rowdyhawk10 said:Dear Jose Fox4
I am sorry you feel this way. Personally, I find you to be an extremely polite and civilized member of this community. That said, criticizing your church isn't a critique of you personally; any church, including yours, is a public organization and, as such, is naturally subject to both criticism and praise. 🙂
I realize it can be sensitive for a Catholic to have the Catholic Church linked to Nazi ideology, just as it would be sensitive for Muslims if someone were allowed to write without consequence that Muhammad was a thief or a murderer. These are sensitive topics, but we cannot prohibit others from expressing them, as they represent their own free opinions and beliefs. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our forum rules. Specifically, on the Religion subforum, it is clearly stated in the forum rule that there are no "sacred cows"—meaning no protected faiths or churches that are off-limits when it comes to discussing their historical or modern actions. Therefore, the Catholic Church's responsibility regarding its support for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany, or the fascist regime under General Franco in Spain, cannot be treated as a forbidden topic. It is no different than discussing the terrorist attacks by extremists on civilians. Every faith and church is open to free criticism through the expression of arguments and viewpoints, but it is also perfectly fine to defend any faith or church here. You, for instance, could defend your church by citing positive examples of its conduct during the Third Reich or in Franco's Spain. Similarly, Muslims can explain how terrorism contradicts Islam or provide positive examples.
Every member has been familiar with all of this since the day they registered on the forum.
In fact, this is the entire purpose and goal of forum dialogue. 🙂 By exchanging views—even those that are vastly different—and clashing through proper argumentation, we learn from one another, which ultimately contributes to better social conditions and greater understanding among people.
Because of this, I don't believe walking away from the forum is the answer; rather, it is patient dialogue.
Best regards
Go ahead and try to deceive someone else or pull the wool over someone else's eyes—just don't come here trying to ruin my thread. 🤣 With those signature sweet-sounding, hollowly "polite" platitudes—phrases that lost any shred of weight or credibility a long time ago—she seems to be scattering them everywhere. It’s a predictable pattern, really; such empty rhetoric carries no water when her actual actions fail to align with her words even remotely. Does anyone truly expect us to believe the performance when the reality is so glaringly different? 😉
That would be so.
It seemed necessary. What is the actual purpose and ultimate goal of a forum dialogue? If things were truly functioning as they should, we wouldn't be seeing dozens of entries in the complaint book regarding your moderation and how you handle this space. If the environment were healthy, I wouldn't have even thought about wasting my time here, filing complaints on a tiny little message board or opening threads like this one. Instead, I could actually enjoy a purposeful, engaging, and genuinely interesting dialogue with fellow users. Wouldn't that be a much better use of everyone's time?
It would be absolutely ideal if things actually worked this way—if there were a genuine desire to see such a state of affairs exist—but frankly, your actions and everything you've done through the moderation process tell a completely different story. I’ll set the actual act of moderation aside for a moment, because you certainly have the right to express your own opinions, so please, go ahead and write what you think; however, the reality of your conduct is diametrically opposed to the ideals you claim to uphold.
Your performance as a moderator on the religion PDF is a primary driver of this entire mess. It seems you find it much more convenient to simply silence anyone or spit on any worldview or belief system that doesn't align with your own—a pattern of behavior that borders on the repulsive, especially considering how much you contribute to this toxicity through your own writing. Naturally, Christians and Christian sanctities are the first to feel the brunt of your bias... (where is the proof? Check page one of this thread).
Many users on this forum have pointed out that your approach is nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissenting voices. It seems like you resort to biased bans whenever someone actually manages to beat you in an argument using logic and facts. Is that really how you intend to maintain a debate?
An established fact.I have provided more than enough arguments and evidence within this specific thread and my previous one to address your points. Even then, I have only deconstructed a tiny fraction of the circus and the sheer nonsense you constantly peddle on this forum.
So, even though there is a blatant state of anarchy prevailing on this forum—making it look as if the moderators have completely lost control—some people are skillfully, or perhaps clumsily, exploiting that lack of oversight. They take advantage of the chaos, and here is why.
rowdyhawk10Your lies and deceptions aren't going unnoticed, and they won't pass by without consequence. People deserve to be made aware of this reality. For those who actually follow the complaint book pdf religion, that darkness is far too glaringly obvious—it's an eyesore that strikes anyone paying attention.
So, it seems your posts are nothing more than hollow platitudes and empty rhetoric—as if you're simply reciting a script you memorized a long time ago just to sound profound.
rowdyhawk10 said:Dear Jose Fox4
I am sorry you feel this way. Personally, I find you to be an extremely polite and civilized member of this community. That said, criticizing your church isn't a critique of you personally; any church, including yours, is a public organization and, as such, is naturally subject to both criticism and praise. 🙂
I realize it can be sensitive for a Catholic to have the Catholic Church linked to Nazi ideology, just as it would be sensitive for Muslims if someone were allowed to write without consequence that Muhammad was a thief or a murderer. These are sensitive topics, but we cannot prohibit others from expressing them, as they represent their own free opinions and beliefs. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our forum rules. Specifically, on the Religion subforum, it is clearly stated in the forum rule that there are no "sacred cows"—meaning no protected faiths or churches that are off-limits when it comes to discussing their historical or modern actions. Therefore, the Catholic Church's responsibility regarding its support for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany, or the fascist regime under General Franco in Spain, cannot be treated as a forbidden topic. It is no different than discussing the terrorist attacks by extremists on civilians. Every faith and church is open to free criticism through the expression of arguments and viewpoints, but it is also perfectly fine to defend any faith or church here. You, for instance, could defend your church by citing positive examples of its conduct during the Third Reich or in Franco's Spain. Similarly, Muslims can explain how terrorism contradicts Islam or provide positive examples.
Every member has been familiar with all of this since the day they registered on the forum.
In fact, this is the entire purpose and goal of forum dialogue. 🙂 By exchanging views—even those that are vastly different—and clashing through proper argumentation, we learn from one another, which ultimately contributes to better social conditions and greater understanding among people.
Because of this, I don't believe walking away from the forum is the answer; rather, it is patient dialogue.
Best regards
That’s simply not true... what are we supposed to do about a moderator who clearly, demonstrably, and patently abuses their position of power through censorship and biased moderation? What happens to someone like that?
