General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Being lied about or misrepresented.We know who jazz is talking about. He's been clear about it in the past.Wrong to compare such a subjective vituperative diatribe with the objective matter of who is or isn't a Christian, or the objective matter of whether the Bible says there is a hell for those who don't believe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I said nothing whatever about myself. Seems you and jazzns are showing your hand.

Read it again. Message 17 I didn't mention myself. It was a hypothetical in response to Asgara's hypothetical.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No you're wrong. I was not thinking of myself in particular, I was thinking of fundamentalists in general.Asgara asked what there would be to be upset about if one felt the terms did not apply, and the answer is that what one would be upset about is being misrepresented or lied about. I think you may have a problem with the generic "you."

Actually what is happening here is classic evo stupidity and addiction to accusing others of personal failures and imputing evil motivations. I read Asgara's "you" to mean "one." If she meant anything more specific it went over my head.But how typical this kind of misreading is on your part, followed by the personal attack from you guys. Never a shred of grace or benefit of the doubt from the anti-fundamentalists. You get it wrong, you mislabel it, you misrepresent it but then you POTM each other about your straw man and congratulate each other.Oh but what else is new. It's always a mistake to say anything about this totally typical behavior. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gad you guys are just a bottomless pit of evil insinuations based on nothing but your own imagination.

They were both honest and accurate. Truly, there is something seriously wrong with your ability to read. I wrote what I meant and what I explained I meant and it still reads the same to me and there is something wrong with you.

Overall I agree with Buzsaw that jazz' post was insulting to creationists, but also that Buz's admonishment was very mild and that jazz is overreacting.Thought I'd reproduce jazz's original offending statement to mull it over: While it is true that it is the fundamentalist "position" that is being described here, it is very hard to read this as anything other than an attack on personal character because of the terminology used. "Intellectual depravity" is a pretty personal concept. "Raw hate, racism and ... discrimination" are personal attitudes, motives or internal states imputed to a person. I found this probably the most offensive statement in the whole paragraph because of my own experience of arguing a straight objective point only to be called racist or the like. To me this is character assassination of "stereotypical" fundamentalists (whatever "stereotypical" means). This can only be a misuse of the term "stereotypical." What jazz actually means is not all that clear, but I suppose he means something like "most typically typical" or "most extremely fundamentalist" or some such. Maybe "classic fundamentalist?" {edit: maybe "quintessential?"}Upshot for me is that I would have let it go except for its getting enthusiastic POTM endorsement from so many. That made me feel obliged to register a complaint about it on the POTM thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This entire statement here as well as the post in question is a personal attack. You are mindreading my supposed motives. This is all false, pure slander. Very sad you can't see it because it's a very common way of arguing around here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is also a personal attack. What makes you all so sure you understand why I do what I do? What I've said about my motives is the truth. I also often lose interest in talking to people who talk to and about me like this. That happens a lot. There's a motive for you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I reopened. There is nothing I can see to discuss about it. I said what I think. If admins agree with me, please close it again. Otherwise, it doesn't matter, I don't want to fight about it.

Just a question about Adminjar's off-topic message on the Hindu Marriage thread. The title of that thread is not really descriptive of the OP which is concerned with what qualifies as marriage in general, off the topic of gay marriage. Or really, it's about why Christians treat marriages in other cultures and religions as legitimate, but that's pretty much been answered already.In any case, we've been discussing marriage from one angle or another all along, so I'd like an explanation of exactly how we are off topic at this point. Maybe the OP needs a rewording. Maybe I promoted it before it was ready. JAR's warning messageThe opening postEdited by Faith, : No reason given.