Satanists and Bush
- Thread starter d¡ckbaby
- Start date
But I thought Satan was the good guy and it has been heavy xtian propaganda that has made Satan out to be evil.
I thought this was obvious since for the past 2000 years when xtians have ruled the world there has been enormous violence and evil.
Bush clearly alligns himself with the evil of xtianity. So yes it is a real stumbling block to the rise of rational Satanism.
Cris
I thought this was obvious since for the past 2000 years when xtians have ruled the world there has been enormous violence and evil.
Bush clearly alligns himself with the evil of xtianity. So yes it is a real stumbling block to the rise of rational Satanism.
Cris
Prehaps that is true. Maybe I should have given it some thought. If I have extended the boundries it is because I had recieved a notification of objection to the posts.
In the future I shall leave them and just close the thread...
Pm me if you would discuss it...
In fairness to dickbaby, it was not he that objected.
In the future I shall leave them and just close the thread...
Pm me if you would discuss it...
In fairness to dickbaby, it was not he that objected.
If you received an objection to one of Ekimklaw's more unreasonable posts, would you delete the text? Why don't you delete all of FoxMulder's... umm... "strange" posts? I certainly think that they're just as much a waste of time as my legit opinions, probably more. I think he should be banned and I know at least 3 other members share this opinion with me...
edit to add: why would I object to my own posts?
edit to add: why would I object to my own posts?
wet1,
When in doubt no action should be taken, otherwise you will be seen to be inflicting your own subjective interpretations on the posts. There must be a clear distinction between an objector just being too sensitive and a valid offensive post.
If we base our decisions on all types of objections then I could argue that I am offended by the theist suggestions that a god exists, in which case that would be grounds for banning all theists.
So really, I didn’t see any basis for an edit. Please please can you explain your rationale.
Cris
I may do that as well, but I also think it is important that any decisions to ban, delete, or edit should be clear, obvious, fair, and open. Decisions made behind closed doors without clear explanation suggest an unacceptable big brother approach and the ugliness of censorship.
While I agree that the identity of an objector should remain anonymous I think the nature of the objection should be made public. Also a warning should come first and the potential offender should be given the chance to edit their own posts.
When in doubt no action should be taken, otherwise you will be seen to be inflicting your own subjective interpretations on the posts. There must be a clear distinction between an objector just being too sensitive and a valid offensive post.
If we base our decisions on all types of objections then I could argue that I am offended by the theist suggestions that a god exists, in which case that would be grounds for banning all theists.
No that is wrong as well. The decision to take any action must be clear and fair. In this case I didn’t see anything objectionable. The thread seemed somewhat zany but that just meant this would become a humor thread.
So really, I didn’t see any basis for an edit. Please please can you explain your rationale.
As dick pointed out, he would not object to his own post, so I assume you made a typo there.
Cris
So Dickbaby, how come that you changed your avatar and now all of a sudden claim to be the one, who you yesterday claimed to be you are not?
Just curious.
So what is it?
Are you and the first, official registered, Dickbaby one and the same or are you playing a game?
It was all over the boards and it was anoying the hell out of some people in WE&P.
Explanation please...
Just curious.
So what is it?
Are you and the first, official registered, Dickbaby one and the same or are you playing a game?
It was all over the boards and it was anoying the hell out of some people in WE&P.
Explanation please...
The 'good' of christianity has commited more 'sins' then they even made up.......nuff said.
Cris,
Some may find this hard to believe but I will put it out front anyway. I do not enjoy any editing of posts. Normally I will think and then rethink the action before committing an edit. Nor do I enjoy being in anothers forum to do so as I personally think that wrong. That is the purpose of having moderators in the first place.
I did not do this at the first time that I recieved objection to the poster. In fact I made a search of both posters posts. I found that I could only come up with the posts of the originator of this thread by copying his netname as they would not show in the typing. That has been solved as is noted in the link below.
I have since recieved communications from the one who this one imitates. (Which was my reference in the original post about fairness, which the originator of this thread knew.) I have also verified that they are not one and the same poster.
I would also suspect that one of our members, (HS) are having a bit of fun with us at the expense of another. You may see the attempt to confuse the issue at this thread. http://www.sciforums.com/t9563/s/thread.html
***posted by the imitator dickbaby***
Of it's self this speaks of "low intentions" of our poster in this thread, who again attempts the same tactic in his answer.
Should someone try and disguise themselves as you and then give off opinions contrary to yours, How would you feel? Admittedly at present it is in the fun and games stage. Will it stay this way? I call attention to our troll Mallory Knox and how that one started as a good example of how this can escalate in to something that didn't seem to have much bearing at the start.
I will take your advice to heart as I know you have the weflare of sciforums at the core of your objection.
Some may find this hard to believe but I will put it out front anyway. I do not enjoy any editing of posts. Normally I will think and then rethink the action before committing an edit. Nor do I enjoy being in anothers forum to do so as I personally think that wrong. That is the purpose of having moderators in the first place.
I did not do this at the first time that I recieved objection to the poster. In fact I made a search of both posters posts. I found that I could only come up with the posts of the originator of this thread by copying his netname as they would not show in the typing. That has been solved as is noted in the link below.
I have since recieved communications from the one who this one imitates. (Which was my reference in the original post about fairness, which the originator of this thread knew.) I have also verified that they are not one and the same poster.
I would also suspect that one of our members, (HS) are having a bit of fun with us at the expense of another. You may see the attempt to confuse the issue at this thread. http://www.sciforums.com/t9563/s/thread.html
***posted by the imitator dickbaby***
Of it's self this speaks of "low intentions" of our poster in this thread, who again attempts the same tactic in his answer.
Should someone try and disguise themselves as you and then give off opinions contrary to yours, How would you feel? Admittedly at present it is in the fun and games stage. Will it stay this way? I call attention to our troll Mallory Knox and how that one started as a good example of how this can escalate in to something that didn't seem to have much bearing at the start.
I will take your advice to heart as I know you have the weflare of sciforums at the core of your objection.
God Is Real
Registered Senior Member
wet1 you should let satanist d¡ckbaby argue with cristians. that way he will find himself in hell sooner.