moderator malfeasance

[Rusha]

That wouldn't happen because we are really nice people....

The nicest!

 

[Traditio]

1. Disagreeing over x, y and z.
2. Being aggressive, personally insulting, etc.

Note that 1 and 2 are really distinct and separable.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I've been on TOL since 2010. I've seen a number of meltdown threads like this. Let me tell you they never end well. Challenging the people that run a website, in a sense it is like trying to take a locomotive by the cow catcher. You're gonna get run over every time. It's a battle you cannot win. They run the website, you don't.
Also a point to remember this is the internet. You can always go someplace else and find a place more to your liking. In fact you can even start a page yourself and run it according to your own rules.

Yep!

 

[Heterodoxical]

Have you ever visited any other forums?

Nearly every one on the net. Did your momma have any kids that lived?

 

[bybee]

Nearly every one on the net. Did your momma have any kids that lived?

You are a sneering, mean mouthed, self-pitying gas bag!
Quit whining and grow up!
There is no anchor on your hind end which would preclude you hopping off to greener pastures!:wave2:

 

[mmstroud]

I've been on TOL since 2010. I've seen a number of meltdown threads like this. Let me tell you they never end well. Challenging the people that run a website, in a sense it is like trying to take a locomotive by the cow catcher. You're gonna get run over every time. It's a battle you cannot win. They run the website, you don't.
Also a point to remember this is the internet. You can always go someplace else and find a place more to your liking. In fact you can even start a page yourself and run it according to your own rules.

Inzl, the problem isn't with the rules. It's that the rules aren't enforced for everyone. john w threatened physical violence more than once and apparently that is acceptable even though the rules say it is expressly prohibited.

I realize participation here is voluntary. I maintain a paid subscription and yet I have spent less and less time here over the years because I think too much is allowed under the pretense of 'truth smack'.

It's a slap in the face when anytime a person expresses any type of concern, we are shown the door. I own and operate a small business. My customers have a choice. My goal is to keep them as customers.

 

[bybee]

Inzl, the problem isn't with the rules. It's that the rules aren't enforced for everyone. john w threatened physical violence more than once and apparently that is acceptable even though the rules say it is expressly prohibited.

I realize participation here is voluntary. I maintain a paid subscription and yet I have spent less and less time here over the years because I think too much is allowed under the pretense of 'truth smack'.

It's a slap in the face when anytime a person expresses any type of concern, we are shown the door. I own and operate a small business. My customers have a choice. My goal is to keep them as customers.

 

[glorydaz]

From the 10 TOL Commandments:

10. Thou SHALL NOT advocate or encourage criminal behavior on TOL. Personal threats and/or advocating criminal behavior will result in an instant ban. Making racist comments and other unnecessary personal comments may also cause banishment.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3990306&postcount=100

Apparently physical threats, note the plural, are acceptable for some members.

TOL is candidly biased toward Christianity and somewhat candidly biased toward certain theological views, MAD and Open Theism. What isn't disclosed, and you only learn from being around for years and witnessing the behavior, is that they are also biased toward the members who hold their theological views. I wonder what would have happened if a member who didn't hold the 'pet' views of the moderators had made such a threat...

I just clicked on the link you provided, AND I read what the "other guy" was saying to John W. Did you bother to do that? When we have a loud mouthed bully come on this board, John W steps up and smacks him down. He does it very well because he is unrelenting, and charges that he wears "depends" etc. don't faze him in the least. John W is making a point....not actually threatening, as you claim. He's the sheriff that deals with the punks, and punks need to be taken down a few notches or they will and should end up being banned.

 

[Heterodoxical]

I would never be condescending. It's not my thang.

Except you were, and you did, so I should be flattered to be such an exception, right? That's the message, I should learn to appreciate it.

Why do you care how it affects his pocket book? You are a blue member and should only concern yourself with how it affects your pocket book.

The pocket book point was an example, of the short sided approach, and appealing to a way that makes much more sense. It was one example of a few to make the point. But it's nice to see, rather than address the actual point, you wish to isolate one example you HAVE something to say and ignore the point. We call that arguing the analogy.

Once again, you are incorrect and consumed by your emotions.

Nice cop out. Nice proclamation.

There are many intelligent individuals on TOL.

Don't believe I said there were none. Show me I'll eat my words.

As far as the mods, I have been here for far longer than you have and have never witnessed them behaving in the manner you speak of.

Your opthamolgist's issues aren't my concern. I have empirical proof of it occuring in the very basis for this post.

One eyed jack libeled and attacked me in a character assassinating way, with no substantiation, just presupposition. The intellectual same as calling someone a name.

So I returned the slap with "one eyed moron". At least my response was comical, JUST to make the point he attacked unwarrantedly.

I was banned for his offense. That's a flat out fact.

Then Delmar immediately publishes a comment about homosexuals being pedophiles and to say otherwise is a lie from hell. HE was emotionally charged, because of his ignorance, and not making effort to understand what I actually had said.

He made an emotional, knee jerking fool of himself.

You guys will defend him. You'll perpetuate the issue, not reconcile and make it a learning experience. You are working your BUTT off to ignore what is flat out empirical prima facie fact. I'm trying to reason.

Condemn me some more for being the unreasonable one. The more you speak the smaller your words' relevance become. Only you can fix that.

Perhaps that is part of your problem.

Yes, I have low tolerance for morons.

You seem to believe you are above the rest of us in knowledge and have nothing to learn.

I probably am. IN a lot of areas. I don't make issue of that. Scroll your lazy butt back through ALL of my posts. You'll see I AM THE SOLE PERSON trying to get people to shut up with the personal attacking and stick tot he points. Where people stick to the points, I'm not having any of these issues. PERHAPS if you stopped going out of your way to enable your friends and did a REALLY FRIENDLY TYPE OF THING of holding them accountable, holding an intervention rather than saying they aren't addicts while they OD you could make a difference. But what do you care.

Those types of personalities do not do well on debate forums.

Ummm whatever. When you can; show that's me, we'll discuss it. When you have 1/10th of the debates in your life I have in mine, we'll discuss that too. I'm not the pompous one here, I'm defending against your comments. Rusha you are a certifiable trip. HOW FAR WILL YOU GO TO DEFEND MALFEASANCE? Will you perjure yourself too? Will you lie for them?

There are many people on here who I disagree with in most areas BUT that doesn't mean I can't learn when they make a valid, well thought out point.

I disagree with people all day long every day and have no issues.

The difference is they don't start going off on a JOHN W, PMS, NARCISSISTIC RANT doing nothing but personal attacks because you won't pat their narcissistic butt on the back and praise them.

NOR do they start calling you names, OR more roundabout, assassinating your character, ,when they can't get you to agree with them.

Rusha, I'm never going to accept that. It's a third graders move. If that's the environment you want.... we were raised differently.

Change your name to Status Quo. I'll change mine to Improvement.

Oh, so you have people say mean things and sometimes get in trouble for saying mean things back. Interesting ... and it doesn't make you special.

Did I claim it made me special? I gripe about it with others too when I know there is an issue. It's the principle not the personal. YOU MAY CONTINUE AS IT IS ALL YOU HAVE SHOWN to try to reframe the argument to a whine fest, but all it does is show your intellectual dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge things said you don't find conducive to your positions.

I have been here for several years and had to learn to adjust my approach when responding to others. Because I am familiar with what to expect and what is expected of me, I choose my words carefully.

If I were only the gift of God to the world you are. You are obviously so much superior and better than me I haven't room to object. That is undoubtedly why you just skip the points that contradict your rant here, ignore them, and continue to reframe the events in such a fashion you can point a finger. YOU OBVIOUSLY hold the high ground.... I bow to your superiority.
)Is this more appropriate behavior? The veritable, thankee massah may I have anudder?(

The only thing that has been influenced by my approach is that I am not on the receiving end of a bunch of infractions that would keep me from the site that is one of the main highlights of my internet experience.

Well goodie goodie. I'll stand on principle. I'll fight for consistency. I'll continue to drive the conversations to the points more than the personal attacks (defined as attacks of the person, not the points.)

YOU can decide, you prefer the personal attacks over the points and defend it. OR you can speak out. I don't really care, Rusha. I'm not here to impress you.

I am not deluded but rather realistic. I am sorry that you are so intent on being right that you are incapable of reconsidering your own responses.

I'm sorry that you are so manipulative you try to reframe everything into something you can ridicule. It must be miserable to go through life that insecure.

Are you and John W related? I'll admit you must be the older one, you are much more subtle about it.... but you could just be smarter, cuz he's not that bright and you have some brights to ya..... Yeah, I'm going with that.

I'm sorry you are incapable of facing the facts of the events, and need to restructure everything to suit your presuppositions.

I'm sorry you are incapable of addressing all the points, rather than jsut the select few you can snark on.... (shall I emulate you more here????)

 

[Heterodoxical]

OH as JOHN W did to me???

Well it's to ME silly, that means it' snot only allowed but encouraged.

From the 10 TOL Commandments:

10. Thou SHALL NOT advocate or encourage criminal behavior on TOL. Personal threats and/or advocating criminal behavior will result in an instant ban. Making racist comments and other unnecessary personal comments may also cause banishment.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3990306&postcount=100

Apparently physical threats, note the plural, are acceptable for some members.

TOL is candidly biased toward Christianity and somewhat candidly biased toward certain theological views, MAD and Open Theism. What isn't disclosed, and you only learn from being around for years and witnessing the behavior, is that they are also biased toward the members who hold their theological views. I wonder what would have happened if a member who didn't hold the 'pet' views of the moderators had made such a threat...

 

[mmstroud]

I just clicked on the link you provided, AND I read what the "other guy" was saying to John W. Did you bother to do that? When we have a loud mouthed bully come on this board, John W steps up and smacks him down. He does it very well because he is unrelenting, and charges that he wears "depends" etc. don't faze him in the least. John W is making a point....not actually threatening, as you claim. He's the sheriff that deals with the punks, and punks need to be taken down a few notches or they will and should end up being banned.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong on this one. john w and heterodoxical have history and john w is obviously personally intimidated by him. If you don't hold a bias toward john w it is humorously obvious how affected he actually is by the exchange. And yes, I read the entire exchange between the two, not only in this thread but a couple of others as well. I wouldn't have picked an isolated post to complain about. Are you seriously suggesting that john w was only making a point? It wasn't the first threat he made and they live in the same city according to both of them. You think he gets a pass because he's john w? You think it is appropriate to threaten someone with physical violence, even to make a point, even if I were to give him that one?

 

[glorydaz]

OR you can have adult friggin conversations where you deal with objections.

OR, you can drag your rear end outa here and we can all line up and do the banana dance as you exit stage left.

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

[Rusha]

I'm sorry you are incapable of addressing all the points, rather than jsut the select few you can snark on.... (shall I emulate you more here????)

Well, I cut through a small portion of the your long winded rant. Hopefully you feel better now? Hanky?

 

[glorydaz]

I'm sorry but you're just wrong on this one. john w and heterodoxical have history and john w is personally intimidated by him. If you don't hold a bias toward john w it is humorously obvious how affected he actually is by the exchange. And yes, I read the entire exchange between the two, not only in this thread but a couple of others as well. I wouldn't have picked an isolated post to complain about. Are you seriously suggesting that john w was only making a point? It wasn't the first threat he made and they live in the same city according to both of them. You think he gets a pass because he's john w? You think it is appropriate to threaten someone with physical violence, even to make a point, even if I were to give him that one?

So your take on their exchanges is based on what you have read into them. I have read them, too, and I think that statement in yellow is down right nonsense. Yes, I do think John W is making a point....I've seen the same thing happen in real life, and I've seen the little dog finally stop yapping.

 

[Heterodoxical]

I've been on TOL since 2010. I've seen a number of meltdown threads like this.

DO NOT dismiss me with your bs claims of a meltdown you rude woman. I could not be more blunt, cold, medicinally logical than I have been here. IF YOU DEFINE MELTDOWN as identifying misbehavior and trying to address it in adult fashion, then you grew up in a suppressed culture.

Let me tell you they never end well. Challenging the people that run a website, in a sense it is like trying to take a locomotive by the cow catcher.

Yes, that's what Hitler and Mussolini told the masses to. OR we can have a little tea party, and make the "administration" stand up and have an open dialogue (*if they are capable) review the events and see if they hold merit.

INSTEAD you try to reframe a logical approach as emotional melt down, and defend your actions rather than face them. That's the same sort of behavior that leads one to NOT address the points, and insult the person instead.

Inzl why are you afraid of adult conversations? Why do you work so HARD to not have them?

You're gonna get run over every time. It's a battle you cannot win. They run the website, you don't.

ANd they can make mistakes. And they should be 'big' enough to discuss them, rather than stick their head in the sand and pretend they didn't happen.

I was called who knows how many "names" and "insults" before I ever gave in and gave up on reasoning with them and emulated their behavior.

But in all of some people's brilliance, that I didn't allow them to UNANSWERED continue to accost me personally, I was stepping out of the lines.

INZL, you defended DELMAR once, who attacked me personally and unprovoked just because he didn't like the dang topic and arguments... A MAN would address the arguments. He attacked me personally. YOU banned me because I challenged him for it. You said I disrespected the authority...

That makes you a BULLY ENFORCER. Now that's not attacking you, it's the facts of what occurred. You have a choice, you can ban me and pretend you never did anything. You could address it. You could examine it, you could self examine and see if there is something for you to address inside and that perhaps you missed something.

EVERY INSTANCE, but one, on here I've been banned, for doing to the person who addressed me, what they had already done to me. EVERY INSTANCE.

You want to brag about your fairness with that?

I never cried. I attempted to make you aware. I tried to discuss it and review so we could all learn from it.

All I've seen is a bunch of people who refuse to acknowledge they could make mistakes and literally try to rewrite history to suit their presuppositions and egos.

I'm asking, begging, repeatedly for reason over personal.

BAN ME FOR IT AGAIN! Prove to the world how inside out this place is. OR stop crying to defend the backwards, counter productive PAID TO BE ABUSIVE behavior around here and make some efforts at having real conversations.

It should be really easy.....

You attack the arguments. NOT the person instead of the arguments. If the person does something stupid it's fine to note it and even rub their nose in it, but don't do that instead of hte arguments.
You've gotten to the point that all you have is abuse, no conversations.

You have a LOT to offer here and do good with. You can have the same few who pay to abuse folks, or make it a place where real chats can occur and attract some of the old fellers back, or new brains that can discuss as adults. MORE IS BETTER.

You got an unholy clique here.

Also a point to remember this is the internet. You can always go someplace else and find a place more to your liking. In fact you can even start a page yourself and run it according to your own rules.

Inzl, always a point to remember.... RIGHT IS RIGHT wherever you are. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing in the face of evil.

I've challenged to have discussion. I've been attacked even trying to do that.

It doesn't matter how many times I call out an appeal to let us reason and speak as adults, you folk always come back to insitigating personal attacks and then trying to blame me for it.

TRY ME, try an adult conversation.

I can deliver, it won't be me that breaks down first.

 

[Heterodoxical]

So your take on their exchanges is based on what you have read into them. I have read them, too, and I think that statement in yellow is down right nonsense. Yes, I do think John W is making a point....I've seen the same thing happen in real life, and I've seen the little dog finally stop yapping.

Really? Don't make me post his PMs to me.

He's a coward. He yelled LET'S HAVE A CONVERsATIOn, and then immediately forsook it for personal attacks.

You don't make attacks at thigns that aren't a threat unless you are just an abusive thug.

He's either afraid or a thug.

You can bwess his widdul heart, all you want, but those are your options. Which wolf do you want to feed?

 

[glorydaz]

One eyed jack libeled and attacked me in a character assassinating way, with no substantiation

So I returned the slap with "one eyed moron". At least my response was comical, JUST to make the point he attacked unwarrantedly.

I was banned for his offense. That's a flat out fact.

Then Delmar immediately publishes a comment about homosexuals being pedophiles and to say otherwise is a lie from hell. HE was emotionally charged, because of his ignorance, and not making effort to understand what I actually had said.

He made an emotional, knee jerking fool of himself.

No substantiation he claims, and then he goes on to provide a bucket full. :rotfl:



He's "comical" but the other guys are morons and fools. I do believe this is a rerun from some old movie. :think:

 

[resurrected]

ya know what h?

maybe if you limited yer posts to one or two sentences - it might make you focus on what's important to you and you could drop off all the crap that typically clogs your posts

 

[Heterodoxical]

Well, I cut through a small portion of the your long winded rant. Hopefully you feel better now? Hanky?

and more condescension... but of course you'll LIE because lying is in your nature and claim you don't do it.

What value do you hold, when you forsake your intellect, and make such obvious, bs claims.

you hold less than John W. At least he's entertaining.

 

[Rusha]

and more condescension... but of course you'll LIE because lying is in your nature and claim you don't do it.

What value do you hold, when you forsake your intellect, and make such obvious, bs claims.

you hold less than John W. At least he's entertaining.

Does this mean we can no longer be friends?