Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Yeah, I'll second that. This Great Purge deal seems to have a very sordid past, filled with plenty of animosity. Perhaps it be wisest to let that one go.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Holy shit.... That's one hell of an excoriation. Really went for the jugular on that one.Remind me to never cross you

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

After reviewing the numerous debates (my head hurts from all the reading) that led up to the Great Purge a.k.a. "Night of the Broken Glass", I have concluded that you were as even-keeled then as you are now. I have not seen any deficiency in your decision, and I hardly think that Crashfrog is painting an accurate picture about what transpired.I do see four, clear troublemakers, that inflammed the situation far beyond its merits: I won't mention names, but you were certainly not one of them.Modulous did not cause the collapse. Collapse is not a good description either. I will go so far to say that it appears Crashfrog's assessment on the popularity and content on EvC has changed. There seemed to be a deeper sense of community in the past (even if it was more divisive). It did seem to have a "the good ole days" feel to it that in some ways is lacking now or days.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I lol'd As best I can tell, there were a few people who were seriously acting infantile, crying about nothing, and essentially inciting a riot. I'm sure in hindsight there are some things that could have been handled better, but some people are just completely unreasonable (the person you invited to this thread comes to mind). You can't rationalize with some people, all the while they strut around as if they're the paragon's of rationality.It's a shame it happened, and the rift clearly has scarred the forum quite a bit. I can agree with some of the people who fell on their own swords out of principle, but overall I think the moderators were doing what they could to explain their position while keeping the peace.Can't please everyone, especially thin-skinned, whiny brats. Based on what I've reviewed, I think I could count on one hand the true instigators (some not here anymore, some still here). Others who fell by the wayside were caught in the crossfire. For those upstanding citizens, I feel pity for.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

It's a good thing you don't hold any grudges.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Irrelevant, insofar as you still seem quite perturbed by all of the moderators and by what transpired over two years ago. I'd say that's a grudge, and so would most sensible people. I've browsed through some of your past threads yesterday, particularly on threads involving moderators bantering back and forth with you. The allusions I interpreted was a very cynical view of all moderators in general. That being the case, it gives the impression that you're not merely an impartial observer, but are suspicious of moderators before the fact, and your perception of them coveting power. So I don't know how accurate your testimony is since it is mired down in bias.You give off the impression that you're still really pissed, and that all of it is the fault of the moderators. I read through a lot of the threads and concluded that they were generally even-handed in the matter. There were a lot of instigators who were acting completely unreasonably. Did that fact escape your attention? Did you miss the hysterical fits displayed by Berberry?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I have to say that while I don't agree with his moral views about homosexuality, NJ was not being understood. The moderators seemed to agree that NJ was referring to a moral relativity, not calling homosexuals the same as goat rapers (or whatever the fuck).The moderators seemed to agree, and that coming from a gay man. If I'm not mistaken, Modulous is gay, or bi-sexual. Yet, curiously, one gay guy (Modulous) didn't see it as overtly offensive, and the other gay guy (Berberry) felt personally assaulted.Even supposing there was an equivocation, was it customary to suspend people for being offensive? Quite frankly it boggles the mind how many overly-sensitive people were on the forum at that time. Jesus fucking Christ, people need to toughen the fuck up. I just don't understand what your intent is now. You made your point then, you're making your point now. It doesn't appear that the veritable scales have fallen off the eyes of Modulous, so to speak. He still seems to stand by his original actions, minus a few discrepancies that he's apologized for. Doesn't this simply amount to a differences of opinion?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I find it ironic that you say this, because many evolutionists have said the exact same thing, only in reverse. They've claimed, numerous times, that they're on a tight leash, but the creo's get away with bloody murder. In fact, in the threads that are being discussed now, I saw that charge against Percy slung around quite a bit.What I see is a decent moderating team who impartially judge each thing carefully. There are some extremes from time to time. I think the Moose is a bit severe in the administration of his duties with his willingness to slam the gavel of justice at even the hint of an infraction.All in all, Percy, Mod, Purple Dawn, do a very good job of moderating on average. I suspect that if most people were a moderator on this site, you'd see the true meaning of partiality and bias.I think quite a few people on this thread are taking things for granted.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Christians often bring up the philosophical trappings of moral relativism, and NJ seemed to be no exception. They seem to think that you can really corral the atheists with it. One could even argue that his infatuation was more with moral relativism versus moral absolutes, based on my readings, than about homosexuality. It seems that he used gay marriage and moral relativism as a way to prove that allowing for it means allowing everything because their is no way to morally distinguish one taboo thing from another.In no way, however, was he saying that gays are the same as goat fuckers or rapists. I am mystified that you could even draw that inference. He clarified like 9,000 times. What his argument consisted of was if you allow for gay marriage, what moral imperative would preclude beastiality or any other "sexual sin?"That's a long way off from saying that homosexuals are also zoophiles. I don't see how anyone can draw that inference.I don't think he was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?What concerns me is Crashfrog, you, Dan, Berberry, and Co. seem to wanted to have crucify NJ for his unpopular beliefs, and not for the content. You wanted the PC police to swoop in and punish him for not being politically correct. That's bullshit. That's worse than believing that gays have threesome's with sheep and kids. Yeah, I'm not so sure about that if he was able to have stirred up so much animosity that three years later he and the moderators are single-handedly credited with the ruination of EvC. Either you misjudged what he was saying and heard what you wanted to hear, or you fell right in to his trap. How is that comparing homosexuals to kids or dogs?It is unquestionable that he didn't like homosexuality, just like 98% of Christians. He didn't hide that fact, but I've read countless threads that have attributed the the Great Purge, and I have to conclude that I see things as Modulous, who didn't even like him, and Mod's gay. I can't see it at all. Yeah, sure, he's a douche. But an even douchier thing is to want to ban or suspend people because their feelings were hurt.

It's amazing how extreme the two differences of opinion are. One side is convinced that he was definately gay-baiting. The other side is saying it is an overreaction and misconstrual.There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

And we clarified to him like 10,000 times that gay marriage and rape weren't two comparable things.

But he never made that comparison to begin with. He said, if you are a moral relativist and allow for gay marriage, what moral precept makes you preclude things like rape, incest, zoophilia, pedophilia, are aberrant? If you can't tell, what he's attempted to point out is his perception of the futility of moral relativism. You may think he's trying to be clever by disguising his insults, but I think he thought he was clever by turning moral relativism around on its head. That's where he thought he was Mr. Smarty Pants.Yeah, I agree it's a piss poor slippery slope too, both as an argument against moral relativism and for gay marriage, but I really think you guys gave him more credit than what he's due in the clever department.

What's the difference between catholics and pedophiles?

Just based on that statement alone, NJ could say that you are making clear accusations that catholics and pedophiles are the same thing. What's more, you actually made the reference, with no disguise.Should we therefore punish you for being hurtful to Catholics? Because from everything I read, that's basically what the lynch mob wanted to do to NJ. He said something offensive and he should be punished for it. That would be absurd, even if he directly said "I hate fags because they rape puppies!"

We didn't take the bait. We just became frustrated

But why do you care so much about his opinion that he needs to be punished or muzzled for his opinion? If you didn't want to see anyone banned or suspended (including him) what did you want to happen?Isn't he entitled to even the most homophobic opinion? From what I read, he didn't hate homosexuals, he pitied them and feared the societal repurcussions of allowing it in to society.It's delusional and every bit as vapid as all the other fundy arguments, yes, but surely he's allowed to have the opinion.I even recently saw a thread in where he actually tried to make a mends and apologized for hurting Berberry's feelings. He even offered to censor himself a gesture of good faith. In my opinion, it was you guys being the pricks, not the other way around. You, in particular, even shunned his apology.You guys are making him out to be some kind of hideous beast that crawled out of a swamp. All things considered, he was tame by fundy standards.

Mod ain't gay. He's bi, which is a totally different animal

If he's bisexual then obviously he's okay with homosexuals. My point is, Modulous would have had every personal reason to execute NJ. But apparently he interpreted it as I do and was not equating gays with pederasts and beastialists alike. If Modulous is such a terrible and partial moderator, NJ would have been history in the blink of an eye.Then, of course, you have the rest of the forum interpreting it the same way, except for you, Crash, Rrhain, Dan, Outcastinator(?)and Berberry. From what atrocious behavior I witnessed from Berberry, and continue to witness from Rrhain, I'll take their testimonies with a grain of salt.

For the record, I never wanted anyone to get banned. I even repeatedly requested Admin to give a blanket amnesty to everyone, including some of the craziest crackpots we've ever seen. I don't want to see anyone banned.

I did see that. I think you did the right thing in that instance. It does beg the question though, in light of you not wanting bannings or suspensions, what did you want to happen to NJ? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

As inconceivable as I'm sure it may seem to you, did you ever stop to think that perhaps it was you, and a handful of uber-sensitive souls, that was the central cause of the controversy?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This is probably the most accurate depiction I've yet seen throughout this thread.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Regardless, I still haven't seen one clear instance of Nem using ad hominem or equating gays to any number of taboo things. I am growing very skeptical, much like Bluejay, that anything described even exists.Can anyone provide a link that would condemn Nemesis J? So far Modulous seems to be very convincingly vindicating him.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

*deep breath in, and....*I am Nemesis Juggernaut.*glass breaks in the background*

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal