[Charity]

Originally Posted by meshak

Only stuff and the posters themselves can see. I can see mine very clearly. I have many infractions. It will not take too long before I get a month banning days. It is getting longer each time I get banned.

Meshak, Take some time out to discover a new Strategy, you can do it!

[Inzl Kett]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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!

You have it backwards. Joey's theology wasn't even Christian. He posted blasphemy a few times or did you forget? The blasphemous videos he posted got him the ban. Then he tried to get back on with sock accounts that got him permanently booted off the board. His own stupidity got him kicked off. He wasn't a victim. If anyone was a victim it was the members of TOL that had to endure his spam. The Mods and Knight did the right thing.

Townie who you like to pester so much is a Christian. Pestering him is what got you the warnings and the infraction. I can see the woodshed and read what is going on.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"You have it backwards. Joey's theology wasn't even Christian."

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

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

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

I remember the never ending questions.

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"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.

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"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.

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"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.

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"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

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

"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

[serpentdove]

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

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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

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.

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

"She's just that that into you. Why do you think that is??"

See, that's just an insult with interesting punctuation. You'd done that whole "this isn't interesting" song and dance before. You weren't actually attempting to contribute to the thread. The good news is that you don't have to read it.

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

The "Controversy" thread was a send up created by someone else. You didn't get it and/or you didn't actually read any of it before you plucked my one repost/link and asked a question that told me you were only really interested in spamming the thread again.

which suggested that you are favored by TOL moderators because of your financial support-- second warning.

No. I've been a subscriber for a while but that's not what got you a warning. You got a warning because what you were up to was fairly obvious and it was part of a series of similar posts.

Will asking you these questions get me banned today for: thread hijacking or being disruptive?

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

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?

Reposting a public comment and response, along with a link inviting anyone to read the entire exchange isn't gossiping, but let's be clear: your 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 don't report people. I don't give negative rep.

No. Your gossip is in a signature line. As certain readers who aren't in that signature line and who aren't me have read and judged: you routinely misrepresent people, which is a polite way of saying you lie to suit your want of maturation. That explains your calling the mods gestapo and ignoring polite warnings about your behavior from them, resulting in your infraction. And before I ever reported a post by you I asked you to stop, to get in the spirit of the thread or take it elsewhere.

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. You didn't respect the warning. That's on you.

[chrysostom]

I think billybob should be banned more frequently

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

I think billybob should be banned more frequently

Even though he voted for George Bush twice?

[meshak]

Originally Posted by Charity

Meshak, Take some time out to discover a new Strategy, you can do it!

I am doing just fine as Jesus' servant. Jesus' teachings and commandments are not popular in mainstream churches and I get booed all my threads and posts because I spread how wrong they are to ignore His teachings as professed Christians.

I have to spread His messages regardless.

thanks for your input.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

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

It was too probing a question.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"...[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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).

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

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

You're projecting again. Let the reader decide.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"...[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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?

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

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

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Nick M

Even though he voted for George Bush twice?

You're right. A permaban seems more appropriate.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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

Well, let no one say you lack an inadvertent sense of humor.

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 because you financially support TOL.

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.

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. Start your own thread and see if anyone is interested.

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

Fact is, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Yes and no. I have a lot of bits and pieces of time while I take care of Jack. When he sleeps, while he's playing by himself on and off. That sort of thing. 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 claim to be a lawyer;

I am. At least one member here in good standing will confirm it if it's a point of serious inquiry for you. Send AMR a PM.

but, you appear afraid to address opposition to your arguments.

That's nuts. The very posts in those threads you're getting your garters in a bind over are precisely that. And I've never been known for not arguing around here.

TOL is for debate. Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to specialize in?

Not exactly. Depends on the attorney. Lawyers are trained in critical thinking and its application to the law. Debate is only a part of that.

I didn't understand. That is why I asked for an explanation.

I don't believe you. Neither did the admin.

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

They do all the time. And I answer them. But every thread linked to in my Observations thread is an ongoing argument. I don't mean to argue them in two places. Observations is a mostly humorous, occasionally serious reflection on those arguments in progress.

I omit you lying about my political orientation. Anything honest and substantive you need to know?

My user options are set up to automatically subscribe to any thread that I have previously commented in.

You can still unsubscribe to a specific thread. So you aren't chained to any of them. It's not an either/or situation.

I warn others about dangerous make-believers

You strike me as someone in need of significance. You make claims you can't support and then declare "Let the reader decide." When the reader does, publicly, as zoo recently did, you attack them, call them pagans, etc. So there you are.

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. And 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.

So I don't believe anyone could accuse me of not demonstrating restraint on the point.

I don't lock down threads.

Who's trying to spam yours? Again, start a thread filled with your thoughts and bits and pieces. See if anyone shows up. Could be edifying for you.

I appreciate that.

No, you say that but then you went right back at it. You went at it without even the excuse of answering a post about you. And that's why you received an infraction.

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.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"...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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"I omit you lying about my political orientation."

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

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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).

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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".

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"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

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

[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).

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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.

He was TOO much of a pest! And he was

There may be some truth, Christians receive mire latitude, yet Rusha is not Christian; however, she has never been a pest, she has the balance it takes to be a good moderator.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

I must have misunderstood.

You misunderstood your own writing? Because you were the one who speculated that it was my financial contributions that influenced the mods. Peculiar. As a rule, if you don't know what it is you're saying you should either stop saying it or run for Congress.

...I enjoy your updates to the thread. I've responded to others from a point I've missed after reading your highlights.

I understand you'd like for it to appear as innocuous as that. But your 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:

Originally Posted by serpentdove

Is this your scrapbooking party? Do you sell candles, too? 

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
I thought it might be interesting to have a thread where the miscellaneous observations of life could be made...

Originally Posted by serpentdove

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. You're not a very good lawyer are you?...

Too bad you're a control freak.

Is it that you don't know the difference between the truth and a lie, know but don't care, or do you simply believe whatever it is you say for whatever reason you say it?

You were incoherent and they [the mods] were lazy.

All the more reason to subscribe and enjoy my writing.

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

Been there/explained that. Go look for the moderate designation. Because that's what my actual position should look like.

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

I don't want to argue points being argued in the threads referenced. If you want to take up a point then take it up in the thread where it's being argued. Simple as that.

...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).

Nothing says "I'm growing in humility" quite like pointing it out to others.

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.

I've stated the why of my objection to your abuse of scripture to lend authority to declarations unsupported in association with their target. It's illustrated perfectly in your use of God's response to the luke warm. The problem being that you don't establish the charge against me, merely declare it. Then prop it up with the verse that would be relevant had you made anything like the case.

The pagan heathens who identify as "other" routinely come out to support you.

You made that declaration after zoo answered your ever popular "let the reader decide" by deciding against you. His designation? Christian. No "other" and no pagan.

What does that say about you?

The same thing my friendship with Psalmist or Knight or any number of people across a spectrum of positions says: I can have respectful differences with men and women of principle and retain their friendship. That they don't see in me the things you project there.

You call God-haters "friend".

I do not. I don't have a friend who hates God. I have a number of friends who don't believe my God exists. I love them as Christ loved them. And I argue and witness with them while worrying after the state of their souls. I treat them with respect as some among the faithful treated me when I was lost. And they know that I'm concerned for them and that I'm fond of them. And many of them evidence more character, compassion and desire for truth than some zealots who share my faith. And that's a sad thing to see in the Body.

...Most people move to the right as they get older.

Not demonstrably. That's a saying you're confusing with a fact. What I suspect happens, if you live long enough, is that the world moves to your left. That's rather what Reagan said, in essence, when he noted he didn't leave the Democratic party, it left him.

If you don't, what are we to conclude?

A conclusion is the end of a rational process. You don't conclude. You just declare whatever reality suits you.

I omit helping you in your ongoing attempt at assassinating the character of other members, especially those who aren't here to defend themselves against it.

...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.