CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Liberal" and "open-minded" Shady is at it again, attacking Christians

Liberal" and "open-minded" Shady is at it again, attacking Christians

Started by Sam Taylor4 · · 👁 6 views · 59 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Sam Taylor4Chris Morales23Maria Foster44Brenda Cook4Olivia Kern3restlessbear9Rebecca Turner28Steven Clark2Noah King2Kenneth Ortiz97Richard Nelson2Lawrence Barnes33Austin Diaz2rowdyhawk10Joshua Brown7Andrew Chase31Christian Torres3
Noah King2 Noah King2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2007
#41 ·
Kenneth Ortiz97 said:Why are you complaining when you're back here anyway??
If it were up to me, I would have banned you permanently. That post above of yours just spreads nothing but hatred between nations.
It seems quite obvious to me.
But look, they are letting you stay. You should at least show a little gratitude.

Which specific post am I spreading hatred between nations with?

It appears you possess an incredible amount of knowledge regarding the moderators, despite having written only 23 posts on this entire forum, doesn't it? Bravo. You seem remarkably well-informed about the people here.
Austin Diaz2 Austin Diaz2 Newcomer
1 message
joined Aug 2009
#42 ·
The way rowdyhawk10 is handling things as a moderator is honestly unacceptable. By shutting down such an exceptional, engaging thread—one packed with constructive dialogue and great insights—he’s essentially proven that religious bias and intolerance aren't foreign concepts to him, despite how much he presents himself as being open-minded and free-thinking.

What really stands out, and deserves some serious scrutiny, is the actual reason this thread was killed: the whole thing feels more like a personal blog than a community discussion (even though there isn't a single hint of that!). But if you look at the second half of rowdyhawk10's post, his true motive becomes crystal clear: a blatant disdain for "traditional Christian values." To paraphrase his own words, he basically said, "If you care about traditional Christianity, just go to a specific Christian website instead."

Just imagine how rowdyhawk10 would react if some other moderator locked a thread about Islam and gave the excuse: "If you're interested in Islam, why don't you just visit islam.com?!"

What does a move like that say about the person pulling the strings?

I want to thank everyone who has stepped up to join in on these well-intended critiques. We can't let this site turn into a hub for religious fundamentalism, exclusivity, and total intolerance!

Best,
Kenneth Ortiz97 Kenneth Ortiz97 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Aug 2009
#43 ·
Austin Diaz2 said:The way rowdyhawk10 is acting as a mod is just totally unacceptable. Locking down such an awesome, super engaging thread—one that was actually full of great points and real conversation—just proves he’s got this religious bias and intolerance baked right in, even though he tries so hard to act all open-minded and chill.

And honestly, the reason he gave for shutting it down is what really sticks out. It felt more like a personal blog post than anything else (even though there wasn't any hint of that!). But if you look at the second half of rowdyhawk10's post, his real motive is pretty obvious: he’s clearly got a beef with certain Christian traditions. You can tell by how he basically said, "If you care about this specific branch of Christianity, just go to their website instead."

I mean, seriously, imagine if a mod shut down a thread about Islam and then had the nerve to say, "Hey, if you're into Islam, just check out islam.com!"

What does that even say about the person pulling those kinds of moves?

Big thanks to everyone jumping in with these honest critiques! We definitely don't want this forum turning into some bubble of religious fundamentalism and total intolerance!

Later!

Honestly, a super boring thread with just a few people bringing up stuff that isn't even up for debate.
👎
Noah King2 Noah King2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2007
#44 ·
Brenda Cook4 said:Hey, I wouldn't look at it that way—for Shady to make a call like this, the rest of the mods have to agree too. We just gained two new Christian mods, which was requested, and I believe they were all in agreement on that. Or am I mistaken?🤷

My own experience with rowdyhawk10 suggests quite the opposite. Pache, it’s actually Shady who will be the first among the moderators to react to insults, and he'll do it regardless of whether they are "his people" or others. I think you are gravely mistaken about rowdyhawk10. No, I don't think... I know.

Mods, please, open a thread and set things up properly, because this topic truly belongs here.

Did Radet deal with similar issues with rowdyhawk10 before, simply because he said something rowdyhawk10 didn't like? Was there an attempt to issue a permanent ban against him or not? And why were those two new Christian mods brought on (let's not even ask whose fault that was, we all know)? Do you remember that whole episode? Please, bluebird, don't.
Kenneth Ortiz97 Kenneth Ortiz97 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Aug 2009
#45 ·
Noah King2 said:Wait, which post am I even using to spread hate between nations?

Wow, you sure know a ton about the mod team for someone who’s only dropped maybe 23 posts on this whole forum, huh? Good for you! You're practically an expert on everyone here already.

So you're actually Radet, the guy who got banned, right??
Seriously, man, be glad they're even putting up with you.
And don't play dumb with me.
Same writing style—it's not like it was hard to spot, you're just super observant, aren't ya?
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#46 ·
  • I find the decision to launch a thread like this directly within the "Religion" subforum to be somewhat brazen, perhaps even a bit coercive. I suppose it’s worth noting that all protesters—especially those starting threads—should already be aware that grievance-based topics aren't meant for this section; they belong in the specific forum designated for such matters. Consequently, I am closing this thread and moving it over to the "Feedback and Suggestions" section, where the admins can choose to reopen it if they see fit.
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#47 ·
I provided a clear explanation here regarding why the thread was closed:

To reiterate once more: I have no issue with any particular user on this forum, nor does any specific ideology bother me. I would have taken the same action regardless of the ideology involved, which is something I have done previously (I've stepped in to stop blogging before). To repeat what I stated there: the insinuations about my faith and my alleged "frustrations" are nonsense and don't affect me in the slightest. In fact, I might suggest the accusation is actually reversed—that they are the ones harboring resentment and intolerance, rather than me. My goal is simply to uphold the forum rules and act as a moderator who treats everyone equally, ensuring that no one considers themselves above the law (or, in this case, the rules). It seems the loud minority here wants exactly the opposite: special privileges, and naturally, they want those privileges for themselves.

Aggressively and rudely flouting the forum rules, stifling the community spirit through excessive blogging, and then following it up with a collective outcry—these are things I've never particularly cared for, so nothing is going to change here. Simply put, there will be no blogging, and everyone will just have to get used to it.

Regards to all
Noah King2 Noah King2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2007
#48 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:I provided a clear explanation here regarding why the thread was closed:

To reiterate once more: No one on this forum bothers me, nor does any specific ideology. I would have taken the exact same action regardless of which ideology was being discussed, which is precisely what I have done in the past by preventing blogging. To repeat my previous point: These insinuations about my faith and my alleged "frustrations" are nonsense. They do not affect me in the slightest. In fact, I find myself returning the accusation; it is actually those individuals who harbor hatred and intolerance—not me. My sole intention is to uphold the forum rules. As a moderator, I strive to be impartial and ensure that no one considers themselves above the law—that is, above the rules. Yet, the agitators here seem to want exactly that: special privileges, and naturally, they want those privileges for themselves.

The aggressive, disrespectful violation of forum rules, the attempt to stifle the spirit of the community through blogging, and the subsequent "group outcry" have never appealed to me. Therefore, nothing will change here. Simply put, there will be no blogging. Everyone should get used to that reality.

Regards to all.

You are truly ridiculous.

Words without substance are meaningless. And yours are nothing more than plain demagoguery.
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#49 ·
Noah King2 said:You’re being quite ridiculous.
Words without substance are meaningless! And yours are nothing more than plain old demagoguery!

Dear Noah King2,
What I've laid out here is a concrete piece of work. I put in the effort to explain exactly where the issue lies. I actually have respect for you, and my criticism wasn't directed at you personally; I just felt that when you were critiquing me, you might not have fully grasped the core of the matter. With the linked post, I believe the context is finally clear, and everything stated within it is accurate (exactly as I've described and provided links for). It is now up to you how you choose to interpret my intent. Please look over that post and verify the links I've provided, then feel free to think whatever you like. Best,
___

With that, I suppose I am finished with this topic. If anyone wishes to dispute anything I have written here or here, I will be happy to read it. Regards to all.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#50 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:I have officially concluded my participation in this discussion. If anyone wishes to contest anything I have here or here written, I would be more than happy to read it. Best regards to all.

Look, friend, having spent years writing online across various forums, reading and writing blogs, and even moderating boards, I feel I have gained a decent amount of insight into how these things work. So, please explain to me: why exactly is this post considered a classic blog post? 😕 Now, I realize telling someone their post is just a "classic blog post" might feel a bit stinging, but you see similar patterns all over the Religion forum—the way countless threads are started makes absolutely no sense. It is the same story with the subsequent post; I didn't even want to bother looking at the others. Why label something a classic blog post simply because someone shares information about a topic? 😕

You said:

any ideology is acceptable

Is that truly so? 🙂
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#51 ·
Honestly, I would simply appreciate it if the administrators and those in charge could take a moment to carefully read what is being discussed here, so they can judge for themselves whether these truly qualify as "classic blog posts" or not. While there are certainly some longer entries, I still believe this matter should be considered settled.

Observe this phenomenon:

An alert from Uranium looks like this:

Joshua Brown7, you shouldn't be pasting massive walls of text from other websites onto this thread; it clutters everything up, makes it impossible to navigate, and stifles any real discussion, which goes against the very core purpose of this forum.
I kindly request that you rephrase this topic to focus on answering questions and fostering debate, as the current format lacks meaningful substance.

For more significant or larger links, I believe it would be much better to just provide the direct URL links.

Best regards,

And yet, you conclude by claiming that this specific post from Joshua Brown7 is nothing more than a classic blog post:

For those interested, please visit this online textbook regarding iconography:
http://udzbenik-ikonopisa.com/tiki-index.php

Or consider this post by the atheist, which was also characterized as a mere blog post:

Speaking of icons, for anyone wishing to familiarize themselves a bit better with them, I suggest watching these two short films:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT1vF...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOIWa...eature=related

Then there is this post and link from Joshua Brown7, labeled once again as a classic blog post:

Useful for all followers of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam:

A Glossary of Religious Terms

The atheist titled this post about Orthodoxy in Japan, yet you call it a classic blog post:

...was brought to life by the grace of God through the holy, widely-spread missionary work of Nikolai the Japanese in 1861. The first Japanese person to embrace this saving faith was a Shinto priest and samurai named Takuma Savabe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhFEEBvI-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl7R_...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDWbf...eature=related

Joshua Brown7 provides a single interesting fact, a brief explanation, and a link, and you label it a classic blog post:

Fun Fact:

The southernmost church in the world (and an Orthodox one, no less!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Church,_Antarctica
http://community.livejournal.com/ru_...tml?mode=reply

Another forum member says:

Here is the link where you can read Lav Karsavin's "Patrology":

Patrology

And you call this a classic blog post?? 😕

Even this post:

I honestly don't see how one could describe it as a classic blog post when it provides a brief explanation along with links for further reading. 😕

Joshua Brown7 is making the same point and providing a link about it:

An interesting program to watch: Agape - Christianity and Cosmology

Yet you claim otherwise?

Take this post, for example:

How could Joe Enter's post be considered a classic blog post? Or how could this post from the atheist be seen as a classic blog post:

?? Out of 22 supposed "classic blog posts," there are barely 5 or 6, which isn't even an issue for any given topic.

I must admit, I am not even remotely convinced by your arguments, especially knowing how you "moderated" the Religion section, and specifically after seeing what you label as "classic blog posts." 🙂 They were simply following the uranium-based advice to include a URL for more extensive topics. They provide a URL, and you respond with—"a classic blog post?" 🙂 And then you shut down their thread because of it?

No comment.
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#52 ·
Steven Clark2 said:Is that so? 🙂

As long as you maintain this level of rudeness, I suppose you will continue to be denied any dialogue with me, much like before. Best,
Noah King2 Noah King2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2007
#53 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:As long as you remain this impolite, you will continue—just as before—to be denied any dialogue with me. Regards.

Nothing said here was impolite; you simply presented arguments. You closed the thread without any justification or valid reason.

I have reviewed the history and found perhaps two or three posts (and none from Joshua Brown7) that could even remotely be characterized as blog posts. Even those weren't intended to be blogs, but rather seemed more like unreflective thoughts. Therefore, I fully support Radet's view that the topic was shut down unfairly.

Best, Nick!
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 Newcomer
9 messages
joined May 2009
#54 ·
I just now stumbled upon this thread.
Please, I’m begging you all, just stop fighting. It’s on me—strictly my fault—for even opening a discussion about the Orthodox world in the first place. If I had realized, and honestly, if I hadn't been so naive as to not assume, that it would spiral into this kind of bickering where everyone is just tearing each other apart... I never would have done it. I much prefer genuine harmony and a civil conversation, the kind where you might actually end up making a friend or two, rather than these endless debates that lead absolutely nowhere except toward mental exhaustion and spiritual self-condemnation. Based on my thirty-nine years of experience dealing with these kinds of matters, I really should have anticipated that interest in Orthodoxy wouldn't reach the level I was hoping for, nor would we be able to maintain a real dialogue about the Orthodox world, but I miscalculated. I could have simply integrated teachings from the Orthodox church into responses to various existing questions within any other thread... please, forgive my stupidity, and please, brothers, stop fighting...

Sincere regards to Radet, Noah King2, Nick, and all the rest of you!
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#55 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:I just stumbled upon this thread.
Please, let's try not to fight.

🙄 You see, you only just noticed the thread, yet Radet mentioned you in his opening post as someone who agrees with the insults directed at me, such as:

Sam Taylor4 said:This seems like yet another sneaky attempt—perhaps in the spirit of Ramadan?—to shut down a high-quality discussion.

Sam Taylor4 said:Radet Kumitkat, on his own behalf and on behalf of the following members:
The atheist,
Joshua Brown7,
Austin Diaz2,
Noah King2,
bartender Jitrro;

You didn't actually say whether you approved or disagreed with him, nor did you address his mocking comments about my faith and those malicious insinuations. Generally speaking, nobody here fights. Regards.
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 Newcomer
9 messages
joined May 2009
#56 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:look, I only just stumbled upon this thread, and Radet mentioned you in his opening post as someone who agrees with all those insults he aimed at me, such as:

Quote:
Radet Kumitkat says:
this is just another sneaky attempt to shut down a high-quality thread in a very clever way (maybe in the spirit of Ramadan?)

First off, I honestly told you that I hadn't seen this topic yet.

Second, regarding him putting my name in his signature—I haven't read everything yet, but I'll get to it and see what the deal is—I believe it can only mean one thing... that he’s genuinely sorry the topic was killed, and I’ll admit that to him, as Radet is a friend of mine. I think we shouldn't always have to follow the rules "by the book" if the character and nature of the discussion aren't offensive, vulgar, or mindless, because nobody gets hurt; people actually gain something from it, that's all... I mean, if there can be a "picnic chat" that isn't even particularly meaningful and doesn't really belong in the "religion" subforum according to my view, then why couldn't an "Orthodox World" section exist, which is infinitely more meaningful than that? However, as I mentioned, if you absolutely have to stick strictly to the rules, if it truly fails to meet the requirements (I don't know the rulebook by heart, I'm learning as I go... I hate reading through it, I'm lazy... mea culpa!) and if it's really of a nature that it can't stay active according to the regulations, and if it causes such a headache that it ruins the whole concept of the forum, then let it be shut down, no matter how much I regret it...

Third, I noted that I alone, and exclusively me, am to blame for starting this topic, because I should have assumed from all the reasons mentioned above that it would end up being shut down... anyway, I'm sorry that such harsh words were thrown at you regardless of everything... I believe Radet feels bad about it too, because I know he's an honest man, and I trust you have the strength and goodness to forgive another, but also to examine yourself and your own heart—that is, whether you truly do everything with a pure heart and for the sake of the rules, or if the "rules" are sometimes just a screen hiding other things... examine yourself, do it for yourself and for God.
rowdyhawk10 said:You didn't say a single word to him, either agreeing or disagreeing with his mocking comments about my faith and his insinuations full of malice. Besides, nobody is fighting here. Regards.

First, I didn't have the chance to tell him what I wanted to say because he hasn't been on the forum since I've been around, and I only noticed this topic about two hours ago and saw that Radet is banned. I will do what I think is right when Radet and I speak, in the same way I told you certain things, rather than doing it like this.

Secondly, as a normal person and as a Christian, I don't want anyone speaking ugly words or hurling insults at anyone else, regardless of the circumstances, and I explained that to you in my last PP, the reason and the why behind it. I know when, how, and what to say to my beloved brother in Christ; don't you worry about that, because he is indeed my brother in Christ, and I will treat him accordingly—whether I'm criticizing and rebuking him or having a normal conversation, it will always be in the spirit of Christ... the spirit of love. That is how, it seems to me, I try to carry myself toward you too, yet you're either not a Christian or, if I recall correctly, insults toward me have come from your side multiple times when you called me a liar over my story about my experience at the monastery in Studenica. Why would it be any different when it comes to Radet? I hope and believe you understand all this. Regards!
Andrew Chase31 Andrew Chase31 Active Member
112 messages
joined Jan 2013
#57 ·
Hey everyone, I just finally hopped back onto the forum after being away for a few days dealing with some life stuff. I happened to stumble upon Radet's private thread, took a quick look, and honestly, I can't believe what I'm seeing.

Is it even possible for this religion to ever become a place where we don't have constant attacks, flip-flopping, accusations, and zero tolerance?

Maybe we could all just meet halfway—if we all members tried to stick a bit closer to the rules and guidelines set by the admins, and if the moderators could set aside their personal biases against certain members and handle these kinds of issues with a little more patience, goodwill, and tolerance, things might actually stay peaceful...
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#58 ·
Andrew Chase31 said:I just managed to log back onto the forum after being away for a few days due to some commitments, and I happened to glance at Radin's private messages. Honestly, I can hardly believe what I'm seeing.

And they were using the private messages for this, were they? 🙄
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#59 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:Oh, so they were sliding into DMs now, huh? 🙄

Real democracy—just whatever the mob decides on any given day. 😉
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#60 ·
Right.. 🙄 and after national upheavals we saw those sudden, blunt shifts in power, followed shortly by much milder political turnovers...
and now, finally, we have these social media driven movements too.. 🤷

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads