Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I wonder

bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:54:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

I think that it is obvious, whatcha think?
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user. If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 10:51:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user. If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

You're most certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to voice that opinion. As much as you understand that, you should understand that bulproof also has the right to an opinion and to voice that opinion. And while it is true that bulproof is sometimes less than complimentary of those he addresses, I've yet to see him try to over-throw the forum, present lists which are admitted to be "lists for blood" or driven by a lust for blood, as Wylted has admitted of his friend's goals which have been paraded under the guise of strict adherence to the Terms of Service.

If you've been paying attention, you've already witnessed the new President's blatant attempts at enacting two different standards of behavior; one for bulproof, dee-em, and whoever else may be on his growing list, and another for himself and his friends. In a single night and in a single thread Wylted twice violated the profanity rule through deliberate misspellings to push his comments past the profanity filter, violated the harassment rule multiple times, violated the rule against sexual slurs, and when directed by a mod to stop, he responded with arrogant and flippant sarcasm. It is clear that he is under the impression that as the friend of the new president, he is above the rules. And what did Mikal have to say about this? He tried to justify Wylted's blatant disregard of the rules by addressing his violation of the profanity rule as not being a violation of the rule against harassment. So either he's unaware that there is a rule against profanity, or he was attempting to side-step the obvious violations.

Multiple times Mikal has been urged to promote the same treatment of Wylted that he proposes for bulproof for committing the same offenses multiple times, and each and every time he has either ignored these requests or attempted to defend Wylted's blatant and casual disregard for the very same rules he wishes to use to flog those he dislikes.

Bulproof can be abrasive, clever, profound and less than complimentary and I've had times when he took a few jabs at me, as well as times when I found is short comments to display amazing profundity. No one enjoys feeling as though they've been put down but most of us have had our moments which we look back upon as less than our best. I'll take an entire user-base of people who aren't on their best behavior over a member of forum administration who believes that his position should be abused to pursue the punishment of everyone he dislikes, and immunity for those he does like. And this is EXACTLY what we have already seen from the new President (Mikal). And it's not a matter of this occurring once or even twice. He continues to show his intent to abuse his position as well as demonstrating pure arrogance in suggesting that he's now untouchable.

Don't lose sight of the fact that it was people who were so hungry for change that they became blind to some fairly bold realities, who raised Hitler to power in Germany. It's terribly hazardous to become so blinded by hatred of the devil you know, that you fail to see the dangers in the devil you don't know. Mikal and Wylted have already shown their cards several times. No one will benefit from the type of elitist hypocrisy they're attempting to exercise. If you think that kind of thing can't take over an entire forum, I'd love to introduce you to ChristianForums.com. I haven't been there for a few years, but people like Mikal and Wylted became moderators, and new rules were invoked which made it a violation to question a moderator action, or even post information about any moderator action. They installed an impenetrable curtain of rules to completely blind the casual Christian user from their horrendous levels of corruption against non-Christians, and topped it off with an absolute gag order.

http://www.debate.org...
Wylted: "But I do fvck pvssies. Not as frequently and as many as I'd like but it does happen." (Post 228)
Wylted: "She has a vagina, I don't refer to her as a vagina. I don't fvck women, I fvck their Vaginas." (Post #239)

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal: Wylted referring to a vagina and talking about how he has sex is not harassing someone. (Post #56)

Is that really the kind of double-standard you want to see imposed?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:23:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 10:51:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user. If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

You're most certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to voice that opinion. As much as you understand that, you should understand that bulproof also has the right to an opinion and to voice that opinion. And while it is true that bulproof is sometimes less than complimentary of those he addresses, I've yet to see him try to over-throw the forum, present lists which are admitted to be "lists for blood" or driven by a lust for blood, as Wylted has admitted of his friend's goals which have been paraded under the guise of strict adherence to the Terms of Service.

If you've been paying attention, you've already witnessed the new President's blatant attempts at enacting two different standards of behavior; one for bulproof, dee-em, and whoever else may be on his growing list, and another for himself and his friends. In a single night and in a single thread Wylted twice violated the profanity rule through deliberate misspellings to push his comments past the profanity filter, violated the harassment rule multiple times, violated the rule against sexual slurs, and when directed by a mod to stop, he responded with arrogant and flippant sarcasm. It is clear that he is under the impression that as the friend of the new president, he is above the rules. And what did Mikal have to say about this? He tried to justify Wylted's blatant disregard of the rules by addressing his violation of the profanity rule as not being a violation of the rule against harassment. So either he's unaware that there is a rule against profanity, or he was attempting to side-step the obvious violations.

Multiple times Mikal has been urged to promote the same treatment of Wylted that he proposes for bulproof for committing the same offenses multiple times, and each and every time he has either ignored these requests or attempted to defend Wylted's blatant and casual disregard for the very same rules he wishes to use to flog those he dislikes.

Bulproof can be abrasive, clever, profound and less than complimentary and I've had times when he took a few jabs at me, as well as times when I found is short comments to display amazing profundity. No one enjoys feeling as though they've been put down but most of us have had our moments which we look back upon as less than our best. I'll take an entire user-base of people who aren't on their best behavior over a member of forum administration who believes that his position should be abused to pursue the punishment of everyone he dislikes, and immunity for those he does like. And this is EXACTLY what we have already seen from the new President (Mikal). And it's not a matter of this occurring once or even twice. He continues to show his intent to abuse his position as well as demonstrating pure arrogance in suggesting that he's now untouchable.

Don't lose sight of the fact that it was people who were so hungry for change that they became blind to some fairly bold realities, who raised Hitler to power in Germany. It's terribly hazardous to become so blinded by hatred of the devil you know, that you fail to see the dangers in the devil you don't know. Mikal and Wylted have already shown their cards several times. No one will benefit from the type of elitist hypocrisy they're attempting to exercise. If you think that kind of thing can't take over an entire forum, I'd love to introduce you to ChristianForums.com. I haven't been there for a few years, but people like Mikal and Wylted became moderators, and new rules were invoked which made it a violation to question a moderator action, or even post information about any moderator action. They installed an impenetrable curtain of rules to completely blind the casual Christian user from their horrendous levels of corruption against non-Christians, and topped it off with an absolute gag order.

http://www.debate.org...
Wylted: "But I do fvck pvssies. Not as frequently and as many as I'd like but it does happen." (Post 228)
Wylted: "She has a vagina, I don't refer to her as a vagina. I don't fvck women, I fvck their Vaginas." (Post #239)

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal: Wylted referring to a vagina and talking about how he has sex is not harassing someone. (Post #56)

Is that really the kind of double-standard you want to see imposed?

I'm not aware of the details of the drama surrounding Mikal and friends, and my post only deals with the Bulproof issue. Bulproof has been trolling here for a long time, way before Mikal became president, and his behavior is a totally separate issue.

Wylted's behavior is an issue for the mods to deal with. I agree that Wylted's comments violate the "spirit", so to speak, of the curse filter, and if I were a mod they would be deleted.

Appealing to Bulproof's "freedom of speech" here, seems nonsensical to me. Freedom of speech allows you the right to voice a dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions, when actually supported by legitimate argumentation, actually encourages discussion and participation, in a forum. Constant belittling, name-calling, insults, and generally childish behavior, which is what Bul provides, does not encourage participation and actually discourages legitimate posters. That goes against the interest of the site, and its community. To claim this as "free speech rights", is a molestation of what free speech actually means.
lannan13
Posts: 23,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:42:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?

I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to what dee-em actually says. He's also accused Wylted of being a Christian, among other baseless assertions.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:23:40 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 10:51:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:

You're most certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to voice that opinion. As much as you understand that, you should understand that bulproof also has the right to an opinion and to voice that opinion. And while it is true that bulproof is sometimes less than complimentary of those he addresses, I've yet to see him try to over-throw the forum, present lists which are admitted to be "lists for blood" or driven by a lust for blood, as Wylted has admitted of his friend's goals which have been paraded under the guise of strict adherence to the Terms of Service.

If you've been paying attention, you've already witnessed the new President's blatant attempts at enacting two different standards of behavior; one for bulproof, dee-em, and whoever else may be on his growing list, and another for himself and his friends. In a single night and in a single thread Wylted twice violated the profanity rule through deliberate misspellings to push his comments past the profanity filter, violated the harassment rule multiple times, violated the rule against sexual slurs, and when directed by a mod to stop, he responded with arrogant and flippant sarcasm. It is clear that he is under the impression that as the friend of the new president, he is above the rules. And what did Mikal have to say about this? He tried to justify Wylted's blatant disregard of the rules by addressing his violation of the profanity rule as not being a violation of the rule against harassment. So either he's unaware that there is a rule against profanity, or he was attempting to side-step the obvious violations.

Multiple times Mikal has been urged to promote the same treatment of Wylted that he proposes for bulproof for committing the same offenses multiple times, and each and every time he has either ignored these requests or attempted to defend Wylted's blatant and casual disregard for the very same rules he wishes to use to flog those he dislikes.

Bulproof can be abrasive, clever, profound and less than complimentary and I've had times when he took a few jabs at me, as well as times when I found is short comments to display amazing profundity. No one enjoys feeling as though they've been put down but most of us have had our moments which we look back upon as less than our best. I'll take an entire user-base of people who aren't on their best behavior over a member of forum administration who believes that his position should be abused to pursue the punishment of everyone he dislikes, and immunity for those he does like. And this is EXACTLY what we have already seen from the new President (Mikal). And it's not a matter of this occurring once or even twice. He continues to show his intent to abuse his position as well as demonstrating pure arrogance in suggesting that he's now untouchable.

Don't lose sight of the fact that it was people who were so hungry for change that they became blind to some fairly bold realities, who raised Hitler to power in Germany. It's terribly hazardous to become so blinded by hatred of the devil you know, that you fail to see the dangers in the devil you don't know. Mikal and Wylted have already shown their cards several times. No one will benefit from the type of elitist hypocrisy they're attempting to exercise. If you think that kind of thing can't take over an entire forum, I'd love to introduce you to ChristianForums.com. I haven't been there for a few years, but people like Mikal and Wylted became moderators, and new rules were invoked which made it a violation to question a moderator action, or even post information about any moderator action. They installed an impenetrable curtain of rules to completely blind the casual Christian user from their horrendous levels of corruption against non-Christians, and topped it off with an absolute gag order.

http://www.debate.org...
Wylted: "But I do fvck pvssies. Not as frequently and as many as I'd like but it does happen." (Post 228)
Wylted: "She has a vagina, I don't refer to her as a vagina. I don't fvck women, I fvck their Vaginas." (Post #239)

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal: Wylted referring to a vagina and talking about how he has sex is not harassing someone. (Post #56)

Is that really the kind of double-standard you want to see imposed?

I'm not aware of the details of the drama surrounding Mikal and friends, and my post only deals with the Bulproof issue.
That is not the topic of this thread, nor is it appropriate to address your concerns in that regard in an open thread. If you have specific issues with Bulproof, you should contact a moderator, not wave dirty laundry for all to see. When you do that, you only complicate the issue for the moderator.

Bulproof has been trolling here for a long time, way before Mikal became president, and his behavior is a totally separate issue.
And again, that's an issue to be handled via the appropriate channels, not as a defense for the malfeasance boldly demonstrated by the new president, and the turmoil, anxiety and unrest he has brought to the forum. And THAT is the point of this thread.

Wylted's behavior is an issue for the mods to deal with. I agree that Wylted's comments violate the "spirit", so to speak, of the curse filter, and if I were a mod they would be deleted.
But if the act of deleting those comments is sufficient to handle the matter in regard to Wylted, then deleting Bulproof's comments must be considered sufficient as well.

Appealing to Bulproof's "freedom of speech" here, seems nonsensical to me. Freedom of speech allows you the right to voice a dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions, when actually supported by legitimate argumentation, actually encourages discussion and participation, in a forum. Constant belittling, name-calling, insults, and generally childish behavior, which is what Bul provides, does not encourage participation and actually discourages legitimate posters.
As does the very same thing when it comes from any other member, including Wylted. And yet, while Mikal proclaims strict and total adherence to the TOS, he adamantly defends Wylted for the very same behaviors which he insists are sufficient to place a ban on Bulproof. And if one is paying attention, they will notice a dramatic decline in such comments from bulproof, at the same time a dramatic escalation is demonstrated by Wylted.

That goes against the interest of the site, and its community. To claim this as "free speech rights", is a molestation of what free speech actually means.
That's patently untrue. Free speech means exactly that the phrase implies - speech free of restrictions, abridgments, limitations or prohibitions. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply stating that bulproof has the same rights as anyone else here, and the same limitations. And if Mikal is not willing to assess behaviors on that equal platform, then his abuse of his position needs to be addressed. He poses a much greater threat to the whole of the site, than does any single member.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If I had proof he'd have been gone long ago. But if he isn't just someone's multi-account, which allows them to troll for fun, then I pity the sad existence that he must lead.

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

Discouraging participation in a forum is deleterious to the interest of the site. That's just common sense. Membership on a web-site is not a right, it's a privilege. Revoking a membership and protecting the integrity of a site, is a right given to those charged with representing the interest of the owner and community, of said site.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:09:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If I had proof he'd have been gone long ago. But if he isn't just someone's multi-account, which allows them to troll for fun, then I pity the sad existence that he must lead.

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

Discouraging participation in a forum is deleterious to the interest of the site. That's just common sense.

I'm not denying that.

Membership on a web-site is not a right, it's a privilege. Revoking a membership and protecting the integrity of a site, is a right given to those charged with representing the interest of the owner and community, of said site.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:09:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If I had proof he'd have been gone long ago. But if he isn't just someone's multi-account, which allows them to troll for fun, then I pity the sad existence that he must lead.
Again, that is your opinion. It is my opinion that you have misjudged both his wit and his character, and that you are skating dangerously close to open harassment, while simultaneously, diverting the topic of the thread, and pointing fingers at others for alleged instances of harassment.

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

Discouraging participation in a forum is deleterious to the interest of the site. That's just common sense. Membership on a web-site is not a right, it's a privilege. Revoking a membership and protecting the integrity of a site, is a right given to those charged with representing the interest of the owner and community, of said site.
Redirecting the discussion of a thread to openly wave your distaste for another user is also considered to be deleterious to the interests of the site, and this is why it is openly discouraged. If you want to open a thread to directly address your issues with bulproof, I will be happy to report that thread and allow a moderator to determine whether or not such open discussion is in the interests of the whole of the site. If you would care to take your issues to a moderator, then they can be addressed in a far more appropriate manner.

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

He has violated TOS.

Such terms include:

No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.

No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.


Perhaps most importantly, these violations occur on a daily basis.

http://www.debate.org...
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 11:42:55 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?

I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to what dee-em actually says. He's also accused Wylted of being a Christian, among other baseless assertions.

What a terrible and heinous insult. "You're a Christian." That should be filtered as profanity.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:28:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:05:05 PM, Beastt wrote:

I'm not aware of the details of the drama surrounding Mikal and friends, and my post only deals with the Bulproof issue.

That is not the topic of this thread,

Au contraire, Bul brought up the issue himself...

"My demise is apparently part of his election platform?"

He opened the door for this discussion.

nor is it appropriate to address your concerns in that regard in an open thread. If you have specific issues with Bulproof, you should contact a moderator, not wave dirty laundry for all to see. When you do that, you only complicate the issue for the moderator.

But aren't you concerned about MY free speech rights??

Bulproof has been trolling here for a long time, way before Mikal became president, and his behavior is a totally separate issue.

And again, that's an issue to be handled via the appropriate channels, not as a defense for the malfeasance boldly demonstrated by the new president, and the turmoil, anxiety and unrest he has brought to the forum. And THAT is the point of this thread.

Again ,he brought it up, and I am not hindering, in any way, your ability to discuss whatever you want.

Wylted's behavior is an issue for the mods to deal with. I agree that Wylted's comments violate the "spirit", so to speak, of the curse filter, and if I were a mod they would be deleted.

But if the act of deleting those comments is sufficient to handle the matter in regard to Wylted, then deleting Bulproof's comments must be considered sufficient as well.

I'm ok with that.

Appealing to Bulproof's "freedom of speech" here, seems nonsensical to me. Freedom of speech allows you the right to voice a dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions, when actually supported by legitimate argumentation, actually encourages discussion and participation, in a forum. Constant belittling, name-calling, insults, and generally childish behavior, which is what Bul provides, does not encourage participation and actually discourages legitimate posters.

As does the very same thing when it comes from any other member, including Wylted. And yet, while Mikal proclaims strict and total adherence to the TOS, he adamantly defends Wylted for the very same behaviors which he insists are sufficient to place a ban on Bulproof. And if one is paying attention, they will notice a dramatic decline in such comments from bulproof, at the same time a dramatic escalation is demonstrated by Wylted.

And again, I'm staying out of that because I don't know the whole story.

That goes against the interest of the site, and its community. To claim this as "free speech rights", is a molestation of what free speech actually means.

That's patently untrue. Free speech means exactly that the phrase implies - speech free of restrictions, abridgments, limitations or prohibitions. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply stating that bulproof has the same rights as anyone else here, and the same limitations. And if Mikal is not willing to assess behaviors on that equal platform, then his abuse of his position needs to be addressed. He poses a much greater threat to the whole of the site, than does any single member.

I have no qualms agreeing that equal actions should be taken for equal behaviors.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:27:31 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:42:55 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?

I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to what dee-em actually says. He's also accused Wylted of being a Christian, among other baseless assertions.

What a terrible and heinous insult. "You're a Christian." That should be filtered as profanity.

I didn't say it was an insult, I said it was an accusation--one with no proof or evidence in support.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user. If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:34:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:27:31 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:42:55 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?

I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to what dee-em actually says. He's also accused Wylted of being a Christian, among other baseless assertions.

What a terrible and heinous insult. "You're a Christian." That should be filtered as profanity.

More to the point, it's a little childish to label someone something you deem to be negative, just because they disagree with you.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:35:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:33:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:27:31 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:42:55 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:25:02 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?
The same character who tried to friend me and get me to vote for him.
Dunno, does anybody else see hypocrisy?

Wylted told me that Mikal was an atheist to try to buy my vote.
I voted for Bladerunner. Hahahaha.

lol, really?

I wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to what dee-em actually says. He's also accused Wylted of being a Christian, among other baseless assertions.

What a terrible and heinous insult. "You're a Christian." That should be filtered as profanity.

I didn't say it was an insult, I said it was an accusation--one with no proof or evidence in support.

I was just being sarcastic -.-
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:36:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:25:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

He has violated TOS.

Such terms include:

No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.

No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.


Perhaps most importantly, these violations occur on a daily basis.

http://www.debate.org...

Then disciplinary consequences are warranted.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:39:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:15:37 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
oh, Hogwash. You can't blame them for trying to keep disgreements moderated and civil.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:09:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 11:47:13 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/30/2014 9:41:50 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 5:41:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
Can anyone show me the improvement promised by the prez's harassment?
My demise is apparently part of his election platform?

You say this like it's a bad thing. Your non-stop, nonsensical trolling of every attempt at a discussion, discourages participation in the religion forum, which is harmful to the site. You're obviously a multi-account, of another user.

You have the burden of proof. Where is the evidence that he is a multi-account of another user?

If I had proof he'd have been gone long ago. But if he isn't just someone's multi-account, which allows them to troll for fun, then I pity the sad existence that he must lead.
Again, that is your opinion. It is my opinion that you have misjudged both his wit and his character, and that you are skating dangerously close to open harassment, while simultaneously, diverting the topic of the thread, and pointing fingers at others for alleged instances of harassment.

If not, and this is really your only account, then he would be doing you a huge favor, if he were to get you banned, because you obviously have bigger problems than whether or not someone else believes in God.

There is a simple fix here, multi-account or not. Contribute to discussions in a way that stimulates conversation, rather than discourages it. Everyone can handle an occasional snide or sarcastic remark, or an occasional episode of child-like or trollish behavior, but when those things are the total extent of your existence here, then your presence is a net negative, to the site. Constant name-calling, trolling, insults, etc., discourages and derails legitimate discussions, in any forum, and that is a death knell for a site that is built for the purpose of argumentation.

As long as he does not violate the terms of service, he did nothing wrong. People may disapprove of his actions, but that does not warrant a ban.

Discouraging participation in a forum is deleterious to the interest of the site. That's just common sense. Membership on a web-site is not a right, it's a privilege. Revoking a membership and protecting the integrity of a site, is a right given to those charged with representing the interest of the owner and community, of said site.
Redirecting the discussion of a thread to openly wave your distaste for another user is also considered to be deleterious to the interests of the site, and this is why it is openly discouraged. If you want to open a thread to directly address your issues with bulproof, I will be happy to report that thread and allow a moderator to determine whether or not such open discussion is in the interests of the whole of the site. If you would care to take your issues to a moderator, then they can be addressed in a far more appropriate manner.

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.

You're not bulproof. He's demonstrating intelligence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:49:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:44:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.

You're not bulproof. He's demonstrating intelligence.

How is insulting people for being a different religion than you without offering any civil opposition or logical arguments demonstrating intelligence?

This comment I made though mentioning him wasn't even about him. Once again his merry men are causing him to be a major topic of discussion for no good reason.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:52:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:49:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:44:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.

You're not bulproof. He's demonstrating intelligence.

How is insulting people for being a different religion than you without offering any civil opposition or logical arguments demonstrating intelligence?
There are 53 objective studies exploring the correlation between intelligence and religiosity which all confirm that less religious people tend to display superior intelligence, while more religious people tend to display inferior intelligence. I don't believe the TOS are intended to assure that no one is allowed to post that which is demonstrated to be an objective truth.

This comment I made though mentioning him wasn't even about him. Once again his merry men are causing him to be a major topic of discussion for no good reason.
See it how you wish to see it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:52:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:49:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:44:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.

You're not bulproof. He's demonstrating intelligence.

How is insulting people for being a different religion than you without offering any civil opposition or logical arguments demonstrating intelligence?
There are 53 objective studies exploring the correlation between intelligence and religiosity which all confirm that less religious people tend to display superior intelligence, while more religious people tend to display inferior intelligence. I don't believe the TOS are intended to assure that no one is allowed to post that which is demonstrated to be an objective truth.

Is that what he does? Post objective truth? I think it's more like a hit and run quick dismissal with an added insult to it. The average intelligence of atheists being higher than theists doesn't mean they're right or that no retarded atheists exist.

By your logic we should all be on Hasidic Jews because they have a higher average intelligence than atheists.

This comment I made though mentioning him wasn't even about him. Once again his merry men are causing him to be a major topic of discussion for no good reason.
See it how you wish to see it.

It's an objective fact. The comment was about you keeping this argument alive by repeatedly bringing up Bulprof. The original comment wasn't about Bulprof.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 12:52:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:49:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:44:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:41:19 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2014 12:18:35 PM, Beastt wrote:

However, I do believe that if you would try to allow the past to remain the past and focus your interests in the present and future, you will begin to notice that there is a significant decline in the very behaviors you seem to insist upon discussing through an open and inappropriate venue.

This conversation about Bulprof wouldn't even be taking place if it weren't for the fact that you and deem are bringing it up at every turn. If I was Bulprof, I'd request that you guys stop speaking on my behalf.

You're not bulproof. He's demonstrating intelligence.

How is insulting people for being a different religion than you without offering any civil opposition or logical arguments demonstrating intelligence?

There are 53 objective studies exploring the correlation between intelligence and religiosity which all confirm that less religious people tend to display superior intelligence, while more religious people tend to display inferior intelligence. I don't believe the TOS are intended to assure that no one is allowed to post that which is demonstrated to be an objective truth.

It is a violation of TOS if done in an insulting manner. Bulprof doesn't exactly refer to any objective (or otherwise) studies that demonstrate a lesser intelligence with the very religious or make an argument in his case, rather he states things along the lines of: "you're stupid", "slut" "moron", "retard", "go back to the sand pit", "little girl/boy", "go home to mummy", etc. I have not seen one post in which he has ever referred to studies or evidences.

This comment I made though mentioning him wasn't even about him. Once again his merry men are causing him to be a major topic of discussion for no good reason.
See it how you wish to see it.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:03:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me say this again. Can we all behave like rational adults and stop the endless sniping and finger pointing? If you have a problem, report it to the moderator. That's what that little link on each post is for.

If that's not satisfactory then go somewhere else where the environment is more to your liking. I dislike the prospect of any kind of censorship and I will object to anything that smacks of it. As my grandma used to say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.