The difference has nothing to do with content (a point you continue to deliberately dodge) - rather, the problem is with presentation. There is a huge difference between someone who holds a personal, private belief in, say, Christ, and someone who demands everyone accept that Bigfoot is real and Aliens come around to abduct little children (I wasn't aware that aliens had to resort to pedophilia for entertainment)
Where is he demanding that you believe in bigfoot or aliens?
He believes in it. Has he told you that you have to believe in it?
Indeed - sucks, doesn't it. Perhaps next time you will be able to recognize it for what it is and do something about it (though I doubt it)
And what is "it", Kitta?
What should be done about "it"?
See above - you too have "resorted to personal insults"... heal thyself, doctor.
And I fully stand by those statements. Nor am I trying to pretend I never said them, nor have I or am I saying that I was right. What is your point?
That it should continue?
And did you happen to notice how MR utterly ignored rpenner's post? Now, what do you call that, hm?
What do you call someone who ignores another's post?
Happens all the time on forums.
Are you now tracking every single one of his responses?
Are we now demanding that people respond to every single post aimed at them? Pretty sure this is not a new rule.
Should he respond to it? If he feels like it. It would be nice if he did. But I don't think we should be moderating people for failing to respond to people's posts. We are not the thought police and it is not our job to do so.
Do I think it is acceptable? No.
I think that, given the repeated pattern of behavior MR exhibits, it is inevitable. People simply give up trying to be civil when they don't get civility in response... hell, you yourself are guilty of it.
Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to infringe on the rules if we feel the person deserves to be insulted for not agreeing with us or accepting what we say is the truth?
Do you think he deserves to be personally insulted Kitta? If not, I fail to understand why you are so upset and offended that I posted that people should leave the personal insults and abuse out of it?
insinuates that I am stupid. That is insulting.
Not really.
Because you continue to misrepresent (and at times completely fabricate things and apply them to me) what I say either because you are dishonest or because you cannot understand what I am saying and so, you put your own slant on it. I would rather that it was down to stupidity and lack of understanding. That would make sense and would make it better than to consider that it is deliberate. One is out of lack of understanding and innocent. The other would mean it is deliberate. One is clearly better than the other.
Why the sudden backpedaling on your position?
What backpedaling?
I have never said any differently.
Where have I said that we should not employ the "scientific method"? Where have I said that it should not face scientific scrutiny? I stand by those words.
The problem that has clearly arisen is that people are taking it personally and responding by being personally insulting about it and at times, even making offensive remarks and attributing it to him and even others.
What, exactly, is your point?
I will consider religious beliefs the same as belief in alien abduction or Bigfoot the day Jesus Christ comes down from above and abducts someone, or has sex with a lady resulting in a "human/ape hybrid". Not to mention the key difference you continue to refuse to acknowledge - the aspect of preaching
Whatever you personally consider or believe is irrelevant.
Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of rules for personal belief in one forum and a completely different set of rules that would allow people to abuse and insult others for their personal beliefs in another? Is that what you prefer?
Or do you think that the personal beliefs of people should receive the exact same treatment?
I'll put it this way.. How would you feel if everyone who behaves this way in the Fringe, did the exact same thing in the religion sub-forum? Would you be so vocal in protecting them as you are in protecting their doing it in the Fringe?
The only "lying" here is being done by you - lying down and allowing dishonest "debate tactics" (if you could even call them that) to continue.
So when you attributed words to me that I never said and made an announcement about it, what was that? See, I call that lying. You, on the other hand declared it was for your own amusement. When you go out of your way to misrepresent what I have said in the moderator's forum and then post said fabrication and misrepresentation in a public forum to somehow or other boost your argument, I call that lying.
Remember, Kitta, you have dragged again this dispute into the public forum and you are doing it by again misrepresenting me and by applying arguments to me that I never said.
Do you consider that a good way to debate anything?
Explain your sudden reversal in position... what is MR giving you or doing for you that you suddenly feel compelled to protect that which you previously admitted was in the wrong?
I beg your pardon?
What, exactly, are you trying to imply here?
Firstly, why are you linking the moderator forum in this thread?
And secondly, where did I say that insults should be allowed in any of those posts that you linked? Where do I say that he needs to be forced to respond to everything? I am trying to understand why you linked what you did, and what you are trying to say here, when my words in those threads that you linked have not deviated from my argument at all this whole time. Are you trying to imply that I said differently in the moderator's sub-forum?
Again... heal thyself doctor.
Why have certain members been given an extraordinary number of second, third, etc chances?
As to why do this in the public view? Simple - Transparency is the vaccination against Corruption.
You really want to be careful about such statements. Especially when you are basing such arguments on your fabrications and misrepresentations of what I have said.
