Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough? [Housekeeping...]

I get lots of warnings instead of bans now; whereas, before I used to bet banned. I'm always grateful to make it through the day.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "I get banned very often."

I think the time in the sin bin can get longer like a five minute major in hockey.

"What ever happen to Jesus is love?"

You aren't a Christian so you tell us (2 Pe 2:1).

Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

"I have been quoting and using Jesus' wisdom in all my comments."

No. Wisdom comes from the word of God (2 Tim. 3:15–17). Why do you speak with make-believers (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Mt 7:15) who want you silenced? Speak with believers (2 Sa 7:20; 2 Ti 2:19 ).

"Does Jesus say it is ok to slander anyone who is serving Him?"

You may think you are serving him but you are deceived (Ga 5:9, Jn 1:1). 

"Yet you main-streamers say you are saved without obeying Jesus."

We obey his law (Deut 11:27; Isa 42:24). How could we know grace if we were not made aware of our sin and need for a Savior? Ro 6:1. You are speaking with make-believers who do not have your best interests in mind (Eph 2:2; Tit 1:16; 3:3).

"You guys are so strange."

1 Chron 29:15, Ro 12:2

"Make believe? Jesus' commandments are make believe?"

No, no. Make-believers. If you are speaking with people who claim we do not need to obey God's word, they aren't the real deal (Ps 119:97).

"If you have a talking faith that is not a walking faith, you have a mocking faith." ~ Jim Andrews

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I didn't want you banned or ask for it. In fact, if you read my request that went along with reporting your spamming the thread I specifically noted that I wasn't after that, only the ability to return the thread to functionality so that others could participate in the spirit of the thing."

Fair enough. I didn't read it, but I appreciate that.

"The only people I ever really actively want banned are the routine blasphemers or people who trade in profanity..."

I know this type of person very well.  Those secret service men who were caught in that scandal--let's just say--I've spent a lot of time around their type.  I bet you're happier around lawyer-types with shiny shoes.

But yes, TOL should be family-friendly.

"...Mostly I think a place like this thrives on differences of opinion, via what I hope is more often than not good natured or at least civil rough and tumble demonstrating a grasp of subject, reasoned opinion and, hopefully, a measure of wit. Knight and company do a pretty good job of keeping the balance on that front."

They do. Hopefully Knight is the only one who can ban. Is that the case? It should be.

"My best friend is a former lifer Marine MSG. I have a number of friends in my profession, but I can't say I prefer their company."

I've spent a couple of decades in the company of military types, too.

"I don't think Knight requires his mods to check with him on that, but I don't know. I've never asked."

I wish he would. TOL might be the last place a person checks in on before he's hit by a Mack Truck. I don't want Christians in particular to be banned.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "I would say it is good for the most part. If anything I sometimes think the non-Christians are banned too quickly."

You would say that (Eph 4:14).

"There are a couple posters, like SD and TSF, that I would like to see banned but I'm not sure they actually break enough rules to warrant it."

I'm up to two warnings in two days (1, 2).

The moderators cozy up to God-haters (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5). 

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I just ordered the brown long sleve T."

What's with the "banned" t-shirt? Is it supposed to be a cute thing to be banned?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "There's something you don't get to say?"

This would be a good topic for a new thread.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Meshak] "It doesn't save you from repercussions from being a forum pest and breaking the rules."

Do you think it's right to ban a member for being a pest? I believe Joey got a lifetime ban for this--and he's a Christian! 1 Pe 3:8. I could see a day or a week--but forever. What did he do? Prove that sock puppet accounts are undetectable because you can keep changing your IP address? Did he ask too many questions?

I don't defend Meshak's theology (2 Pe 2:1) by the way.

Response to comment [from other]: "I did not know you could collect infractions." [ebenz47037 quote: "Although I don't have any infractions, I will use myself as an example:

ebenz47037
Proverbs 31:10
Posts: 10,669
Posts per day: 2.99
Join date: August 2002
Location: southeastern Indiana
Rep power: 183725
Christian
Right wing zealot
Slogan/Motto: ***************
Blog entries: 6

If I had any infractions, it would show up under join date and say something similar to Infractions: 1/2 (1).]
 

Take a look at my record Flipster:

...
Infractions: 2/1 (1)
Rep Power: 24715
Christian
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Telling That Which is Profitable (Acts 20:20).
Blog Entries: 1
 

Yesterday and today I got warnings. I didn't get the more serious infraction which would be included in the total 2/1 (1).  The infractions expire eventually. 

 Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM
Interview a Member Thread
Reason: Thread hijacking January 19th, 2012 11:15 PM by ebenz47037 0 / July 18th, 2012 12:15 AM
Two Missing Legs: Did...
Reason: Duplicating content from the AIG website July 24th, 2010 01:58 PM by Knight 5 / Expired
Creation Is Religion Pt V
Reason: Posting previous essays/writings July 18th, 2010 02:51 PM by Knight 2 / Expired

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "If I report someone, I am thinking they need a good whacking! Being banned is not funny and those who make it a habit, it seems to me, they are not serious about their participation, which is when I think longer banns are best.  My answer to the question, is I think short bans are good; we see how much the person banned takes the punishment serious, or if they come back complaining, they are being pests.  I think it should be up to you, Knight, as to how many pests are allowed and what degree of pest behaviour should be tolerated."

The moderator’s decisions can be often arbitrary and capricious.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "[O]nce banned always banned does not apply here."

Except for Joey.
Perhaps it's the black robe complex that judges get. (I don't mean any one moderator. I don't know who banned him. I'm speaking in general.) When otherwise normal men put the black robe of a judge on, people around them say that they become full of themselves. Pride should be kept in check (Pr 21:4).

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "[W]ho should be banned that has not been banned?"

How would you answer that question yourself?

"I think billybob should be banned more frequently."

I believe you got your wish. He is banned as we speak. There's always Twitter.   Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5.
Satan loves to discourage the believer. Rev. 12:10, 1 Pet. 5:8. To any Christian that has been banned on a whim, I would encourage him/her to put on the full armor of the Lord (Eph 6:10-20) before logging on (Eph 6:12).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I don't think that's true. There's a bias in play as to getting slack cut..."

You know more about the individual situations than I do.

I tried to discuss that issue with you. It led to my second warning.

This dialogue (which was less interesting than watching paint dry ) led to my asking you this question.

That resulted in my first warning. Then, you posted this odd comment which suggested that you are favored by TOL moderators because of your financial support (Ex 23:8)-- second warning.

Will asking you these questions get me banned today for: thread hijacking or being disruptive? Do you have an arrangement with the Gestapo to not allow members who challenge you when you gossip about them in your Small Observations Thread?

I don't report people. I don't give negative rep.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "You have it backwards. Joey's theology wasn't even Christian."

Is that right?  I didn't speak with him enough to know.

"He posted blasphemy a few times or did you forget?"

I remember the never ending questions. 

"The blasphemous videos he posted got him the ban."

I didn't view them but I trust your judgment.  I do not attend your turtle club meetings.

"Then he tried to get back on with sock accounts that got him permanently booted off the board."

That taught us something. I always wondered if that Chloe O'Brian modulating IP address software was for real.

"His own stupidity got him kicked off. He wasn't a victim. If anyone was a victim is was the members of TOL that had to endure his spam."

Aren't the Lefties (Eccl 10:2) always telling us if you don't like their comments, don't read them?

I'm not here to teach antichrists (2 Pe 2:1) how to survive on TOL.

"Townie who you like to pester so much is a Christian."

Get your terms right. I am a "thread hijacker" who is "unnecessarily disruptive". Summary

"Pestering him is what got you the warnings and the infraction. I can see the woodshed and read what is going on."

Interesting reading? 2 Thess. 3:11

God: "You've been doing a lot of complaining about me, Bruce. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it."
Bruce: "Wait, really. I'm warning you. When I'm backed into a corner, I'm like a wild animal!"
God: "You haven't won a fight since the fifth grade and that was against a girl."
Bruce: "Yeah, but she was huge."
God: "And the sun was in your eyes." ~ Bruce Almighty Ps 82:6

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Nah. You got your warning for spamming my thread. You were on post number three or four if memory serves. Anyway, neither my profile page nor my PM is locked. So anyone wanting a side bar on something with me that they don't want to create a thread to get into is always free to use those."

I prefer these things to be out in the open for all to see. Summary

Maybe the moderators are lazy. Maybe they don't look into the history of the argument. Maybe you're right and they side with you (Eccl 10:2) because you financially support TOL (Ex 23:8).

Do you want members to be able to respond to your gossip thread when you mention their name or discuss their position from a previous argument? Do you want the opposition silenced?
 

[Boring dialogue and subsequent question regarding style] "See, that's just an insult with interesting punctuation."

It was too probing a question.  

[That resulted in my first warning.] "Actually, it was the straw, not an isolated instance. You'd been warned off for posting a stream of insults prior."

I must have missed that memo.

"You don't remember the whole, "You must not be a good lawyer" line of nonsense?"

Was I supposed to get a warning from that post, too?

Fact is, you have a lot of time on your hands. You claim to be a lawyer; but, you appear afraid to address opposition to your arguments. TOL is for debate. Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to specialize in?

[Odd post] "You didn't get it and/or you didn't actually read any of it before you plucked my one repost/link..."

I didn't understand. That is why I asked for an explanation. The inquiry lead to warning number two.
 

"You got a warning because what you were up to was fairly obvious and it was part of a series of similar posts."

In general do you not want others to be able to challenge your comments?

"You should use the PM or profile bit if you actually have a question about why I'm doing a thing."

The long tedious dialogue showed any gluttons for punishment how the Left argues (Eccl 10:2). In that way it was a worthwhile exercise.
 

"...[Y]our actual point deduction came from you commenting after you'd been warned off and you weren't quoted or actually even mentioned in the lengthy repost you pulled the quote from to "ask a question"."

I received a new email from your thread and that is what I responded to. My user options are set up to automatically subscribe to any thread that I have previously commented in.  

[I don't report people. I don't give negative rep.] "No. Your gossip is in a signature line."

I warn others about dangerous make-believers (Eph 5:11, Ga 5:9).
 

"[Y]ou routinely misrepresent people, which is a polite way of saying you lie..."

You're projecting again. Let the reader decide.

"...[B]efore I ever reported a post by you I asked you to stop, to get in the spirit of the thread or take it elsewhere."

“Sorry gang, have to lock this down while I report the spammer.” ~ Town Heretic link

Why would you have to lock down a thread? I don't lock down threads.

"Heck, when I reported it I made it clear (even with the earlier incidents of the same tough more pointedly insulting nature) that I was only looking to have you warned off, not penalized."

I appreciate that. Are you moving to the Right?

[Moderators and TH's requests] "See, that's you doing the whole lying thing again, since I've never said or suggested that the moderators are swayed by financial support.  That was your disrespect in play, not mine."

I must have misunderstood. :

[Do you want members to be able to respond to your gossip thread .] "Again: it isn't a gossip thread. I cull bits and pieces from conversations I have among other things (though less of those since Jack's arrival). Don't like it? Don't read it."

Is that a yes or a no. I enjoy your updates to the thread. I've responded to others from a point I've missed after reading your highlights. If my name comes up and I disagree, usually I respond.

"...And your last infraction came on your response to a post that had nothing to do with you."

Your odd comment seemed related to the earlier thread. It was in all caps (yelling). Apparently, it meant something to you. Were you just being silly? I don't know.

"You hadn't been referenced since you'd been warned away for repeatedly spamming the thread. Anyone interested can go to Observations and see that for themselves."

link

"This is a great outlet and I get decent dialog ideas from some of the conversations as well as the opportunity to keep up with friends here."

You're a lawyer. You aren't supposed to have to call in the cavalry to avoid tough questions or try to make me disappear.

"Lawyers are trained in critical thinking and its application to the law. Debate is only a part of that."

You should read How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Everyday by Gerry Spence

"Argue" is a bad word but argument is actually a good thing.

[I didn't understand. That is why I asked for an explanation.] "I don't believe you. Neither did the admin."

You were incoherent and they were lazy.

"[E]very thread linked to in my Observations thread is an ongoing argument."

I commented on your observation of the argument.  You observe that you win the argument.  I observe that you do not.  If you don't want me to chime in, I won't.

"I omit you lying about my political orientation."

You now identify yourself as "more left than right".  How do we disagree?

"You can still unsubscribe to a specific thread."

Works for me. If you don't want my comments, just say so. I've never had to unsubscribe to a thread before.

[I warn others about dangerous make-believers...] "You strike me as someone in need of significance."

You're projecting again. My deep-soul security is part of my salvation. It is my right as a child of God. I am able to grow in humility because of my identity in Him (Moore).

"You make claims you can't support and then declare "Let the reader decide.""

If you believe that I misrepresent a bible verse, you're going to have to bring more to the table than "That's not what that verse means." Make your case--lawyer.

"When the reader does, publicly, as zoo recently did, you attack them, call them pagans, etc. So there you are."

The pagan heathens who identify as "other" routinely come out to support you.  What does that say about you?  Ps 26:5.  You call God-haters "friend". 

[Why would you have to lock down a thread?] "To keep you from launching posts meant to derail it while I asked the mod to warn you off the activity instead of asking for you to receive an infraction for a rules violation."

How do you derail a thread? Does a new spider silk derail the entire spider web?  

"I did that even after you'd done the same thing prior and with even a more incendiary use of verbiage...that old "You aren't a very good lawyer, are you?" sort of insult."

Your argument style is on display for all to see. Are you proud of this dialogue? Most people move to the right as they get older. If you don't, what are we to conclude? Eccl 10:2


[I don't lock down threads.] "Who's trying to spam yours?"

PlastikBuddah (aka Gamara aka Taikoo, aka ThermalCry, aka Samstarrett, aka IXOYE) used some strange tactics. AB used roll out a bunny trail or two. Why would I care? I don't use the term spam. It's meaningless. If I don't want to answer a post because it doesn't forward the argument, I don't. It's an unopened can of so-called spam which harms no one.

[I appreciate your suggestion for a warning instead of a ban] "No, you say that but then you went right back at it."

Someone doesn't know how to take a compliment. I am pleased that you asked for me not to be banned. Someone misquoted Barbarian today and he expressed concern, wondering if the member was banned because of it. This is an improvement to the forum in my opinion. In years past I would have gotten no warning.

[Are you moving to the Right?] "I believe I have a little since my arrival here, but I haven't taken another of the tests on the subject. So as far as I know I'm still, essentially, about dead center with an incremental lean to the left and more so in the libertarian side of things."

I hope so (Pr 27:17).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Joey A.] "He was too much of a pest! And he was..."
 

Others are saying he wasn't a Christian. If that's true (and I didn't know enough about him to form an opinion) then I am not interested in defending him. I thought he was probably banned for the many questions and the multiple sock puppet accounts.

In general, people shouldn't be banned for being a pain in my opinion.  There's no point in discussing it. We don't make the rules (Pr 19:12).

"...Rusha is not Christian; however, she has never been a pest, she has the balance it takes to be a good moderator."

Rusha's a moderator.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [I must have misunderstood.] "You misunderstood your own writing?"

I understand my writing. I don't understand your writing. I don't know what you meant by this.

You say I do understand. You also say that the administrators "didn't buy it". After all these posts, why haven't you just explained what it means.
 

"...[Y]ou were the one who speculated that it was my financial contributions that influenced the mods. Peculiar."

Is that true? I don't know. Your odd statement seemed to indicate that that is what you believe. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

"As a rule, if you don't know what it is you're saying you should either stop saying it or run for Congress."

You don't write clearly. 

"...[Y]our last response, the one that ended with an infraction, wasn't in connection with anything written about or to you. And here's another expression of your enjoyment in reading my highlights [link]

That was my response to you. I also responded to others who actually did want to address the issues based on your highlights.
 

[link]

This describes your style--the let me-tell-you-every-detail-of-my-day-bore. This is the purpose of your Observation thread. You are a gossip (2 Thess 3:11) It's similar to Barbie's inaccurate summations but he does not provide links whereas you do. 

[link]

You are a control freak.

It is a trait of the Left (Eccl 10:2). To this about the Left is to deny reality.

"Is it that you don't know the difference between the truth and a lie, know but don't care..."

"Make it an infraction worthy offense to post more than twice in a row outside of a thread you create.” ~ Town Heretic link

“Have you ever considered removing the non subscribers ability to delete posts?” ~ Town Heretic link

"Go look for the moderate designation. Because that's what my actual position should look like."
 

Ask the administrators to provide a "moderate" option. 

"I don't want to argue points being argued in the threads referenced..."

You don't have to.  The administrators sided with you.  

"If you want to take up a point then take it up in the thread where it's being argued."

The point had already been made in the thread referenced. You bring a new point up when you make a fallacious argument in your Observation thread.

You have it arranged so that others cannot refute your charges.

"Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic link Ad hominem

"...[H]ave to lock this down while I report the spammer." ~ Town Heretic link Ad hominem

"Welcomed the wind in the willowjoy..." ~ Town Heretic link Ad hominem

"With an aside for the ever volatile..." ~ Town Heretic link Ad hominem

"...[H]e did what he always does when his ears are redder than Rudolph's nose..." ~ Town Heretic link Ad hominem

"Commented on the danger of personalizing argument..." ~ Town Heretic link

[Security and identity in the Lord leading to increased humility] "Nothing says "I'm growing in humility" quite like pointing it out to others."

You claimed I am someone in need of significance. My significance is in Christ (Ro 7:18).

"I've stated the why of my objection to your abuse of scripture to lend authority to declarations unsupported in association with their target."

If you believe that I misrepresent scripture, make your case.

"Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..." Full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson

[You call God-haters "friend".] "I love them as Christ loved them."

Mal 1:3, Jn 17:9, Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5. 

[Most people move to the right as they get older.] "That's a saying you're confusing with a fact."

Those who will be wise move to the right (Eccl 10:2).

[What should we conclude about you?] "You don't conclude. You just declare whatever reality suits you."

Who cares what suits me? What suits God? Eccl 10:2

"I omit helping you in your ongoing attempt at assassinating the character of other members..."

Mk 3:25

[...I am pleased that you asked for me not to be banned.] "I didn't say you weren't pleased. I said you didn't appreciate it."

I don't appreciate you reporting me.  I do appreciate that when you did report me, you asked for me not to be banned.

"Thank you, sir! May I have another?" ~ Chip, Animal House

[Town Heretic odd comment] "Try going to the thread via the link provided and see what's going on."

You've moved the post. Why don't you just explain it in your own words. You posted this shortly after reporting me. Is there a connection? What does it mean?

"[T]his line should have told you something:  Poster neither started thread nor is an actual subscriber."

You are a subscriber.  Who are you talking about?  Why was this immediately on your mind right after asking Knight to give me a warning?

"...The imagined person is making ominous threats and attempting to close a thread that isn't his. Worse, even were it his thread his lack of subscriber status would preclude the action..."

I don't close threads myself so I have not run into this situation.  Are you boasting about your membership abilities? 

"...Even a cursory reading of that post should have told you it was part of a running joke thread. And nothing in it should have led to your baffling conclusion were you inclined to accept it as War of the Worlds radio serious... good grief."

"He's not funny." ~ Teresa Heinz Kerry

[Control freak suggestions:  "Make it an infraction worthy offense to post more than twice in a row outside of a thread you create." ~ Town Heretic] "There were a few posters launching four or more posts in a row, turning the stated purpose of the forums here, dialogue, into monologues and blogs."

Why does this bother you?

"...[N]ot every thread is for everyone. Don't care for it, don't subscribe to it. Change the channel. Start your own link. Begin a vegetable garden. Whatever."

Can't you unsubscribe? Change the channel. Start your own link? Begin a vegetable garden?

You like other's opinions--as long as they agree with you (Eccl 10:2).

[Control freak suggestions: "Have you ever considered removing the non subscribers ability to delete posts?”] "It came in response to Gros erasing large sections of his writing, making it difficult for those attempting to point out to him and others what they found objectionable about his posts."

Why does this bother you? When a member subscribes to a thread, he gets an email response. Sometimes, the member will edit or delete the original post. Who cares? You can reply to the original comment if you'd like because you have a copy of it in your email. If you get to the original post and there are any changes, address the original argument or address the changes. If you address the original comment, make an indication with a timestamp of the time it arrived in your email. If you address the revised version, link to the revised post. This is not a problem.

Gros recently revised the entire introduction to a thread complaining about Knight. I think he came to his senses and withdrew the original complaint. Isn't that a good thing?

"Your original criticism of that post was, hysterically enough, that I was attempting to "silence" people...the day you can silence a person by insisting their words remain for consideration is the day you have an argument."

It would seem that you attempt to remove member's freedom to express their views, or revise or extend their comments. Why? You call for me to get warnings? Why? You are a lawyer. You are supposed to be able to attack arguments not people.

Let Gros be Gros.

"Why is what I do so important? Why must I always be the focal point of attention? Let me just be. Let me live." ~ George Costanza

[Exposing your leftists tendencies] "You're being dishonest..."

Proof please.

[Lying] "It's a trait of dishonorable people."

Strawman. I agree. Lying is a trait of dishonorable people.

I am not speaking about lying. I am speaking about the Left's desire to control people. The Left, for example, wants government more in your life. The Right wants government less in your life. Denying this denies reality. Eccl 10:2

You, being more left than right (your own self identification), tend to want to control people. I, being on the right, do not.

[You have it arranged so that others cannot refute your charges. ] "No I haven't."

If I post in your Observation thread, I get a warning.

Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM

If I were to post in your thread again, do you think I'd get another warning or even banned? I do.

"Every repost is linked to the thread where the argument is ongoing. That's where the argument belongs..."

Until you add something new.

"...I link to draw people to the thread."

Highlighting certain threads is a good idea.  I keep a record of threads that I participate in.

"You want a different editorial slant..."

You add a slant (your word not mine). I responded to your slant.

"...start your own thread."

I could but I won't. I'm not going to start an observations to the observations thread. If you don't want replies, say so. I'm assuming you don't unless you say otherwise.

"Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic [link... Ad hominem] "That's not about you. It's about a poster who places everyone who disagrees strongly with her on ignore."

Strawman. I don't endorse that member (2 Pe 2:1). Yours was an ad hominem attack which members should be allowed to respond to. I support attacking bad theology (Ga 5:9) not people.

".[I]t's a characterization based on actual practice..."

Strawman. You may be right. I make the point that it is absurd to not be able to reply in your Observation thread when you make mention of me. Warning 1, 2

"Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry." ~ Dennis Prager

"I'll omit your more of the same rhetoric that follows..."

Do you mean more examples of your fallacious arguments? 

[Identity in Christ] "I think that's great."

Keeping our pride in check is great.  I am positionally declared righteous though I have no righteousness of my own.

[If you believe that I misrepresent scripture, make your case.] "I have. And I've made my intent clear on not facilitating your further misuse of the Holy."

You made a truth claim:  I misuse scripture.  The reader will either agree with you or he won't.

"I'm not obligated to continue to make the same point you'll ignore over and over and I don't intend to."

I reject your claim.  We differ.  Next subject.

"As to Christ. He was criticized by religious leaders for spending time among the heathen. Go ahead. Misuse scripture to that end. The devil can do as much. Luke 5:32; John 3:16..."

If you believe I misuse scripture then say, SD this is an example of your misuse of Luke 5:32 or John 3:16. Here's why I think that. Then, provide all of your reasons for coming to your conclusion. I think it means this, etc. You may be right. Make an argument and let the reader decide. If the reader has the Holy Spirit indwelled, he'll respond to the truth (Jn 16:14).

I don't try to keep up with lies. I give out the word of God, what people do with it is their business (McGee).

[Those who will be wise move to the right (Eccl 10:2).] "This is a perfect illustration of how you misuse the Holy."

Let the reader decide.

"That scripture has nothing to do with political orientation. Using it like this trivializes the sacrosanct. Shame on you."

I don't think it's a coincidence that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3). I may be wrong. Let the reader decide.

Sidebar: Admittedly, only left-handed amino acids throw me for a loop in my theory.

[What does God say?] "The difference between us is that I don't confuse your desire with His mind."

Ad hominem. You believe I misrepresent scripture; therefore, you would logically come to that conclusion. Pas de problèmes, as the French would say. Take me out of the equation and determine what is true (Ac 17:11). Where we disagree, let the reader decide.

"You should literally have seen what that meant. I moved the whole thing past your spamming."

Proof please.

I originally asked you what this means. You explained that it was some imaginary character which was supposed to be funny.

According to you, I knew what you meant because--you are so clear.

"I am a subscriber. The persona in all caps isn't."

I'm happy for you and your imaginary play character.

"I only just explained exactly what was going on in the thread and why you had every reason to both understand that and to not come to the odd conclusion you managed to..."

You don't express yourself clearly.

"I don't know what you're talking about in regard to when Knight gave you warning."

Knight gave me a warning because you asked him to.  What don't you get? I cannot share the two PMs that he sent me because I have not been given permission to do so.

"The post in question didn't reference you. Nothing in that whole repost did."

Thank you for clarifying that point. 

[Suggestion one] "...[W]hen a poster erases large portions of his or her posting it makes it difficult for others to reference the remarks with authority..."

No it doesn't. You can respond to their original comments and allow them the freedom of making revisions and new comments.

"...[U]nless someone quoted them entirely, which doesn't happen that often."

If you subscribe to the thread, you get an email with their original comments.  If they change the comments, you can respond to that also.  I would suggest providing a timestamp so that the reader know that you are addressing a comment from an earlier revision.

[It would seem that you attempt to remove member's freedom to express their views, or revise or extend their comments.] "...[Y]ou can't support that."

I provided two examples. 1, 2 It seems like you want to limit freedom of speech. The Left is about Control (Eccl 20:2). The Right is about freedom (Jn 8:36).

"Same for extension. Revise? You have a point. It was probably a bad idea."

You are free to share your idea but in my opinion it was a bad one.

Leftist like to mock me for "post error" on many of my comments. There are too many reasons to list as to why it is necessary to revise a post (e.g. spaces in a YouTube link, capitalizing a particular smilie for it to display correctly, Revising Lu for Lk (Luke) or Co for Col (Colossians) from normal bible abbreviations for links to work in the system, revising [ ; ] [ ) ] in a quote so that it does not turn into a [] smilie, removing asterisks (*) that the computer perceives as consecutive numbers or bullet points, etc.).

[Reporting me] "Because you weren't giving [an] argument."

I asked a question. I could have asked: "Why are you so boring?" or "Do you think anyone enjoys reading your irrelevant, rabbit trail arguments?"

"You were mostly engaging in petty insult..."

The former would have been perceived as insulting. My comments which received warnings were genuine questions. I can help you figure out why you are the way you are (Eccl 10:2).

"Why are you the way you are." ~ Michael Scott to Toby, The Office

"You were mostly engaging in petty insult of the "I don't think you're so hot" variety. That's pointless, artless and unanswerable."

I did not quantify your "hotness".

[Lying] "Yes. I already set out you doing exactly that in relation to a conversation we had in another thread..."

Proof please.

"You adopted the old "let the reader decide" and then when zoo did called those who would support me either pagans or "other" when he was neither."

There are times when we are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide for himself who is right and who is wrong. The ZooAnimal, CheeseWiz, Noguru types will always be there to support you--until they become Christians (Eccl 10:2).

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

[The Left, for example, wants government more in your life. The Right wants government less in your life. Denying this denies reality.] "...[J]ust rhetoric."

Just delusional.

"You, being more left than right (your own self identification), tend to want to control people. I, being on the right, do not.] "Nope. My left leaning is both incremental and libertarian. Libertarians don't tend to want to control people..."

They are immoral conservatives (Enyart).

[If I were to post in your thread again, do you think I'd get another warning or even banned? :banned: I do.] "If you made one of your, "You must not be a very good lawyer" comments you should be."

You argue like the Left (Eccl 10:2). Does that translate into brilliance in the courtroom? You tell me. Here, we discuss spiritual matters.

[You add a slant (your word not mine). I responded to your slant.] "...[Y]ou didn't. I reproduce works and link to them so the whole thing is verifiable."

You provide commentary before the link.

"You just decided you'd insult me."

I responded to the commentary.

There would be no reason to respond to the original thread referenced.

"Then you did it again."

Then I responded to your odd sounding post in the same thread posted by you right after reporting me.

[I'm not going to start an observations to the observations thread.] "I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting you start your own thread for your own editorial perspective on whatever you write."

Your editorial perspective (your words not mine) was what I had responded to. You don't want to be challenged when you use ad hominem attacks against other TOL members.

[ Strawman. I don't endorse that member] "I didn't say you did. So the straw is between your ears alone."

The topic was ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread. I provided an example:

SD: "Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic

TH: "[The comment is] not about you. It's about a poster who places everyone who disagrees strongly with her on ignore."

SD: Strawman. I don't endorse that member (2 Pe 2:1). Yours was an ad hominem attack which members should be allowed to respond to. I support attacking bad theology (Ga 5:9) not people.

I returned to the topic of discussion--your use of ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread and should people be permitted to respond?

"It wasn't an ad hominem."

The example that I provided ("Took issue with the queen of ignore..." ~ Town Heretic) was an ad hominem attack.

"And I always tackle issues when there's one to tackle. [Meshak] doesn't want to argue. She wants to declare and then treat those who will argue against her theology to a hefty dose of ignore."

Strawman. Meshak was not and is not the issue.  I conceded that you are probably right to address her tactics.  However, you are wrong to think that you can add "editorial slants" or "editorial perspectives" (your words not mine) without being challenged. 

[I support attacking bad theology not people.] "The attack was on her practice: the practice of hiding behind ignore."

Strawman. Meshak was not and is not the issue. I happen to agree with your assessment of Meshak but we were discussing the issue of freedom to respond to ad hominem attacks in your Observation thread.

As you know, there have been many threads started about me specifically. I don't read these. It's bad form on their part. Similarly, if I come upon a thread with a member's name in the title created only to attack the person, the first thing I do is scan the thread to see if that member has chimed in. If they have and they've had the opportunity to defend themselves, I'll join the conversation.

There are rare cases when a member is so deceitful (Ga 5:9) that a thread should be devoted to them (Eph 5:11).

In the case of your thread, I graciously offered a critique. If you don't want my two cents, say so.

You know if you say so, you only prove my point that Leftists want to silence the critic. You will therefore invite me back into your thread and wonder how you ever lived without me.

[Alleged misuse of Eccl 10:2] "I set out your sad misuse of scripture to confuse a right hand with right wing politics."

I believe there is a spiritual issue at play. 

"...[T]hat's why your scripture will never see print in my responses and shame on you."

Whether you agree or disagree with a person's interpretations of scripture, you should quote them accurately. If you wish to cut off the scriptural reference (Jn 1:1), then it would be appropriate to make use of ellipses (...). That way the reader can say to himself Hmm? That does sound like a complete thought from SD. I'd better check out the original post.

[I don't think it's a coincidence that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. I may be wrong.] "I think that's about the saddest thing I've ever read by you..."

That's because you believe that I am referring only to politics.  I am referring to spiritual underpinnings that cause us to think a certain way which would include our views on politics (2 Cor 10:4, Eph 6:12).  

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Chrysostom quote "I wonder who does the most reporting?] "In point of fact: it's me..."

People should consider that when discussing a topic with you.

I used to tell my kids when they were young, "No one likes a tattle tale." It's not an attractive trait (Re 12:10).

"That I was honest enough to admit it after I did a lengthy search on the subject or the fact that the vast majority of them were between me and old Sod?"

You want brownie points for admitting the fact that you are one of the top reporters of other members?

"I'll tell my son, when he's old enough to understand, that the sort of people who find the upholding of an honor code "tattle-telling" are usually the sort of people who are told on for lacking it."

It' not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10).  If I were an administrator, I would send you to my email spam box.  

"I think the first line of defense from stalkers and spammers should be an honest attempt to deal with it yourself..."

That is the best choice.  When you report someone for something it says to the world, I'm a gangly dweeb, too unimaginative to defend myself.

"If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."

That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

[Proof please. ] "That I moved it?" 

No. Move it if you like. I reject your claim that I am a spammer. I ask legitimate questions. If anything, I try to wrap up debate not prolong it.

[Odd post] "There's a whole thread of posts like that..."

It was, as the kids would say, random.
 

[Knight gave me a warning because you asked him to.] "Do you think Knight does what anyone asks him to do?"

No. Just you. You're a slick lawyer.
 

[I cannot share the two PMs that he sent me because I have not been given permission to do so.] "Yeah. You wouldn't want to betray a confidence..."

Proof please.

If you believe all of the things you charge me with, pray tell--why to respond to me at all?

[If you subscribe to the thread, you get an email with their original comments. If they change the comments, you can respond to that also. I would suggest providing a timestamp so that the reader knows that you are addressing a comment from an earlier revision.] "That would be helpful if everyone subscribed and had their emails sending them the text. I suspect most don't. I don't have the text sent or notices delivered to it..."

You check the thread every so often?

"If you're just going to keep repeating the same charges after I set out an answer I'm going to assume there's no point in answering you."

If I reply with "Let the reader decide", that is your indication that 1. I reject your truth claim and 2. We are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide who is right and who is wrong.

[The Left is about Control. The Right is about freedom.] "Nah..."

...And the moon is made of cheese. Let the reader decide.

[I asked a question. I could have asked: "Why are you so boring?"] "Except that's not really a question. It's a childish and witless insult with peculiar punctuation at the end."

That's is why I did not say it.

"It's a thinly wrapped ad hom..."

It's just a regular ad hominem.

"...as is much of what you post"

I didn't post it even though it was a valid observation. 

"Not your humor, but your complaints about being on the receiving end."

No complaints. I'm not sensitive.

I point out ad hominem attacks so that the argument can move along. I used to think that people would develop better debate styles and avoid fallacious arguments--but that didn't happen.

[Do you think anyone enjoys reading your irrelevant, rabbit trail arguments?] "See? That's another one."

That's why I did not say it. Although, had I said it you still should not have reported my post. You are petty.
 

"As to people enjoying the thread, sure. And I have about 158,605 reasons to think so."

You've been wrong 158, 605 times.  When you move to the right, you'll have 1 enjoyable thing to say (Eccl 10:2).  The good news is, God is storing up wisdom for you (Pr 2:7).

[I can help you figure out why you are the way you are.]

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). I can help you figure out why you are the way you are (Eccl 10:2).

 "Childish ad hom."

"You'll thank me later." ~ Adrian Monk

[There are times when we are at an impasse and the reader will have to decide for himself who is right and who is wrong. The ZooAnimal, CheeseWiz, Noguru types will always be there to support you--until they become Christians (Eccl 10:2).] "Thanks for making my point for me, you sad little thing you....You don't learn. You won't change..."

Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian (Ga 5:9).

Start talking about God's holiness (Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2) and man's sin. See how popular you become (Isa 59:2).

[It's not honorable to be a tattle tale] "It is honorable..."

Why do you speak of honor when you misquote me? You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). It's not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10).

You have no integrity.

"...to report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor..."

This is was serious? Warning: 1, 2

"If you believe the reporting option and/or the rules here are dishonorable you should petition Knight for their removal."

I'm not too worried about it. 

"...[Y]ou've been banned a number of times for poor conduct..."

Poisoning the well.

I've never been banned for poor conduct. I've been banned for linking to too many AIG pages for discussion. Knight did not want to be sued. I had gotten permission from AIG to link to and discuss their material.

My first ban was for vulgarity. An administrator believed that I used perverted, despicable sexual innuendo. I did not. Her carnal mind misunderstood my intention (Tit 1:15). I've written a brief blog about it.

Infractions:

Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM
Interview a Member Thread
Reason: Thread hijacking January 19th, 2012 11:15 PM by ebenz47037 0 / July 18th, 2012 12:15 AM
Two Missing Legs: Did...
Reason: Duplicating content from the AIG website July 24th, 2010 01:58 PM by Knight 5 / Expired
Creation Is Religion Pt V
Reason: Posting previous essays/writings July 18th, 2010 02:51 PM by Knight 2 / Expired

"That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). That [being able to answer opposition] is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."
SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

"If you think Knight is sponsoring a usurpation of the prerogative of the Holy Spirit you should take that up with him immediately."

Strawman. I was not referring to Knight. I was referring to you. You will need the Holy Spirit to be able to answer others (Mk 13:11, Lk 12:12).

"Hello. He's a "lawyer." That be like asking a teacher not to come on here and correct English at least once in a while."

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "He does not know Jesus."

As a reminder, Meshak is number 17 on Satan, Inc. (TOL's heretic's list) in the The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category.

[I don't spam ] "Of course you do."

Poisoning the well. I respond to truth claims.

[Mockingly] "Everyone knows that you don't have a problem...to the point where it's become a problem."

Bandwagon

[Mockingly] "[W]hich you clearly don't have."

That is the first truthful thing you've said today. It is true that I do not spam.

[Wrapping up debate] "You wrap this up any more succinctly and we're going to need another server."

Being on the Left, you use fallacious arguments (Eccl 10:2). I respond to your claims for the purpose of showing others how you argue (Eph 4:14)-- except in your Observations thread. You've got a fine arrangement there lawyer.

[SOD] "I'd have had him permanently banned with all my influence."

You are a control freak (example 1, 2). I'm glad that they have not made you an administrator.

They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).

[Knight's PMs to me] "You set out the alleged existence of personal communication. Did you ask if you could do that?"

I didn't ask Knight if I could reveal that he sent me two PMs. I didn't release the content of those messages which was benign. Why? Do you think I should be banned for revealing that he sent me messages after you reported me?

Were you a hall pass monitor in grade school by chance?

[If you believe all of the things you charge me with, pray tell--why to respond to me at all?] "Because I've had ingrained in me a truth at law..."

If you are devoted to the truth, why do you remove the word of God (Jn 1:1) from other people's quotes? Eph 4:14

"...[S]ilence in the face of misrepresentation, is a form of assent."

Ad hominem. If I misrepresented the facts, you would have a case.

"[W]here I come from when someone disparages your good name..."

You're not good (Ro 3:12) and you disparage your own name (Pr 10:8,14; Ec 10:12).

[There is no wisdom on the Left (Eccl 10:2), ...And the moon made of cheese, denying reality] "That you don't realize how both wrong and amusingly you that is is part of what makes you as tempting to answer as a bowl of honey roasted cashews is to reach for..."

The fact is people move the right as they age. Do you believe that you are less wise today than you were ten years ago?
 

[You are a bore. That's is why I did not say it.] "Except that you did, of course, only just."

That was my first thought, thought that is not what I originally said. You spend most of your time attacking people not issues; therefore, your arguments are weak and shallow. This is a trait of the Left (Eccl 10:2).

"You mostly declare a thing..."

I mostly share the word of God (Ac 20:20).

"...and when pressed/countered declare "Let the reader decide."

What you do with the word of God is your business (2 Thess 2:10).

"...[W]hen the reader decides against you..."

Who cares what I think. What does God say.

"... they aren't Christians..."

We are fruit inspectors (Mt 7:16).

"...[Y]our opinion of the thread isn't shared by a rather large number of people."

Bandwagon (Ex 23:2).  

"Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).  Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian (Ga 5:9).

"Start talking about God's holiness and man's sin. See how popular you become."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).  Start talking about God's holiness (Ex 15:11; 1 Sa 2:2) and man's sin. See how popular you become (Isa 59:2).

"That you believe that's why you aren't is almost as sad as it is understandable..."

"You love me!  You really love me!" ~ The Mask

"...Christ was hugely popular for quite a bit of his ministry."

They murdered him.  Tell us why you removed scripture from my quotes (Jn 1:1).

"...[D]on't make out popularity as a sin..."

All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5.

That sounds like a question that you should report.

[Speaking of honor while continually rmisquoting me (Eph 4:14).] "That's not misquoting you."

Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).  

"Look it up..."

I've successfully completed English 101. Thanks anyway.

You misquote others. When your error is pointed out, you continue to do it anyway. You are deceitful and you have no integrity (Eph 4:14).
 

"By your reasoning failing to reproduce your entire post would be misquoting you."

You may use as much or as little of my quote as you'd like. When you cut off any portion of a statement (which for you just so happens to always be scripture [Jn 1:1]), it is necessary to use ellipses (...). You've been made aware of this repeatedly.

[It's not honorable to be a tattle tale (Re 12:10).] "Spoken like a thief."

Ad hominem.

[You have no integrity.] "See, you're just one continuous ad hom."

I provide proof for my claim. Let the reader decide.

"...[T]o report blasphemy or any serious violation of this site's code of honor..."

If you believe I libel, you will report this post --what else is new?

Let the reader decide.

"...[W]hich was reporting posts that violate the honor code."

You believe my post violates the honor code.  I do not.  We disagree.

[I'm not too worried about it (not revealing Knight's PM to me).] "Maybe you should be."

I'm sure you've reported the non-violation already.

"...[Y]ou've been banned a number of times for poor conduct..."

Proof please.

"So far: reporting blasphemy is dishonorable..."

Strawman

"...[A]nd noting that you've been banned for poor conduct is poisoning a well."

Correct. You attempt to poison the well. What you don't do is attempt to argue an issue.

[Court of law] "...Prior bad acts are admissible if they evidence habitual conduct on point."

If the evidence was sound, then a judge could allow such evidence being presented in the courtroom.

[I've never been banned for poor conduct.] "That's the only reason anyone is banned, doofus."

Let the reader decide. We learned that Cattyfan thinks differently than I do (Tit 1:15) and Knight was concerned for legal reasons. Explain why you attempt to poison the well.

[My first ban was for vulgarity.] "Save the explanation..."

Is that what a judge would tell you if you attempted to discredit another?

I'm sure you were as innocent of it as you were honest when you said you enjoyed Observations.
 

Apparently you find it funny. I do not.

"...I'm not going to facilitate that sort of misuse of the Holy to support nonsense."

You will continue to misquote me (Jn 1:1, Eph 4:14). You've made that clear.
 

"TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."
SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

[Justification for reporting members to TOL administrators]

TH: "I think the first line of defense from stalkers and spammers should be an honest attempt to deal with it yourself..."

SD: That is the best choice. When you report someone for something it says to the world, I'm a gangly dweeb, too unimaginative to defend myself.

TH: "If that doesn't work then it's appropriate to ask for help from those who can give it..."

SD: That is supposed to be the Holy Spirit not the TOL administration staff (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12).

[No personal relationship with the Holy Spirit to know how to answer opposition (Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12 ] "Who made it a rule violation? Who punishes for it? Who should, according to you?"

At this forum Knight is in charge (Ro 13:1).  If he were to abuse his authority, he'd have to answer for it (Ro 14:12).

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "I never thought it would get so bad that I'd be embarrassed for Serpent..."

There they are (2 Pe 2:1).

See:

Barbarian

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).

"I think the only qualifications should be fairness and lucidity, so you're out on of luck either way."

Ad hominem

[You spend most of your time attacking people :yawn: not issues...] "Nope. But when I run into someone like you, who confuses fact and opinion..."

Proof please.

"I mostly share the word of God."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). I mostly share the word of God (Ac 20:20).

"The devil can quote scripture. But his aim in using it betrays his purpose--as does yours."

Let the reader decide.

"All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is?"

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).   All of the devils here love you.  Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5.

"If some of them love me then I'm happy for it..."

I can tell (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5).

"I did remove the scripture from your attempt to link it with garbage."

If you believe I misrepresent scripture then make your case.  Don't misquote me (Eph 4:14).

"Thank you for admitting it."

Admitting what?

"They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).  They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).

"Inferential ad hom."

I was thinking about Rusha.  Are you asking if I believe you are a Christian?  No, I do not (Eph 4:14).

"...[W]hen I run into someone like you, who confuses fact and opinion..."

Proof please.

"Almost any post of yours will do."

Poisoning the well. 

"You removed the scripture from my quote."

You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).

"Let the reader decide why."

It will become evident to him that you are a deceiver (Eph 4:14).

"I ... love you. Why do you think that is?"

You misquoted me (Eph 4:14). 

"I can tell."

You removed the scripture from my quote. I can tell Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5 [enjoying the company of the wicked].

"Now that would be using a partial quote to alter the meaning..."

You do it regularly. You have no integrity.

In your small observations thread you posted: "[I'm] going to go ahead and lock down to help SD honor her pledge not to reenter..." link

I have not responded to your thread since receiving infractions from the administrators (1, 2) for doing so. Why do you feel the need to lock it down today?

You asked me not to post in your thread because you are Leftist. It is a trait of the left to silence the critic (Eccl 10:2). You prove my point.

"...[A]nd to keep the mods from having to referee." link

Burping you would become a full-time job.

Response to comment [from other]: "SD, until you remove the misrepresenting quotes in your signature, you're never going to be in a position to lecture or even have any credulous position, not that it isn't entertaining to see you have your head constantly handed to you on a plate by TH though, or anyone else for that matter..."
 

There they are (2 Pe 2:1).

I do not misrepresent anyone in my signature, AB.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[L]ink to place where Serpent questions the literal Resurrection of Jesus..."

Not true (Eph 4:14).

See:

Barbarian

"Very true."

Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).

You do not have a biblical worldview.

See:

Barbarian

"...[Y]ou took issue with me when I said the Resurrection was literally true."

I quote you exactly. You do not have a biblical worldview. If you'd like to revise or extend your remarks do so in the thread.

See:

Barbarian  

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Asked me not to post in the observation thread] "Did I? I remember you saying that if I didn't ask you to you still wouldn't."

II assumed you would not want me in your thread. Am wrong to assume that? You closed the thread down for little ol' me. You would like to open it back up and invite me back into it?

"Why would I like that?"

Great. I'm waiting for my invite.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "How well do you handle suspense?"

I had a feeling (Eccl 10:2). summary  

[Observation thread] It's not closed for business, only to your forgetting yourself..."

If I posted in your thread, I would receive another infraction--especially without your making it clear that you would like my opposing view. I assume you do not (Eccl 10:2).

"...as you have in the past." 

Proof please.

"...[Y]ou've demonstrated that you can't be relied upon to honor the mod's instruction." 

I have not reentered your gossip thread since receiving these warnings (1, 2).

"Buy a dictionary. If you own one, burn it and buy a better one." 

Ad hominem

"Let's look at the quote together and see if, using those razor sharp Eng. 101 skills of yours, we can get at the heart of the enigma." 

Ad hominem

 "It's a tough one all right. Maybe if you diagrammed it." 

Ad hominem

"Think harder next time so we can all hear it."

Ad hominem

[SD: Do I believe you are a Christian?] "Would a black man ask David Duke for a credit reference?" 

Ad hominem

"Maybe you'll be better able to distinguish between the real thing and what you keep mistaking it for next time....And maybe Jesse Jackson will be elected President."

Ad hominem

"You're like the Maxwell House of bitter."

Ad hominem

"...[W]hy should I expect you to be any different at this point? "

Ad hominem

[Being invited into the observation thread]  Now why wouldn't anyone want that sort of important, substantive and witty repartee all over their thread..."

I take that as a no?

[If I posted in your thread, I would receive another infraction] "Likely, given what you tend to post."

You can admit it. You don't want me to post in your thread. You do not want opposition to your arguments (Eccl 10:2).
 

"Didn't stop you the last time..."

I didn't think I'd get a warning for asking a question (1,2). Live and learn.

"...[A]nd your ongoing concentration on it tells me you'd fail to restrain yourself..."

You said I would likely get another infraction. Would it be wise for me to post in your observation thread again? My re-invitation seems to have been lost in the mail so I won't have that to show the administrators.
 

"...I'm helping you help yourself."

Because you care that I am not banned?

You are the number one reporter of other members. Is it always your hope that they are not banned when you report them?


"And now, a moment of silence or wit..."

That's all you want? No challenges. Freedom to gossip. Silence the critic (Eccl 10:2).

[You can admit it.  You don't want me to post in your thread.] "I love reasoned counter and witty repartee--so in your case, no."

Just ask me to stick around.

If I were permitted to respond to your small observations thread,
 

"Then I thought, who cares? If someone spams the joint up, well, that's what the report option is all about. And locking it only really lets the thread terrorists win. Gives heal bitters something to chew on and grouse about."

I'd ask: How do you define "spam" —disagreeing with you? Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist and a heal-bitter?

"I'll be reporting Chrys sad spam attempt at posting what isn't in any sense an observation in keeping with the OP. As I've said and this notes, he's become peculiarly obsessed."

Everyone who differs with you is "obsessed"?

TOL is a place for debate. Why start a thread when no one can respond to your post? You are a lawyer. You argue for a living.
 

Chrysostom "I get that you're obsessed..."

Spiraling.
 

"Sorry about that folks..."

Who is your audience? Eccl 10:2, Prov. 20:19

"...[T]he good news is that if chrys decides to keep at it you'll soon be able to read Observations here or in its new second home: Gather in His name."

Bring the name of Jesus into a new gossip thread (2 Thess 3:11).

"...Spam is when someone posts, say, in response to a snippet of argument..."

That is what you do in your observations thread.  You post snippets of an argument that you found interesting.  By your own definition, your entire observation thread would be spam.

"So if I show up in a thread and say, "You're boring." Then I'm spamming."

Luckily, I did not say that in my response to you--though that would haven been a valid observation. I only got a warning for what I asked per your request. Would you have asked for me to be banned had I initially said you're boring?

"As for continuing the arguments, well, isn't that what we're doing in this thread? I say keep the thread arguments in the threads."

You don't want opposing views (Eccl 10:2).
 

[Everyone who differs with you is obsessed?] "Only people like chrys, who follow my correspondence with other members..."

So?

"...and create threads bearing my name or create threads about me."

You create threads where others may not respond because 1) You've had them warned (Example: 1,2) or 2) You've gossiped and then locked them out. How can you rebuke Chrysostom for creating a thread where people can freely respond to your posts which bear other's names?

I could have reported you for misquoting me and did not. Chrysostom could have done similarly recently and did not.

We don't all run to Knight to fight our battles for us.

"Some threads are specifically about discussion and not argument..."

You make the rules (Jn 3:8). Squeaky wheel gets the oil?

[Bring the name of Jesus into a new gossip thread?] "Not really sure what you're saying here or if you're talking to me or chrys."

Do you plan to create a new thread with the title Gather in His Name? If so, how will this be different from Observations?

[Observation thread] "No. I do a number of things, beginning with drawing attention to threads by posting snippets of conversation..."

Spam, according to your own definition.

"That's sort of my mission statement..."

A spam by any other name is still a spam.

"...[O]ne I further defined for anyone visiting the thread..."

Spam, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I love thee to the depth and breadth and height my soul...
 

"...The author of a thread can't spam..."

Is that like a black man can't be a racist?

"...[M]y humorous barbs are always responsive...."

If you were on the Gong Show, they would have gonged you long ago.

"...[I] request not that you be banned but that someone ask you to cut it out."

You could have asked me to stop asking you questions. (1, 2).

TOL is for debate.

"...[M]ost of the people who've argued with me understand that."

Bandwagon. You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you (Eccl 10:2).

"I call chrys or Sod obsessive because they evidenced behavior in keeping with it."

Ad hominem. You're projecting again.

"Sod was penalized for stalking me..."

Did you report him, too?

"...Both appear to have been reading over my correspondence with other posters."

So?  Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument?  If they check you on various points, that's a good thing (Jn 3:8).  

[You create threads where others may not respond.] "No. The reposts are always ongoing. That's where the argument belongs."

Strawman.  I am referring to your new comments. 

"...[T]hink of my snippets as a digest, a sort of headlines plus..."

Gossip (2 Thess 3:11).

"...If it intrigues you and you weren't aware of it you can follow the link and get into the argument...[I]t isn't like my closing the doors on Observations would spare you or anyone from a treatment not already set out."

You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence". You reported Chrysostom and S.O.D. for doing this very thing. Everyone felt free to discuss issues until you tried to turn TOL into China (Jn 10:10).

[Rebuking Chrysostom for starting thread bearing your name] "I complained about [M]eshak starting a thread in my name..."

Not this thread started by Chrysostom?

"...[I]nviting me to argue and then putting me on ignore so that I couldn't."

That's what you do in your observation thread. “Sorry gang, have to lock this down while I report the spammer.” ~ Town Heretic link
Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread. You gossip, cut and run. How is what you do any better than what Meshak does?

"Anyone disagreeing with any position referenced in Observations can step into the thread referenced and take a swing."

Except me (1,2).
You don't want opposing views (Eccl 10:2).

[Misquoting me]"...[T]here isn't a rule against misquoting..."

You found a loophole, lawyer.

"I don't do it."

Lie of the day (Ingraham). Eph 4:14

"You've already established you don't know the difference between misquoting and omitting the entire text or supporting citation."

You're projecting again. summary

[Reporting members :baby:] "What's really childish is characterizing what I did as you just did....I'd respond by posting in a thread that he's [Chrysostom ] put a lot of work into [thread entitled Gather in His Name]. That's fair."

He's the baby?

"It would have been fair of me to have first posted a lengthy bit of Observations in his thread and then said we could continue to do that or he could stop and I would."

You're a meddling gong show. Pr 20:3

[Is that like a black man can't be a racist?] "...[M]ore like a giant can't be a midget. Or, it's more like the person who decides what the topic is can't be off topic."

You want to control the topic and all responses to it (Eccl 10:2).

[You could have asked me to stop asking you questions. Reported/warning 1, 2] "Just because you put a question mark at the end of it doesn't necessarily make it a question."

Do you want to control rules of grammar, too?

[TOL is for debate.] "Frequently. Not always."

You could provide fill-in-the-blank question and answers for others? No one would be reported if they filled in a Mad Libs form to have a conversation with you.
 

[You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you.] "You're an ostrich."

A liberal is open-minded. A Leftist is not (Eccl 10:2).

"I never received and infraction or ban for conduct. Sod did."

You are a squeaky wheel. You get the oil--not respect--oil. Pr 18:6

[Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument?] "As decided by who? You? Like asking a Klansman to advise on Affirmative Action."

Ad hominem

[Tracked another member's profile comments] "Both Sod and chrys have done that."

"...Else, reading profile comments [of mine] has no bearing on anything other than evidence of an obsessive character..."

Ad hominem

"...The last thing I want to read more of is you talking to people on your profile page."

Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page?

[Members addressing new comments in observation thread] "Which weren't the subject of nearly any of your quotes above."

Let the reader decide.

See:

Sample ad hominem attacks in small observations

"You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence.] "No I didn't. Cite?"

Let the reader decide. See: summary
 

"I noted it as evidence, coupled with other salient facts, of obsessive behavior."

Ad hominem

[Perturbed: This thread started by Chrysostom?] "Nope. Cite to me "rebuking" him."

Let the reader decide.

[That's what you do in your observation thread.] "No, it isn't. I never invited debate in Observations."

That's the point (Eccl 10:2).

[Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread.] "No..."

Let the reader decide.

[You gossip, cut and run.] "I engage on any point of argument, again, in the thread where the argument is ongoing..."

In your observations thread you "never invite debate". Your words not mine.

"If you're still confused it's because you mean to be..."

Ad hominem

[You don't want opposing views]  "...[Y]ou're repeating yourself within the same thread...and you're still wrong."

What's to debate? We agree.

"I never invited debate in Observations." ~ Town Heretic Eccl 10:2

[Misquoting not against TOL Rules/You found a loophole, lawyer. ] "No, just letting you know another thing among many that you have wrong."

Ethical members don't need a TOL rule or lack thereof to know right from wrong.

"Report away any old time you think you have a case. Won't bother me a bit."

I'm not like you (Pr 3:35).

[You deliberately misquoted me] "No..."

Let the reader decide.

"You don't understand what a misquote is, apparently."

Response to comment [from other]: "SD, it's not being 'controlling' to want one's own thread free from inane insulting commentary or hijack..."

I responded to his comments. (Example: 1,2).
 

"TH gets my respect because he acts with integrity and honesty..."

Lie of the day (Ingraham). (Example: 1,2).

"'Ethical' members tend to abide by standard rules and don't misrepresent people without proof of support."

[Grammar, English 101] "I think he probably just wishes you used it better..."

[Fallacious arguments, Philosophy 101] "They aren't 'Ad hominems' SD...."

[Let the reader decide. ] "How many times does that have to occur before you'll realize that it usually has been - and not in your favor?"

"Remember that poll regarding your sig?"

"...[M]ost have understood and realized since practically the outset."

[Debate] "...[T]he actually relevant ones on the subjects are left to die..."

There is little, if any, debate. The leftist cannot win on the merits of the argument (Eccl 10:2).

See:

Tactics of the Left

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "...[Y]ou're making a charge based on a reading of misquotation that I don't believe you can sustain using any authoritative book on grammar."

It's a no-brainer (Eph 4:14).

Town Heretic misquoting me:

In example one you do not use ellipses (...) and make it clear that even after your error is pointed out you will not change your behavior in the future.

In example two you replace my words:

My actual comments read: "You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5."

You quoted me as saying: "I ... love you. Why do you think that is?"

You have no integrity.

"Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page? :hammer:] "Where did I say I wanted to read your profile page?"

Let the reader decide (Pr 10:8,14; Ec 10:12).

"...[W]hy on earth would anyone want to read through conversations between someone they don't like and anyone else?"

They wouldn't.

"Locks aren't meant to keep out the honest. Sure. That's why I've never had an infraction or been banned.  You?"
 

Poisoning the well

[I'm not like you.] "I know.  You've been banned."

Poisoning the well. Let the reader decide.

"Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM
Interview a Member Thread
Reason: Thread hijacking January 19th, 2012 11:15 PM by ebenz47037 0 / July 18th, 2012 12:15 AM
Two Missing Legs: Did...
Reason: Duplicating content from the AIG website July 24th, 2010 01:58 PM by Knight 5 / Expired
Creation Is Religion Pt V
Reason: Posting previous essays/writings July 18th, 2010 02:51 PM by Knight 2 / Expired" link

[Serpentdove blog: infraction: sexual innuendo] "Perv' Cattyfan still does not understand the nickname given to Hitler--which is why I got an infraction (Titus 1:15, Col 3:8). "Hitler had been in such a maniacal mood over the Czechs the last few days that on more than one occasion he had lost control of himself completely, hurling himself to the floor and chewing the edge of the carpet. Hence the term "carpet eater." The evening before, while talking with some of the party leaders at the Dreesen, I had heard the expression applied to the Fuehrer -- in whispers, of course..." full text: William L. Shirer

If I were permitted to comment in your small observation thread, I would respond:

"A few more moments with SD, though it might seem longer..."

You can shorted debate by refraining from using fallacious arguments.

"SD, who is a gamer, no matter what else..."

I'm not a gamer. Why are you highlighting your backpedaling?

Chrysostom: "I wonder who does the most reporting?

Town Hertic: "In point of fact: it's me..." link

SD: "You are the number one reporter of other members."

Town Heretic: "Not exactly." link

"You're wrong on what does or doesn't constitute a misquotation..."

See:

Town Heretic Misquoting Me

"...Proof please."

Be yourself.  Everyone else is taken.

"You're wrong on the necessity of ellipses..."

Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).

"...Proof please. Citation to grammatical authority would be fine."

I'm not here to teach you English 101.

"In example two you replace my words:

My actual comments read: "You removed the scripture from my quote . All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is?""

You misquoted me.

In example two you replace my words:

My actual comments read: "You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5."

You quoted me as saying: "I ... love you. Why do you think that is?"

"I illustrated an actual alteration of your words."

You altered my words.

"I did so in a way that no one could mistake for your intent."

Your intent. 

"There was nothing in that aimed at fooling anyone..."

The false quote appears next to my name. 

"...only lampooning you."

What you call lampooning, I call misquoting.

"...[Y]ou appear to be the only one who didn't understand that."

I understand that you misquoted me. You regularly misquote others (example 1,2).

[Reading my profile page] "Cite to it. It didn't happen. I never said it."

See:

Summary

"The reader doesn't decide if you've been banned. You've actually been banned."

I don't dispute the fact that I have been banned. The reader will decide if the bans were warranted or not.

Response to comment [from other]: "They could hardly be considered "responses"..."

Your rabbit trails tend to be irrelevant (Pr 26:11; 27:22).
 

"...but rather posts of an inane manner which if left unchecked would have spammed up the thread."

Isn't this new trail beginning to do just that? How does that work? When you post an ever-so-interesting comment, it no longer qualifies as spam? I'm still looking for a working definition for "spam". Eccl 10:2

"He hasn't lied..."

He has misquoted me (example 1,2,3).
 

"As long as you retain that sig..."

There is nothing wrong with my signature (Eph 5:11).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "You're wrong on the necessity of ellipses..."

You said that. Let the reader decide.
 

"[R]eaders don't decide grammar."

Do you decide rules of grammer? Eccl 10:2

You believe that ellipses (...) and/or brackets ( [ ] ) are not required when editing another's quote. I believe they are required. Let the reader decide. See: summary

[Misquoting me] "I told you why I did it and that it was intentional."

I told you why it is unethical (Eph 4:14).

"I was attempting to educate you on spotting the difference between failing to reproduce every jot and tittle of a thing and altering the meaning..."

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed

[Misquoting me example 1 and 2] "...[T]hose links aren't to other people. They're to your posts and my responses to them..."

I provide the reader proof that you misquoted me (example 1,2,3).

[I don't dispute the fact that I have been banned.] "...[Y]ou can't dispute it."

I don't dispute it.

See:

Poisoning the Well

"My favorite part was her insistence that not only am I misquoting but that I do that regularly to others..."

Example 1,2,3.

"The old safety in numbers, me, myself and I approach?..."

These are facts. 

"Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry." ~ Dennis Prager Eccl 10:2

"She doesn't appear to understand that so long as I don't alter what she's saying..."

Ad hominem.

You alter what I say:

"I illustrated an actual alteration of your words." ~ Town Heretic

"I did in the intentional misquote, I can leave off anything I want..."

Strawman

First, you removed scripture (Jn 1:1). Then, you altered words attributed to me (Eph 4:14).

[Referring to me] "I think the technical term you're looking for is: daft."

Ad hominem

"She doesn't hold herself to the same standards of proof..."

See:

Summary

Response to comment [from other]: "TH isn't disPutin g the fact he deliberately misquoted you!"

Strawman

He justifies it (1,2,3).

"He did it to show you what a misquote actually is..."

That is how he justifies his actions (Eph 4:14).

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [You believe that ellipses (...) and/or brackets ( [ ] ) are not required when editing another's quote.] "I never said that..."

Let the reader decide.

[I believe they are required.] "You can believe that ham is a vegetable..."
 

Right.

[I told you why it is unethical.] "No, I don't believe you did..."

Um hmm.

[I provide the reader proof that you misquoted me.] "No, you didn't..."

Got it.

"You can't."

[SD: I don't dispute the fact that I have been banned.]

TH: "...[Y]ou can't dispute it."

[SD: I don't dispute it. ]

TH: "You can't."

Anything else? summary

[You endorse his [Town Heretic's] "deliberate misquote" (your words not mine). I do not. He misquoted me before the example you believe we all needed. He made it clear at that time that has no intention of changing his behavior.] "Yes I do..."

"...You were (and bafflingly still are) ignorant of what a misquote actually is..."

Let the reader decide (Eph 4:14).

"...[I]f omission counts as misquote..." 

Omission is one example. Altering words attributed to me is another example (1,2,3).

"...[T]hen how many times have you snipped other peoples responses to you?..."

When I shorted a quote, I use ellipses (...).  When I add any words of my own, I use brackets ( [ ] ).

"...[H]ave I accused you of misquoting me? No..."

I have not misquoted you.  

Response to comment [from other]: "...Can we get examples of when "the moderators cozy up to God-haters"?"

Some administrators seem too friendly with members who are antagonistic toward God's word (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5, Jas 4:4). Do you mean name names of members that I personally would not call "friend"? I don't care to do that. I prefer to discuss issues.

"I wasn't looking for you to name names, I wanted an example of the "cozying up to" or being "too friendly with"."

An example would be complimenting an antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Innuendo is so much more her style, after all."

Why are you looking for specifics? I prefer to keep a short memory for our purposes here. Every day is a new day (1 Cor 13:7). One never knows when a member will be saved (Jn 3:7). When that is the case, his worldview changes.

Understand the spirit of antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).

See:

The Jesus test, the gospel test, and the fruit test

Response to comment [from other]: "...[W]hat you outright cut out and refuse to even attempt to address, along with transparent deflection about 'leftists' instead of answering on actual point is no better."

I won't respond to each and every point you've made. If I think it's an important point, I'll address it. If I think the issue has been covered sufficiently, I won't. In general, people state their most important point first. Usually I respond to this.

"In general SD, posters tend to respond point for point, and the more genuine tend to address them without prevarication. If you think that when replying to others, people usually bring up their most 'important point' first then it's no wonder you have a skewed idea of what debate actually is. I don't ignore or glibly respond to someone's third or fourth point simply because it's not at the start of their response to me."

That is why I said in general. News articles are opposite, incidentally.

By all means, have a point and I am happy to respond to it. Have the same point 4000 times and I won't.

"...This is how debate generally works. The first point could be the most 'meaty' but often enough it could be the third or fourth paragraph, or they could even be of equal 'weight'....pretty straightforward stuff."

I respond to error first (Ga 5:9). I can't keep up with lies so I provide the truth of God's word (Ps. 119:142, 151, 160). What you do with it is your business (McGee).

"You're good.  You're good." ~ Spongebob

[Have a point :freak: and I am happy to respond] "I've had several..."

That are interesting to you.

"...still awaiting proper address instead of editing/irrelevant soundbites/links..."

Hold your breath. Pr 18:2

"...not that I expect/ed you to or to offer proof for your ongoing misrepresentation of people."

Proof please.

[I respond to error (Ga 5:9)] "Then you should start looking to your own posts..."

Proof please. You'll need more than your dashing good looks to refute a point, NoBrain (Ac 17:11).

"I don't 'cherry pick' the "interesting" parts of another posters response SD..."

Then again, you don't have much to offer besides tea and crumpets (1 Ti 6:3-5).

"I do the courtesy of answering as best I can whether I'm interested in a certain part of the ongoing or not."

When you do not receive the answer you'd like (Eccl 10:2), you do not have the same courtesy to move on to a new subject.

"I already know you have no intention of debating properly."

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager
 

"Your sig is an ongoing misrepresentation of certain posters..."

My signature is totally awesome!
 

"Awesome.  Totally awesome!" ~ Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times at Ridgemont High

[Signature ] "...[U]njustified lies..."

My signature is awesome!
 

"That was awesome!" ~ Tommy Boy

Response to comment [from other]: [CheeseWiz quote: "...Good grief"] "Well, at least you're now completely open about delighting in your lies then. Just don't pretend to care about or 'lecture' about truth or integrity anymore ok? You've just shown you have no regard for either. Well done..."

"There's such a things as good grief.  Just ask Charlie Brown." ~ Michael Scott, The Office

[An example would be complimenting an antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).] "Cite?"

You said: "I wasn't looking for you to name names..." ~ WizardofOz Citing a post would provide a name.

You are here to bicker (Pr 10:32). I am not.

Christians should not cozy up to God-haters (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5).

Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough?