems his teachings got caught up in those less blessed branches of thought... mindlessly, I suppose.

The real issue here is that you and restlessbear9 seem to reflexively mock anyone seeking visions in Lourdes, yet you yourself are dealing with
false visions of Parsifal.😉

Your next hurdle—and the hurdle for anyone stuck in a similar "reality tunnel"—is that you assume the visions in Lourdes are fake, while you simply misread the illusory visions of Blessed Parsifal. Now, you’re just offering apologies and acting like the conversation is over.

If you were a true seeker who actually understood the depth of this, your journey would only just be beginning.

But of course, it goes much deeper than that.
Both the visions in Lourdes and these forum visions of Blessed Parsifal share a common root in the collective unconscious.

You had your reasons for experiencing Parsifal, just as there are reasons why your peers can't stomach it when a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry writes that being an atheist is essentially the same as being an idiot.
So, instead, they just ban the messenger—in this case, Parsifal.😉

They ban the ideas themselves, all while pretending to be liberals and mocking Lourdes, the Church, and major political institutions.😂
The hypocrisy is staggering. Honestly, it's quite pathetic.
--
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#6 ·
But let me tell you—both the visionaries in Lourdes and you had your reasons; something truly revealed itself to you both 🙂

Something really did manifest in Lourdes 😲 and even here on the forum, the only question is what 😉

You haven't actually studied the data from the scientific studies and MEASUREMENTS conducted on the visionaries DURING their apparitions in Lourdes, but I have 😉

Your issue is that you’ll never bother to look at those materials (even though they're publicly available). Instead, you'll spend your whole life trapped in your own little reality tunnel, stubbornly insisting that these visions are fake and that Lourdes is nothing more than a total farce.

And here's your next hurdle: hiddenpuma75 is going to reveal himself right here on this forum, and you're just going to mess around about it and then end up apologizing...

But you, the moderators, and many of the admins will all engage in a sort of intellectual dishonesty by staying silent
about the fact that you and your allies are partially banning hiddenpuma75's ability to share news regarding religion—much like how a Nobel laureate wrote in a serious book that being an atheist is essentially being an idiot. 😉

Essentially, your biggest problem—your group's biggest problem—is that you mock the truth, the Church's inquisitors, the skeptics, this slow forum, and Lourdes, while simultaneously doing the exact same thing you accuse them of. You're just hiding in holes like rats behind your forum handles, 😉 whereas they actually operate in public.

In a coffee shop, you play the liberal, but on this forum, you act like inquisitors—exactly the kind of people you claim exist within the Church!

The core issue for you, and for this entire forum, is this blatant intellectual hypocrisy. You clearly aren't even aware that you're doing it, all while you ridicule others for behaving the exact same way. 😉

Until you finally wake up, 👋
restlessbear9 restlessbear9 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jan 2008
#7 ·
sorry Pars

You're right, those aren't even your posts, and honestly, it felt weird seeing you sink down to that loser's level.

He’s been around this thread before under some random handle, like mr21594 or whatever, spewing the exact same nonsense until they finally banned him for good, so...
Man, when you all have the exact same modus operandi—just repeating the same narrow-minded, mindless bullshit a thousand times over...
But this guy is just being straight-up primitive with his hate, which definitely isn't your usual style...

Give me a break...
Benjamin Taylor6 Benjamin Taylor6 Regular
577 messages
joined Apr 2017
#8 ·
hiddenpuma75 said:But look—I’ll give you this much—both those pilgrims over at Lourdes and you... you both had your own reasons for being there. You saw something, or at least, you felt like you saw something that made it all make sense to you. 🙂

Something truly significant actually manifested itself back in Lourdes. 😲 And honestly, looking at the forum right now, all we’re left with is the question of... well, what? 😉

You clearly haven't bothered to actually study the results of the scientific research—and I mean the actual data and measurements taken—performed on visionaries during their apparitions in Lourdes. I, however, have. 😉

Your whole problem is that you’re never actually going to sit down and study this material—even though it’s all sitting there out in the open for anyone to read—but instead, you'll just spend your entire life trapped inside your own little reality tunnel. You'll probably stay stuck there, acting all proud of it, insisting that any genuine insight is just some fake vision and claiming that places like Lourdes are nothing more than a total joke.

Regarding those visions over in Lourdes—I should probably point out that this isn't some isolated incident: I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation—really chewing on it—and I can't help but feel like we're circling the drain with these discussions. It’s exhausting, honestly. We get so caught up in the minutiae of these debates that we completely lose sight of the bigger picture, the actual substance of what’s being discussed. I was reading through some of the points made by rowdyhawk10 earlier, and while I see where they're coming from, there's a fundamental misunderstanding at play here. It’s like watching someone try to fix a high-end Tesla engine with nothing but a rusty screwdriver and a prayer. You might make some progress, sure, but you aren't actually addressing the core mechanics of the issue. And don't even get me started on the way certain people approach the concept of evolution within these circles. There’s this strange, almost frantic need to reconcile everything instantly, rather than just letting the ideas breathe. We need more intellectual patience. Instead, we get these knee-jerk reactions—this constant, agitated pushback that serves no one. It's all noise. Just endless, repetitive noise. I remember back when I was working a corporate gig in Chicago—just a soul-crushing grind, mind you—there was this one manager who did the exact same thing. He’d jump into meetings with these half-baked theories, refuse to listen to any data that contradicted his gut feeling, and then act personally offended when someone pointed out the flaws in his logic. It was infuriating. And frankly, seeing that same pattern emerge here in these threads... well, it’s disappointing. We should be better than this. We should be digging deeper, not just shouting over each other to prove who's "right." 😲 😁
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#9 ·

I suppose hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the religion section again. I would suggest that the current moderation team for Religion reconsider that previous decision regarding his partial ban, perhaps out of a sense of goodwill. Best to everyone.
Nicole James Nicole James Regular
313 messages
joined Dec 2010
#10 ·
No.
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#11 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:

I believe hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the Religion subforum. I suggest the current moderation team for Religion review the previous decision regarding his partial ban in the spirit of goodwill. Greetings to all.

I agree with former Religion moderator rowdyhawk10, and if I may, I have one question for the administrators...

Do you believe it is appropriate or desirable for someone who—as they themselves have testified multiple times—possesses a strong antagonistic attitude toward religion in general, and toward believers and those representing faith (especially the Catholic clergy, the Pope, etc.) to moderate such a sensitive and demanding subforum dealing with these issues (and for no less than 8-9 years, lol)?

post

link
I am not fueled by hatred; I am angry. I am angry because from a very young age, I have felt pressured to conform to "the flock." Because since childhood, I have been discriminated against due to my convictions. Because thanks to a government that has bowed to Vatican dictators, no one has ever even attempted to offer any protection. I am angry because, time and again, I am declared amoral from the pulpit, branded a potential criminal, and judged for my lifestyle even though I have never harmed anyone—all while they try to silence me by labeling me a hater. I am angry because they seize every opportunity to turn their worldview into state law, forcing me to dance to their tune whether I want to or not. I am angry for my friends who struggle deep into adulthood with fears and shame instilled in them during childhood, and for those who have been stoned, ostracized, and bullied because of their sexual orientation, often to the applause of the pulpit and comments that they deserved it. I am angry because they parasitize the taxpayers' money. I am furious when they try to explain to me that my wife's role is predetermined to be a housewife and that she shouldn't selfishly pursue a career instead of staying home to raise children.

And no, there is no "cure" for me. There is nothing that will calm me or shut me up as long as the church keeps sticking its tentacles into the social and my private spheres. Who knows? Perhaps we are all more angry now; maybe I'll live to see a day where I can finally find some peace...

(I think that last sentence is key here)
__________________

Wouldn't it be preferable in an "ideal world" for such a task to be handled by someone who is neutral and calm—free from "vengeful anger" (?)—and tolerant of all worldviews and beliefs? (I honestly don't know how intense antagonism and the tolerance required for moderation can go hand in hand; I don't know how others here view it...)

And regarding the lifting of the partial ban on one believer it seems this won't happen as long as someone like that is moderating Religion, for the reasons mentioned above...

(Personally, I find the absurdity of my own partial ban there almost funny 😳 because I wouldn't even write on RE except perhaps on new PDFs being edited in a slightly different way)... what surprises me more is that anyone who could potentially be biased is in a position to decide on someone's partial ban, block, or anything else...
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active Member
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#12 ·
Who knows, maybe we're all just getting a little more fed up lately—I can only hope I actually live long enough to see things finally settle down a bit...

honestly, this feels like it's bordering on a threat to me...
urbangull90 urbangull90 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Jul 2005
#13 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:this feels like it's veering into threat territory...

My God, the way believers get hounded on this forum and across this whole country!

😁

SF
ironseal10 ironseal10 Member
10 messages
joined Jan 2013
#14 ·
I’m jumping in here just to show my support for the moderator. Honestly—if I were the one posting this, I’d likely say something very similar. But I really need to weigh in on these various zealots who are becoming more than just annoying; they’re actually becoming a threat to our collective mental stability.
Behind all those religious folks and their deep-seated biases toward a single faith, there are some pretty dangerous derivatives at play.

Historically speaking, every religion has shown a tendency to act quite dictatorial—trying to force a single viewpoint on everyone else.

When secularism vanishes from a society, we all know where that leads—it ripples through the entire community. It shows up in how a society starts stripping away freedoms, including artistic expression.

Do you seriously want to ban people from having a critical perspective? What’s the endgame here—forcing church bells to ring in the middle of every small town? Are you trying to erase fifty years of history belonging to our grandparents and parents?

Are you looking to drag us back to the old days, where everything was about racial purity and everyone attended the exact same church? Or maybe you want to force others to carry symbols from the past?

I am honestly exhausted by listening to your fanaticism—the endless quotes filled with untruths and total garbage cluttering these pages. And on top of all that, you think we should just shut up and hand over more territory to you under your constant pressure?
You certainly have persistence, I'll give you that—constantly writing and trying to brainwash people by repeating the same litany day after day.

Under the shadow of the church and your unlawful condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you, you’re going to destroy everything.
You’ll turn this country into an extreme, ultra-patriotic dictatorship if you haven't already—and then because of people like you, we're supposed to replace a smart moderator who actually uses his head?
I’ll read just about anything in here. Pretty soon, the church will be deciding which music we listen to, what movies we watch, and what kind of art artists are allowed to display.
And then, you mock Muslims or Islamic nations. Truthfully, you’re either much more backward than them, or you’re exactly the same.
If I look at your social media feeds—where it’s basically just three topics: scantily clad women, the church, and politics—I find myself asking, "Where am I living?" What kind of society is this?!
You haven't even been out of the cradle yet, and you're already trying to build a new dictatorship.
It’s because of people like those writing about religion that we’ve seen wars break out. Given the way things are heading, it won't be enough for you to just pin a little star on everyone's lapel during a global crisis like this.
Everyone should be ashamed of those who write about religion this way.
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#15 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:this feels almost like a threat to me...

It sounds like pure vengeance to me—"vengeful anger," if you will, given everything else that’s been said, though only he knows his true intent.

Moderating any subforum requires motivation, doesn't it? That raises a question: what kind of motivation would drive someone to volunteer their time for free to moderate subforums 8, 9, or 10 for nearly a decade, especially when they hold such a negative attitude toward the very topics they oversee? It’s strange... or rather, 🙂 it isn't just strange, it's unfair.
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#16 ·
Gregory Turner71 said:
rowdyhawk10 said:

I think hiddenpuma75 should be allowed to post in the Religion section again. I’d suggest that the current moderation team look over their previous decision regarding his partial ban from that subforum, maybe out of a sense of goodwill. Greetings to everyone.

No.

Perhaps it might be worth reconsidering the stance here, given that decisions regarding partial bans are never actually made by a unanimous moderator vote. I was serving as a moderator during that period, and the decision to issue that specific partial ban was reached without the consensus of the rest of the moderation team. We were all quite taken aback, as the ruling felt somewhat excessive.

Look, Nicole James, it’s like if I had decided on my own to partially ban Rob Roy without checking in with the rest of the moderation team first—meaning, without getting the green light from you or VeronikomN. If that happened, my solo decision would be called into question, and I suppose it would have to be revised just to maintain some sense of good faith.

I don't think hiddenpuma75 deserved that partial ban. He was never arrogant or disrespectful toward anyone here, nor did he ever go out of his way to personally belittle other members. It’s strange, because if you look at the religion boards today, there are dozens of people who spend their time attacking others' characters during discussions. hiddenpuma75 never really picked fights with people. He always maintained a positive spirit—wry, good-natured, and quite frankly, he was very talented at it. I know him personally. to trip up (😁The main thing is that he never actually crossed the line when it comes to being decent or friendly. Even his signature carries a certain warmth, even if some might misinterpret it as mocking or offensive—but then again, we’re talking about the words of a Nobel laureate, aren't we?

Furthermore, hiddenpuma75 is one of the users who has started the highest number of threads regarding religion here. Out of 292 total topics, at least two-thirds center around the religion PDF. I suppose even a cursory glance through his posts reveals the profile of an exceptionally high-quality contributor—both in terms of his writing style and his character—and it makes me think that this community is somewhat diminished and lacking without his presence.


Let's take a look at just a few of the topics hiddenpuma75 has brought up over in the Religion section.

I wonder what aspects of other religions you all find appealing or respect.
Is oral sex considered a sin?
The Gospel according to Parsifal.
The Parsifal flute with divine lips — Rumi da
I suppose one could wonder whether Adam actually had a navel.
If you were ever to encounter Jesus and could ask him just one single question, what would it be?
A Priest from an island community killed a cat by hanging it
God should probably sue Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike
Where do our thoughts actually originate?
Architecture of the sacred—or how I felt in a cathedral versus a mosque
Imagine the earth was visited by a super-intelligent Being! What religion he chooses would be interesting to ponder.
Sixteen crucified saviors
(Sensational) I think I found a factual error in Catholic theology
Famous Westerners on Muhammad



I suspect that removing Parsifal is a significant blow to the freedom of the written word and the spirit of tolerance. Therefore, I am asking you, Nicole James, as well as the other moderators, to collectively reconsider your decision and reach a joint consensus in the interest of fairness. Thank you. Best regards, 🙂
wanderingheron52 wanderingheron52 Member
18 messages
joined Sep 2013
#17 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:this feels like it’s veering into threat territory to me...

The way things are being moderated here, I mean, it definitely looks that way. But hey, it’s fine—well, maybe for some people, I guess—as long as it's all just happening in a virtual space...
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#18 ·
ironseal10 said:....

Perhaps you missed the point. The crux isn't about who believes what or who represents which faith—whether in real life or this digital space—as long as they possess and demonstrate tolerance for diversity. In other words, someone's personal stance only becomes an issue the moment it suggests intolerance; otherwise, it remains a private matter.

One can be a person of faith and still believe that everyone else has the right to be whoever they choose to be. For instance, a Muslim who doesn't impose their beliefs on others or pick fights with anyone—simply holding their own views while respecting others—is exactly the kind of attitude any moderator should have, especially here in the Religion section.

If, on the other hand, a moderator lacks even basic tolerance for diversity—or worse, is driven by a personal vendetta and acts antagonistically—then one has to wonder: what on earth is such a person doing in a leadership position?

* Regarding the issue you're raising: naturally, if one side attacks aggressively using every means at their disposal, the other side will defend themselves just as fiercely. This makes a level-headed, cool moderator all the more necessary, 😉rather than someone who simply adds fuel to the fire.

rowdyhawk10 said:Maybe we should reconsider and take a different stance, because decisions regarding partial bans are never made unanimously by the moderation team. Back when I was a moderator, those kinds of decisions were often made without consulting the rest of the crew. We were all caught off guard because the decision felt completely disproportionate.

Precisely. At least the decisions that weren't made in consultation with the rest of the team should be reviewed.

Take the case where Parsifal was given 10,000 points on a whim, or when innocent users were labeled "religious fanatics," or even the case of Toze being hit with a permanent ban instead of a partial one, which was the standard practice back then. All of this happened during a time when partial bans were being handed out far too easily.
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 Member
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#19 ·
Gregory Turner71 said:No.

Is this response merely an exercise of your own will, much like the way parsifal handles the religion PDF... given that we always look to the admins regarding any actions taken on this forum, since nothing is ever decided without the "consensus of all PDF moderators"?🤔
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#20 ·
Jason Clark7 said:Is this response just you acting on your own whim, similar to how things were handled with the Religion PDF? I thought we always looked to the admins for guidance on this forum because nothing is supposed to be decided without a "consensus among all PDF mods."🤔

I suggested above that the moderators should reach a collective decision, though I am not entirely sure if ego has officially voiced a "No" on behalf of the group. Regardless, ego is a solid moderator and a good person. Having shared the workload and responsibilities of moderation with him for quite some time, I can vouch for his character. Personally, I consider him a brother in the deepest sense a person can feel for another; he is very dear to me. I am also entirely certain that the Religion section would not be nearly as high-quality without his (and bluebirdicin's) moderation. Furthermore, I am confident that ego won't hold it against me for raising this question—or at least won't once some time has passed—as he will see my intentions are good, because Parsifal truly is a wonderful and cherished person.

Therefore, there is no need to resort to accusations like "arbitrariness" or "capriciousness." We all have our flaws, and no one functions as an infallible machine.

Everything ought to be resolved in the spirit of goodwill and friendship. This is our shared forum, a community that means a great deal to many of us. For me, it certainly does; I have spent a significant portion of my life here. Because of that, everyone should strive to give their best—both you, Susan Price30, and ego—so that we might collectively resolve this "issue." Everything should be settled peacefully and without harsh language. Thank you.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads