Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Is this acceptable?Paul K attacks me personally on a political thread:

For the record if nothing else: Message 234 and Message 236Never mind, I see Moose took some action.

This is typical leftist hate speech, in this case IMO far enough over the top to deserve some time out. Personal comments out of line, yes?abe: Tanypteryx has added his own leftie hate and lies to the mix in Message 93.
.And I might as well even mention PaulK for his harassment a few posts earlier, though I don't think his offense rises to the level of the others so it's just for the record that I mention it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

///Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Registering a few complaints about jar who has intentionally misattributed a quote to me while at the same time continuing the political theme I just asked people not to continue on the thread about Christian principles in government: Message 77Earlier on the thread about historical science he also posted his off topic demand that I explain various geological phenomena because I wasn't interested in that topic when he first posted it. Message 20And let me add his latest Message 91 posting of the same off topic material along with a personal accusation of me, which he continues in the next post on this thread as well where he says he attributed no quote to me. OK, but he addressed this repeated post TO me while aggressively ignoring my request to take the politics elsewhere.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This post by PaulK Message 864 has gone over the line into sheer personal attack after tending in that direction over the last few posts. I followed suit unfortunately though not to his degree of total lack of content: This kind of nastiness on PK's part is standard with him lately and it makes "debate" with him nearly intolerable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What am I guilty of? Go read through that sequence of posts. And what PK just said on this thread alone deserves a suspension.I don't think going into Summation Mode is going to solve anything. There are other conversations going on.

Guilty as charged. Please act accordingly.

I do not want to DEBATE the book. Discussion is something else that hardly evey happens here although supposedly it's what the site wants to encourage.As for your usual personal attacks who cares, but I'm asking for the basic kind of respect any human being owes another, I could not care less what you think of me personally, but I do care about basic decency as expressed in a discussion about anything whatever. I don't know why Phat didn't suspend you when he suspended the rest of us.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm glad to see you interested in enforcing some rules around here for a change.

So I gather this post is acceptable at EvC now? Message 23 on thread about how to avoid giving offense.

What a very interesting piece of illogic, quite remarkable. Lessee, I wrote a post "a lot of other people" found "offensive due to the many inaccurate characterizations." Hm. I wonder which ones and are they PC? Hm, "inaccuracies," not name calling or anything like that, just "inaccuracies." Hm. Not that it matters. But for some reason I'm supposed to be tested on whether I've learned this supposed lesson about not being offended, as if a mere proposal that we think about this strategy somehow magically morphed into a command from whatever gods rule EvC, but a command that only applies to me for some reason, since although Sir Dragonfly and "a lot of other people" found what I wrote offensive, they aren't subject to this command to not be offended. Truly remarkable bit of total mental confusion there.I'm sad for EvC that such stuff is now acceptable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't point out that your point of view is culturebound and historically challenged? But that's the whole point. Duh.

And calling me an indecent defender of an evil racist regime led by evil racist men which I answered in terms of culturebound historically challenged selfrighteousness doesn't count of course because such leftist attacks are quite acceptable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THE FACTS ARE ON MY SIDE YOU IDIOT! Edited by AdminPhat, : inappropriate rantingEdited by Admin, : Unhide text.