davidylan:

I asked a simple question. you have asked that atheism be treated on the same level as other beliefs, you have stated here that you regard this section as one where all beliefs should be accommodated. I ask, does that now make atheism a belief on the same par as others?

It is a simple question... just throwing out the word "troll" to drown out inconvenient truth isnt very helpful.

(dis)belief.

Logicboy03:

(dis)belief.

If atheism is disbelief (whatever that means) and you agree that this section is for discussion of beliefs then why are you surprised that your thread is closed? Shouldnt it be considered offtopic and inconsistent with the objectives of this section? Would you be surprised if a topic discussing malaria prevalence is shut down on the politics section?

It is either atheism is a belief and thus your thread should be treated with equal standards as that of alexleo or it is not and should not even be in this section in the first place SINCE YOU AGREE that this is a section for beliefs ONLY.

musKeeto:
@weigraf: long time.

How cold can one be? He's not even given a cursory hello. Makes me sad....

Logicboy03:



Alexleo's Op in his thread was quite abusive of the Mary and the Catholic church. Honesty it should have been closed (aand I am not a catholic). It was reported to Jesoul, according to what you posted but she left it open.

My thread contained no abuse and it was a bible quiz based on events that happened in the bible. No abuse and no mocking intent in the op, yet it was closed.

1. Alexleo was a Christian and so were the people whom he offended and so was the Mod that arbitrated.

2. The thread started a discussion. It's not taboo to open a discussion. He was extremely insolent and abusive but he did open a discussion that allowed his prejudice to be examined and possibly destroyed.

3. The Mod encouraged engagement in his case because it was possible without derailing the thread.

Now, those are three points about alexleo's issue that distinguished it from yours. I see no parallel. Want to try again?

davidylan:

If atheism is disbelief (whatever that means) and you agree that this section is for discussion of beliefs then why are you surprised that your thread is closed? Shouldnt it be considered offtopic and inconsistent with the objectives of this section? Would you be surprised if a topic discussing malaria prevalence is shut down on the politics section?

It is either atheism is a belief and thus your thread should be treated with equal standards as that of alexleo or it is not and should not even be in this section in the first place SINCE YOU AGREE that this is a section for beliefs ONLY.

In short, you are saying that all atheist threads should be closed.




Stop trolling

wiegraf:

How cold can one be? He's not even given a cursory hello. Makes me sad....

Don't break his focus. Trolling ain't easy and lb has walked right into his trap.

How ur end jare? U just dey use small eye look that humanist forum...

Logicboy03:


In short, you are saying that all atheist threads should be closed.




Stop trolling

In short i am saying you cant eat your cake and have it. If atheism is a belief then come out and say so... you would be more than welcome to post to your hearts content here. If it is not a belief then dont be surprised if it is treated as offtopic, outside the scope of the section and summarily shut down.

Once again... simply throwing out the word "troll" doesnt help your case. It only makes you look small-minded, petty and confused.

Ihedinobi:

1. Alexleo was a Christian and so were the people whom he offended and so was the Mod that arbitrated.

2. The thread started a discussion. It's not taboo to open a discussion. He was extremely insolent and abusive but he did open a discussion that allowed his prejudice to be examined and possibly destroyed.

3. The Mod encouraged engagement in his case because it was possible without derailing the thread.

Now, those are three points about alexleo's issue that distinguished it from yours. I see no parallel. Want to try again?

Ah ah, bro, whatever happened to the almighty Rule 2?

Anyways, at least you've agreed LB's thread should be closed because it was opened by an atheist.

Thanks.

Ihedinobi:

1. Alexleo was a Christian and so were the people whom he offended and so was the Mod that arbitrated.

2. The thread started a discussion. It's not taboo to open a discussion. He was extremely insolent and abusive but he did open a discussion that allowed his prejudice to be examined and possibly destroyed.

3. The Mod encouraged engagement in his case because it was possible without derailing the thread.

Now, those are three points about alexleo's issue that distinguished it from yours. I see no parallel. Want to try again?

1) So, a christian can abuse other christians and go scott free but an atheist can not? Is this a christian section or the religion section. Any religious abuse is banned and against the rules. No bigotry allowed

2) So breaking the rules is okay if you start a discussion? Mind you, my thread did not break any rules and the commenters were enjoying and participating in the quiz

3) Was my thread derailed? An abusive op is already a derailed thread.



Ihedinobi, you are dishonest, immoral and foolish.


Alexleo's thread should have been closed. Please find one catholic that would want that thread open. fool

davidylan:

In short i am saying you cant eat your cake and have it. If atheism is a belief then come out and say so... you would be more than welcome to post to your hearts content here. If it is not a belief then dont be surprised if it is treated as offtopic, outside the scope of the section and summarily shut down.

Once again... simply throwing out the word "troll" doesnt help your case. It only makes you look small-minded, petty and confused.

Trololo

musKeeto:

Ah ah, bro, whatever happened to the almighty Rule 2?

Anyways, at least you've agreed LB's thread should be closed because it was opened by an atheist.

Thanks.

Dont mind the dishonest tool. Ihedinobi is just useless

musKeeto:

Ah ah, bro, whatever happened to the almighty Rule 2?

Anyways, at least you've agreed LB's thread should be closed because it was opened by an atheist.

Thanks.

Lol. You really can't decide between the sidelines and the arena, can you?

Let's think this through, shall we? Rule #2 prohibits insolenceand abuse. Both threads violated this rule basically. One Mod handled them and judged them differently.

Now, the very fact that Lb paralleled this case with his is suspect because it would suggest that they were either both out of order or both in order, but he was treated unfairly.

Now, I have shown how JeSoul's ruling in either case made sense. In alexleo's, gagging him may have been counterproductive because he had actually, however insolently, actually tabled a discussion. In Lb's, however, how exactly was anyone going to dispute the assumptions which only formed the objectives of a game thread without derailing the thread?

The same rule was violated, but upon examination of the circumstances, the same punishment may not have mitigated the offence. I'm sure you know that a life may be the cost of an action, but justice may in fact be violated if the mover of the action had to be made to forfeit his/her life if the surrounding circumstances were not properly accounted for.

Logicboy03:




1) So, a christian can abuse other christians and go scott free but an atheist can not? Is this a christian section or the religion section. Any religious abuse is banned and against the rules. No bigotry allowed

@bolded: do the rules say this?

Again, did he merely abuse? Did he go scot-free?

Um, are you admitting that you actually abused Christians by the above?

2) So breaking the rules is okay if you start a discussion? Mind you, my thread did not break any rules and the commenters were enjoying and participating in the quiz

You know, you've actually been calling me names a lot here, but I don't see you banned or anything. According to Rule #2, shouldn't you be? Why aren't you?

3) Was my thread derailed? An abusive op is already a derailed thread.

Honestly, I don't even know what this means in light of what I said.

Ihedinobi, you are dishonest, immoral and foolish.

If only that were true, right?

Alexleo's thread should have been closed. Please find one catholic that would want that thread open. fool

Why should it have been closed? And, again, argumentum ad populum is not always a good argument. Offence is not subjective, reaction.to it may be, but itself is not.

Logicboy03:

hahahaha

The dubious PDP politician exposed.

Your thread was highly abusive to atheist. Yet, you went ahead to complain about mine that contained no abuse and had no intent to mock rather it was to get atheist to answer quizzical questions on the bible.


Guy....go and sleep

Yawn. you haven't shown any abuse anywhere other than highlighting some lines and claiming to be abused. As I said, you are always welcome to report it to the mods

Ihedinobi:

Lol. You really can't decide between the sidelines and the arena, can you?

Let's think this through, shall we? Rule #2 prohibits insolenceand abuse. Both threads violated this rule basically. One Mod handled them and judged them differently.

Now, the very fact that Lb paralleled this case with his is suspect because it would suggest that they were either both out of order or both in order, but he was treated unfairly.

Now, I have shown how JeSoul's ruling in either case made sense. In alexleo's, gagging him may have been counterproductive because he had actually, however insolently, actually tabled a discussion. In Lb's, however, how exactly was anyone going to dispute the assumptions which only formed the objectives of a game thread without derailing the thread?

The same rule was violated, but upon examination of the circumstances, the same punishment may not have mitigated the offence. I'm sure you know that a life may be the cost of an action, but justice may in fact be violated if the mover of the action had to be made to forfeit his/her life if the surrounding circumstances were not properly accounted for.

I dont know whether you are tolling or being dishonest or just plain foolish


1) Only Alexleo's thread contained abuse. I and the others on my thread did not abuse anyone. No abuse no insult.

2) Alexleo broke the rules. His thread violated the rules. Violated the rules not even mildly. It was full on blasphemy and abuse of the catholic church. There is no meeting point here. The thread should have been closed.

3) You even went on to argue that Jesoul was right not to close it because it could have brought about some discussion.

a) There was no discussion on that thread as it didnt even last half a page

b) There was no way a catholic would sit down and discuss with someone who refers to Mary as that of Satan.

c) Who or what made such a foolish rule that the possibility of discussion take preference over due moderation or closing of an abusive thread?


4) IN YOUR LIFE ON NAIRALAND, DO NOT EVER COME ON A THREAD AND TELL ME THAT

A) ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL/DISHONEST
B) THAT YOU ARE A SENSIBLE OR GOOD PERSON


BECAUSE THE DISHONESTY, BIAS AND WICKEDNESS YOU HAVE SHOWN BY DEFENDING ALEXLEO'S THREAD IS JUST TOO MUCH.


FOOLISH TROLL

Mr anony: Yawn. you haven't shown any abuse anywhere other than highlighting some lines and claiming to be abused. As I said, you are always welcome to report it to the mods

In Anony's mind, saying that murderers and rap.ists are justified by atheism is not abuse. It is fair.


You people have no shame.


Then, tommorow you people will strut on threads on morality as if you have any honest fiber in your body. Azzhole

Ihedinobi:

@bolded: do the rules say this?

Again, did he merely abuse? Did he go scot-free?

Um, are you admitting that you actually abused Christians by the above?




You know, you've actually been calling me names a lot here, but I don't see you banned or anything. According to Rule #2, shouldn't you be? Why aren't you?




Honestly, I don't even know what this means in light of what I said.




If only that were true, right?




Why should it have been closed? And, again, argumentum ad populum is not always a good argument. Offence is not subjective, reaction.to it may be, but itself is not.

See dishonest troll

Logicboy03:



I dont know whether you are tolling or being dishonest or just plain foolish


1) Only Alexleo's thread contained abuse. I and the others on my thread did not abuse anyone. No abuse no insult.

You did not? The mockery of the notion which Christians hold sacred that the Bible is inerrant and that there is no hypocrisy nor atrocities in it is not an insult to them? Lol.

2) Alexleo broke the rules. His thread violated the rules. Violated the rules not even mildly. It was full on blasphemy and abuse of the catholic church. There is no meeting point here. The thread should have been closed.

Simple question I asked: why was it to have been closed? Do the rules say that all such offences must be met with thread-locking?

3) You even went on to argue that Jesoul was right not to close it because it could have brought about some discussion.

I recognize nothing I argued in the above.

a) There was no discussion on that thread as it didnt even last half a page

Were there any responses at all to the op?

b) There was no way a catholic would sit down and discuss with someone who refers to Mary as that of Satan.

Very laughable assumption. However, what does that have to do with the fact that a discussion has been opened?

c) Who or what made such a foolish rule that the possibility of discussion take preference over due moderation or closing of an abusive thread?

Lol. Who claimed the existence of any such rule? And who made the rule that every thread that contains abuse must be closed?

4) IN YOUR LIFE ON NAIRALAND, DO NOT EVER COME ON A THREAD AND TELL ME THAT

A) ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL/DISHONEST
B) THAT YOU ARE A SENSIBLE OR GOOD PERSON


BECAUSE THE DISHONESTY, BIAS AND WICKEDNESS YOU HAVE SHOWN BY DEFENDING ALEXLEO'S THREAD IS JUST TOO MUCH.


FOOLISH TROLL

Lol. I'd like to see what you'll do when I do.

Logicboy03:





See dishonest troll

If only calling someone dishonest and a troll made them those, right? How frustrating it must be for you.

Logicboy03:


In Anony's mind, saying that murderers and rap.ists are justified by atheism is not abuse. It is fair.


You people have no shame.


Then, tommorow you people will strut on threads on morality as if you have any honest fiber in your body. Azzhole

Does atheism prohibit murderers and rapists?

Ihedinobi, gats to say, almost no one expends that much effort trying to see things from the mods perspective, and for that you're super dupa dude. Save for you and others here that i respect very much this would just be more water on the duck but lets pick this as the spot...

...Fascinating discussion

I will continue to the best of my ability (which is not perfect) to hide, ban and remove all posts I consider offensive. This is naturally a subjective undertaking because we are all different and have different tolerance levels. So you will not always agree with me, but I ask you bring it to my attention and we can respectfully discuss and make any corrections . Some Christians have challenged me recently on my leaving of offensive materials so I have upped my game in response. I have made and will make mistakes and have no problem correcting them. This is how we get better as human beings. But I have no tolerance or audience for rants and personal attacks which is the next recourse of a few problem posters here. I mean is this how to solve a problem? Spam threads with insults & cuss the mods out? Is this how adults behave? Over what? The inability to post for a day or two on a private forum? Do you take this that seriously?

  Furthermore, I think its a disservice to lump all 'atheists' into one bad category because most of them are good citizens and follow the rules as they post strongly against religion. Take stock, it is the same 1% of the hundreds of posters here causing 99% of the trouble. It is also worthy of note that the major 'complainants' of jesoul are also perennial troublemakers here and in other sections, some of whom have even earned the impressive site-wite ban from the admin for very bad behavior. I see the logs, so I know everyone's track record. I expect everyone to behave like adults and submit challenges respectfully when they feel a mod has made a mistake here or in any other section. Mods are humans, treat them how you want to be treated. I take effort to treat everyone fairly and give a long leash for error before I clamp down hard and take off the kid gloves. Some of you prefer koboko, so be it. 

 If some atheists feel my moderation is one sided, then that is what MMW is here for, to balance any inadequacies on my side, and there will be inadequacies, as a Christian I am not the best judge of what is offensive to atheists or Muslims. And I expect atheists to respect that they are likewise not the best judges of what is offensive to Christians. So if any threads are here that atheists consider offensive, take your case to MMW. Though I think he does a good job personally. You just cannot please everyone. 

Also I could've easily saved a lot of discussion by simply reminding you all of the recent updates to NL rules...and the forum-wide push for civility during discourse.  As such threads that I would've left pre-rule update I would now censure. So Alexleo's post today would not survive under the new rules. Surely the expectation cannot be we retroactively go back and ban all posts that don't comply with the new tougher rules? So oga striktlymi, I would address that complaint differently today. And yes, some troublemakers are on my radar more than others and we will miss threads from time to time and I expect you guys to bring it to our attention. 

Furthermore on the Frosbel issue. Hmm...I guess none of you are aware that I actually banned him some months back specifically for his attacks on catholics? And of course he said he was being persecuted when someone asked about his absence. Again, you cannot please everybody. 

  Finally, if y'all want more hiding and banning that can certainly be arranged. But I know the next complaint would be cries of censorship from the same people so you see yet again you cannot please some people no matter what you do. In any case there should be some changes around here soon. But I'm sure not everyone will be pleased as usual. No wahala, life goes on . 

Cheers people.

^just realized that was real long. Apologies folks.

JeSoul: Ihedinobi, gats to say, almost no one expends that much effort trying to see things from the mods perspective, and for that you're super dupa dude. Save for you and others here that i respect very much this would just be more water on the duck but lets pick this as the spot...

...Fascinating discussion

I will continue to the best of my ability (which is not perfect) to hide, ban and remove all posts I consider offensive. This is naturally a subjective undertaking because we are all different and have different tolerance levels. So you will not always agree with me, but I ask you bring it to my attention and we can respectfully discuss and make any corrections . Some Christians have challenged me recently on my leaving of offensive materials so I have upped my game in response. I have made and will make mistakes and have no problem correcting them. This is how we get better as human beings. But I have no tolerance or audience for rants and personal attacks which is the next recourse of a few problem posters here. I mean is this how to solve a problem? Spam threads with insults & cuss the mods out? Is this how adults behave? Over what? The inability to post for a day or two on a private forum? Do you take this that seriously?

  Furthermore, I think its a disservice to lump all 'atheists' into one bad category because most of them are good citizens and follow the rules as they post strongly against religion. Take stock, it is the same 1% of the hundreds of posters here causing 99% of the trouble. It is also worthy of note that the major 'complainants' of jesoul are also perennial troublemakers here and in other sections, some of whom have even earned the impressive site-wite ban from the admin for very bad behavior. I see the logs, so I know everyone's track record. I expect everyone to behave like adults and submit challenges respectfully when they feel a mod has made a mistake here or in any other section. Mods are humans, treat them how you want to be treated. I take effort to treat everyone fairly and give a long leash for error before I clamp down hard and take off the kid gloves. Some of you prefer koboko, so be it. 

 If some atheists feel my moderation is one sided, then that is what MMW is here for, to balance any inadequacies on my side, and there will be inadequacies, as a Christian I am not the best judge of what is offensive to atheists or Muslims. And I expect atheists to respect that they are likewise not the best judges of what is offensive to Christians. So if any threads are here that atheists consider offensive, take your case to MMW. Though I think he does a good job personally. You just cannot please everyone. 

Also I could've easily saved a lot of discussion by simply reminding you all of the recent updates to NL rules...and the forum-wide push for civility during discourse.  As such threads that I would've left pre-rule update I would now censure. So Alexleo's post today would not survive under the new rules. Surely the expectation cannot be we retroactively go back and ban all posts that don't comply with the new tougher rules? So oga striktlymi, I would address that complaint differently today. And yes, some troublemakers are on my radar more than others and we will miss threads from time to time and I expect you guys to bring it to our attention. 

Furthermore on the Frosbel issue. Hmm...I guess none of you are aware that I actually banned him some months back specifically for his attacks on catholics? And of course he said he was being persecuted when someone asked about his absence. Again, you cannot please everybody. 

  Finally, if y'all want more hiding and banning that can certainly be arranged. But I know the next complaint would be cries of censorship from the same people so you see yet again you cannot please some people no matter what you do. In any case there should be some changes around here soon. But I'm sure not everyone will be pleased as usual. No wahala, life goes on . 

Cheers people.

It is really good that you weighed in, sis. I'm glad I could help at all, if I did. You've cleared up a good deal, I assure you. God bless you, sis.

And, er, don't worry about the length. There were not a few things said that you had to respond to

JeSoul: Ihedinobi, gats to say, almost no one expends that much effort trying to see things from the mods perspective, and for that you're super dupa dude. Save for you and others here that i respect very much this would just be more water on the duck but lets pick this as the spot...

...Fascinating discussion

I will continue to the best of my ability (which is not perfect) to hide, ban and remove all posts I consider offensive. This is naturally a subjective undertaking because we are all different and have different tolerance levels. So you will not always agree with me, but I ask you bring it to my attention and we can respectfully discuss and make any corrections . Some Christians have challenged me recently on my leaving of offensive materials so I have upped my game in response. I have made and will make mistakes and have no problem correcting them. This is how we get better as human beings. But I have no tolerance or audience for rants and personal attacks which is the next recourse of a few problem posters here. I mean is this how to solve a problem? Spam threads with insults & cuss the mods out? Is this how adults behave? Over what? The inability to post for a day or two on a private forum? Do you take this that seriously?

  Furthermore, I think its a disservice to lump all 'atheists' into one bad category because most of them are good citizens and follow the rules as they post strongly against religion. Take stock, it is the same 1% of the hundreds of posters here causing 99% of the trouble. It is also worthy of note that the major 'complainants' of jesoul are also perennial troublemakers here and in other sections, some of whom have even earned the impressive site-wite ban from the admin for very bad behavior. I see the logs, so I know everyone's track record. I expect everyone to behave like adults and submit challenges respectfully when they feel a mod has made a mistake here or in any other section. Mods are humans, treat them how you want to be treated. I take effort to treat everyone fairly and give a long leash for error before I clamp down hard and take off the kid gloves. Some of you prefer koboko, so be it. 

 If some atheists feel my moderation is one sided, then that is what MMW is here for, to balance any inadequacies on my side, and there will be inadequacies, as a Christian I am not the best judge of what is offensive to atheists or Muslims. And I expect atheists to respect that they are likewise not the best judges of what is offensive to Christians. So if any threads are here that atheists consider offensive, take your case to MMW. Though I think he does a good job personally. You just cannot please everyone. 

Also I could've easily saved a lot of discussion by simply reminding you all of the recent updates to NL rules...and the forum-wide push for civility during discourse.  As such threads that I would've left pre-rule update I would now censure. So Alexleo's post today would not survive under the new rules. Surely the expectation cannot be we retroactively go back and ban all posts that don't comply with the new tougher rules? So oga striktlymi, I would address that complaint differently today. And yes, some troublemakers are on my radar more than others and we will miss threads from time to time and I expect you guys to bring it to our attention. 

Furthermore on the Frosbel issue. Hmm...I guess none of you are aware that I actually banned him some months back specifically for his attacks on catholics? And of course he said he was being persecuted when someone asked about his absence. Again, you cannot please everybody. 

  Finally, if y'all want more hiding and banning that can certainly be arranged. But I know the next complaint would be cries of censorship from the same people so you see yet again you cannot please some people no matter what you do. In any case there should be some changes around here soon. But I'm sure not everyone will be pleased as usual. No wahala, life goes on . 

Cheers people.

I guess a guilty conscience is a strong thing. I did not expect Jesoul to comment on this thread since she normally avoids my threads. I guess 7 pages of most people not agreeing with her decision (except for Ihedinobi) is quite a political problem.

some few things to note.

-Even at the old rules Alexleos thread should have been banned.
-Jesoul took her precious time to address Ihedinobi, the only person to really support her decision.


Thanks for putting on the mature act by jumping on my thread and being the only commenter not to even address me or the op.....the op was not about your generous moderating skills.

Very mature.....not douchey at all.


Thread closed

Logicboy03:


I guess a guilty conscience is a strong thing. I did not expect Jesoul to comment on this thread since she normally avoids my threads. I guess 7 pages of most people not agreeing with her decision (except for Ihedinobi) is quite a political problem.

some few things to note.

-Even at the old rules Alexleos thread should have been banned.
-Jesoul took her precious time to address Ihedinobi, the only person to really support her decision.


Thanks for putting on the mature act by jumping on my thread and being the only commenter not to even address me or the op.....the op was not about your generous moderating skills.

Very mature.....not douchey at all.


Thread closed

Oh my goodness, you are such a crybaby

Mr anony:
Oh my goodness, you are such a crybaby

huh?

Are you sure you quoted the right comment?

Trolling late at night is bad for the brain!

JeSoul: Ihedinobi, gats to say, almost no one expends that much effort trying to see things from the mods perspective, and for that you're super dupa dude. Save for you and others here that i respect very much this would just be more water on the duck but lets pick this as the spot...

...Fascinating discussion

I will continue to the best of my ability (which is not perfect) to hide, ban and remove all posts I consider offensive. This is naturally a subjective undertaking because we are all different and have different tolerance levels. So you will not always agree with me, but I ask you bring it to my attention and we can respectfully discuss and make any corrections . Some Christians have challenged me recently on my leaving of offensive materials so I have upped my game in response. I have made and will make mistakes and have no problem correcting them. This is how we get better as human beings. But I have no tolerance or audience for rants and personal attacks which is the next recourse of a few problem posters here. I mean is this how to solve a problem? Spam threads with insults & cuss the mods out? Is this how adults behave? Over what? The inability to post for a day or two on a private forum? Do you take this that seriously?

  Furthermore, I think its a disservice to lump all 'atheists' into one bad category because most of them are good citizens and follow the rules as they post strongly against religion. Take stock, it is the same 1% of the hundreds of posters here causing 99% of the trouble. It is also worthy of note that the major 'complainants' of jesoul are also perennial troublemakers here and in other sections, some of whom have even earned the impressive site-wite ban from the admin for very bad behavior. I see the logs, so I know everyone's track record. I expect everyone to behave like adults and submit challenges respectfully when they feel a mod has made a mistake here or in any other section. Mods are humans, treat them how you want to be treated. I take effort to treat everyone fairly and give a long leash for error before I clamp down hard and take off the kid gloves. Some of you prefer koboko, so be it. 

 If some atheists feel my moderation is one sided, then that is what MMW is here for, to balance any inadequacies on my side, and there will be inadequacies, as a Christian I am not the best judge of what is offensive to atheists or Muslims. And I expect atheists to respect that they are likewise not the best judges of what is offensive to Christians. So if any threads are here that atheists consider offensive, take your case to MMW. Though I think he does a good job personally. You just cannot please everyone. 

Also I could've easily saved a lot of discussion by simply reminding you all of the recent updates to NL rules...and the forum-wide push for civility during discourse.  As such threads that I would've left pre-rule update I would now censure. So Alexleo's post today would not survive under the new rules. Surely the expectation cannot be we retroactively go back and ban all posts that don't comply with the new tougher rules? So oga striktlymi, I would address that complaint differently today. And yes, some troublemakers are on my radar more than others and we will miss threads from time to time and I expect you guys to bring it to our attention. 

Furthermore on the Frosbel issue. Hmm...I guess none of you are aware that I actually banned him some months back specifically for his attacks on catholics? And of course he said he was being persecuted when someone asked about his absence. Again, you cannot please everybody. 

  Finally, if y'all want more hiding and banning that can certainly be arranged. But I know the next complaint would be cries of censorship from the same people so you see yet again you cannot please some people no matter what you do. In any case there should be some changes around here soon. But I'm sure not everyone will be pleased as usual. No wahala, life goes on . 

Cheers people.

Finally. And did you really go through this thread? All pages? Lol.


Oga Ihe.. I don waka. bYE BYE O....

musKeeto:




Finally. And did you really go through this thread? All pages? Lol.


Oga Ihe.. I don waka. bYE BYE O....

lol.....

Ihedinobi:

It is really good that you weighed in, sis. I'm glad I could help at all, if I did. You've cleared up a good deal, I assure you. God bless you, sis.

And, er, don't worry about the length. There were not a few things said that you had to respond to

Oh you certainly helped my dear brother, thank you! and I also appreciate the concern you raised too - I depend on you all to keep me straight! Before I became I mod there were many things I complained about too...but the view from here affords you quite a different perspective on many things. I hope many people here get the chance to be mods so they can understand.

musKeeto:




Finally. And did you really go through this thread? All pages? Lol.

Lol. Well to be honest...I read mostly from page 4 onwards, skipping the obvious rants of course (as a mod you have to be able to read thru long threads quick to moderate efficiently, now multiply this thread by all the ones in this section and you'll see how time consuming it can be! lol). I know Ihe & LB banter all the time but thought to peek in & pay attention when I saw some others like yourself, Strik etc post some concerns & questions. I truly do respect a lot of you very much and I owed you guys an explanation. That is how to go about it, raise valid concerns without abuse or rants and I hope my explanation addresses all the concerns raised. If there's anything else, you all know where to find me .

JeSoul: Oh you certainly helped my dear brother, thank you! and I also appreciate the concern you raised too - I depend on you all to keep me straight! Before I became I mod there were many things I complained about too...but the view from here affords you quite a different perspective on many things. I hope many people here get the chance to be mods so they can understand.

Lol. Well to be honest...I read mostly from page 4 onwards, skipping the obvious rants of course (as a mod you have to be able to read thru long threads quick to moderate efficiently, now multiply this thread by all the ones in this section and you'll see how time consuming it can be! lol). I know Ihe & LB banter all the time but thought to peek in & pay attention when I saw some others like yourself, Strik etc post some concerns & questions. I truly do respect a lot of you very much and I owed you guys an explanation. That is how to go about it, raise valid concerns without abuse or rants and I hope my explanation addresses all the concerns raised. If there's anything else, you all know where to find me .

Ihedinobi was jealous of Anony's relationship with Logicboy. Or so the story goes.. hahahaa...

No wahala Maam.

Logicboy03:

Like Anony and other christians dont abuse first. Keep forgetting to remove the log of wood in your eye......

The female atheist gave you a sensible reply. Gbam

So you've never abused first ? Thou hypocrite ? Forget the speck in your eye. Her reply was sensible.

Logicboy03:
You think your ignorance on evolution offends me? No, it is the fact that you actually use it to attack atheists or when you lie about it. It is one thing to deny evolution but another to claim false things about it

Actually you know little about what you purport to believe. Without checking online, define directional and stabilizing selection.

Logicboy03: -the purpose of evolution is to show how life arose without a creator (theist falsehood)
(really? Darwin and other scientists were thinking about nullifying god when studyung species?)

Yes, it is. The theory of special creation was widely accepted in Darwin's time, his theory refuted it. In the preface of his book he suggests the notion of special creation is false.

Logicboy03:
A creatard is a specific term for a creationist who makes "f4cktarded" comments about evolution. If it smells lie a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck

You mean the evolution you know little about. And what about f***tarded comments from evolutionists like creationists want to teach Genesis in schools, creationists don't understand 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.

Logicboy03:
Yawn....a true but irrelevant point.

So you admit it's true . . . yet it's irrelevant.

Logicboy03: Infact, I find your irrelevant point offensive. Personal take of offense can not be used as a moderating standard....but that is what Jesoul did

True. Now this 'irrelevant point' is what you ignore when making statements on ChristianityM You have an antagonitic belief it's inevitable you'll annoy and be annoyed.

Logicboy03: 1) I am not Mudley. And Manmustwacc testified that Jesoul acted wrongly too on the part of Mudley. Manmustwacc said it indirectly some time ago during the episode with my fight with her on my sticky thread. Manmustwacc had given conditions for my threaad to be stickied but then Jesoul came out of the blues just to tell me not to ask for my thread to be stickied (note that I never asked Jesoul as I didnt like her moderation at the time and was conversing with MMC only). Manmustwacc corrected Jesoul that she should have gone to the ~Moderators' lounge to discuss things in private if she disagreed with his handling of things and that this was part of the problems they had with Mudley.

She didn't act wrongly. Mudley roundly, without GENUINE provocation insulted JeSoul and made vitriolic threads attacking her person. Mudley is back. You can ask him. I'm following him.

Logicboy03: 2) You said that my thread bordered on abuse. That is a lie. Please point out any abuse from any comment on that thread. Why are you people liars?

Indeed. I checked the thread again, there was no outright abuse.

Logicboy03: 3) My thread, especially the op was not intended to mock or be sarcastic. I'm quite sure you didnt read the op before spouting the lies. READ THE DAMN OP.

Sorry. I mistook the thread for another more insulting one by Alfa Setzler.

Logicboy03: 4) Jesoul noted with path? Sarcasm is not against the laws of Niaraland. 21 laws there and not one broken. Is Jesoul now a future reader? There was no abuse on that thread.

Okay. Stop whining about it. Do you ban yourself for in$ulting others ?

Logicboy03: 5) I called you a "person" because you did fucktarded things. You know it yourself

The way I'm now calling you deluded for believing in a delusion (evolution).

Logicboy03:
A deist is still a theist. You still carry your silly christian logic at times. You havent been fully cleansed. Come to the church of logicboyism for a full baptism by fire

'A deist is a theist.' You see how $tupid you are. Using dumb logic to decieve yourself. Next this mofo will now say Thomas Paine was an atheist.
BTW, I haven't said I'm deist - not yet. You are assuming some things wrongly about my present state now.

Logicboy03:
Why should Jesoul ban atheistic comments? Do you read what you write at times?

Did I say she should ban atheistic comments ? Your head dey correct so ?

Logicboy03:
What? And you are admitting that your christian brethren are too foolish to hide their intolerance? lol

Both sides are culpable, in fact we are all guilty of offending people willfully or inadvertently. The fact that atheists now aren't known for killing, extreme censure etc doesn't mean they can or don't do it. That's why the case of Stalin is forwarded as an example that atheists can be very intolerant.

Logicboy03: The point is simple, atheists are far more tolerant that christians in general. So your point is moot. Do atheists go to the government to make laws that force beliefs on others? No. Christians and muslims do.

They are not far more tolerant. If they are, consider that they are far lesser than Christians. Yet still given the large number of Christians, consider the tolerant ones. Would you have called yourself an intolerant Catholic ? They do force laws. Google suits by FFRF (suits by freedom from religion foundation).

Logicboy03: Imagine trying to pass a bill that makes belief in God mandatory for office! Imagine passing a bill to require creationsim taught alongside evoliution in science class

Or trying to pass a bill that makes practicing religion illegal ! or declaring your state an atheist state !

Logicboy03: By the way, Enver Hoxha was intolerant but why do you have to go to times before you and I were born? Why not find recent cases of atheist intolerance? Why? Is it hard? Are atheists just more tolerant?

So you don't go to olden days to say Christianity caused mass murder. Mention mass killings done because of Christianity recently.

Logicboy03: Atheist intolerance is even meaningless. What you mean to say is "anti-religion"

And that is tolerant ! You be kpomo wey never see mouth for am !

Logicboy03:
But you behaved like a psychopath.....that is a logical conclusion....remeber when you were supporting biblical genocide and immorality? Or do you still support it?

Define a psycopath. State how I fit the definition. I think it was hell (and not Biblical genocide/immorality) I was justifying. I still support it

Logicboy03: lol...you must be silly or surprised at the wickedness of the theists....

Logicboy03: 1) I am very tolerant of religion. I have never said that christians or muslims shouldnt practice their religion. No atheists here has said that we should break down all mosques and churches. But can we say the same for your christian brothers? We know one who has already said that all atheists are evil. We already know people thasay that atheists should leave the country

See this liar o ! You've said that Christians and Muslims should dump their religion. Has Gbawe, Kails or JeSoul ever said atheists are evil ?

Logicboy03: I am for secularism. Everyone can practice their religion in their churches, in their houses, in the open but not in the government or in making laws. Can you say the same for many of your christian brothers who want a near theocracy? A country ruled by god or at leas by biblical principles? You must be a real psychopath to call me intolerant of religion. I am only intolerant of religious bigotry and that is a good thing.

Then may religion flourish a thousand times more since you aren't intolerant of it. Say Amen !

Logicboy03: 2) You claim to have heard an atheist say he will kick out his children if the become religious o theists. I believe that is a lie (Prove it). Anyway, there are solid cases of christian parents throwing out their teenage children who become atheists. While I have solid proof of the kicking our actions, you only have hearsay talk of one atheist saying that he will kick out (meaning that he has not done the deed of kicking out) his religious children.

No. But that indicates that an atheist _ a fanatic one- can do it. You keep telling Christians not to boast of being morally superior and because of a few good things forget your flaws. I will search the statement out. If I find it I'll post it here *There's a possibility I may not since my Internet connection is faulty, my data plan has expired, but somehow I'm able to browse with limits*

Logicboy03: There is a difference between the action and saying you will do the action.

Agreed.

davidylan:

In short i am saying you cant eat your cake and have it. If atheism is a belief then come out and say so... you would be more than welcome to post to your hearts content here. If it is not a belief then dont be surprised if it is treated as offtopic, outside the scope of the section and summarily shut down.

Once again... simply throwing out the word "troll" doesnt help your case. It only makes you look small-minded, petty and confused.

Lol head or tail, he looses! Don't blame him for not answering such a deadly question which slithers like a snake!