[oatmeal]

It's your website, and I don't pay to be on it.

If you want to ban people for any reason,that is your choice.

The rules are rather subjective.

If I correct what I consider to be a non Christian pagan concept that others consider to be Christian, well, that is the risk I take.

However, even a football team in scrimmage, in practice has opposition.

oatmeal

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

serpentdove - Can we get examples of when "the moderators cozy up to God-haters"?

Thanks

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.

[The Barbarian]

The Wiz asks:
serpentdove - Can we get examples of when "the moderators cozy up to God-haters"?

Thanks

Serpent replies:

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.

Innuendo is so much more her style, after all.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

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

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

...[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.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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 someones third or fourth point simply because it's not at the start of their response to me.

[serpentdove]

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.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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

And this is why I explained to you why you're wrong (in general). I'm quoting you here and responding to both parts of your post by way of example in order to make the point. 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.

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

I've had several, still awaiting proper address instead of editing/irrelevant soundbites/links, not that I expect/ed you to or to offer proof for your ongoing misrepresentation of people.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

"...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."

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

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

That are interesting to you.

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

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

Hold your breath. Pr 18:2

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

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

Proof please.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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).

Then you should start looking to your own posts before addressing anybody else's.

That are interesting to you.

That are relevant to the debate at hand. I don't 'cherry pick' the "interesting" parts of another posters response SD. I do the courtesy of answering as best I can whether I'm interested in a certain part of the ongoing or not. If you think your off topic soundbites are *interesting* then think again.

Hold your breath. Pr 18:2

No thanks. I already know you have no intention of debating properly.

Proof please.

Your sig is an ongoing misrepresentation of certain posters. You know it, you've been called on it and have failed to provide the proof to justify it.

So, to echo you....:

Proof please.

[Town Heretic]

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

I think Question Mark was banned just about right.

[Inzl Kett]

Yep. That fellow was a . All he did was snip. He didn't add anything to the threads.

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

[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).

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

"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).

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

"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.

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

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

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

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

My signature is totally awesome!

”Awesome"

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

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

And you'll need more than a mantra to disguise the fact you don't bring honest debate to the table SD, oh and 'NoBrain'? Isn't that what you'd refer to as an ad hominem?

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

Which even if true would still be more substantive than your constant off topic deflection and links.

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'd sooner you actually answered on point and addressed the issues at hand. Disagreement is hardly relevant when conversing with you as mentioned above.

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

So do I depending, none of which is to be found with you either way.

My signature is totally awesome!

If you find unjustified lies acceptable it's simply spectacular SD. Otherwise:

Proof please

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

[Signature ] "...[u]njustified lies..."

My signature is awesome!

”Tommy Boy That was Awesome"