dUSt Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Other than spammers, pornographic violaters, etc, I've only permanently banned 2 people from phatmass since it's beginning in 2000. The first person was a "seminarian" from New York who appeared to be simply trying to destroy the Church from within. Some of you may remember him. The latest, was our friend Bruce S. Why? Well, despite what some of you not familiar with phatmass' history may automatically assume, it wasn't because of any arguments he made against the Church. There's been [b]far[/b] more persuasive arguments made against the Church posted here in the past--all one has to do is a search and you'll find this out. None of them were deleted, or even warned for that matter. We don't censor arguments here.[b] If you remain charitable, you can debate theology and argue against the Church until your head falls off.[/b] That's why this board exists. Bruce's downfall was his unwillingness follow the rules. He was repeatedly warned because of his personal attacks on other phorum members. He was temporarily suspended on three separate occasions. Nothing seemed to work. There's only so far that I'm willing to bend. Members who repeatedly violate the phorum guidelines put an unneccasary burden on myself, and more importantly, the moderators who volunteer their time to help me. It would be unfair to allow Bruce to continue his behavior here. I'm providing a list of the times Bruce was warned. Please note that once the member reaches 10 warnings, the system doesn't track anything after that. I hope by providing this list to the "pro-Bruce" members of this phorum, it'll satisfy any questions you have of exactly why I had to finally ban him. 12.24.03 - Insulting comments 12.29.03 - Personal attack 12.31.03 - Personal attack 1.2.04 - Personal attack 1.7.04 - Personal attack 1.12.04 - Negative criticism of other religions 1.28.04 - Comment made about blowing up the Vatican 4.2.04 - Uncharitable comment 4.11.04 - Personal attack 4.12.04 - Personal attack Also, these warnings were issued by five separate moderators, so I don't think any "personal agenda" theories can apply. I hope that all of the non-Catholic posters here will remain. I firmly believe that if we can dialogue and debate in a charitable manner, it will help us all grow as Christians. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I am glad you moderate this board with logic and sense as well as an iron fist when nesscary. Shows the characteristic of a good leader. Thanx Dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Well, that makes my last post kind of silly. But prophetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I have no problem with non-Catholic arguments being presented, but like you said [b]dUSt[/b], one does not have to resort to personal attacks to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 so what was the attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 [quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 18 2004, 12:42 PM'] 1.12.04 - Negative criticism of other religions [/quote] What's wrong with criticising other religions, dUSt? They're WRONG, because they haven't got the fulness of truth. If we never criticized anothers religion, how would we tell people their religion is wrong and doesn't lead to the Father? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 [b]read the phorum guidelines![/b] Negative Criticism of Other Religions- a post or comment that negatively criticizes [i](as opposed to constructively criticizes)[/i] a different religion in a way that is harmful to open ecumenical dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 [quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 18 2004, 02:42 PM'] 1.28.04 - Comment made about blowing up the Vatican [/quote] He shoulda been banned immediately after that. Phatmass should have a zero-tolerence to death-threats wether or not it's to members. Oh, and ITCHUS, if this guy made a comment about blowing up the Vatican, I doubt his criticism of other religions was a charitable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Didn't Good Friday get banned too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 18 2004, 05:34 PM'] What's wrong with criticising other religions, dUSt? They're WRONG, because they haven't got the fulness of truth. If we never criticized anothers religion, how would we tell people their religion is wrong and doesn't lead to the Father? [/quote] Nothing is wrong with criticising other religions. That's perfectly allowed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='Dave' date='Jun 18 2004, 07:33 PM'] Didn't Good Friday get banned too? [/quote] Two weeks. Not permanently... yet. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 18 2004, 08:00 PM'] Nothing is wrong with criticising other religions. That's perfectly allowed here. [/quote] Then why did Bruce get a warning from doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='Enda' date='Jun 19 2004, 12:44 AM'] He shoulda been banned immediately after that. Phatmass should have a zero-tolerence to death-threats wether or not it's to members. [/quote] Depends if he meant for people to be inside it or not. Nevertheless, a silly comment to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 18 2004, 09:27 PM'] Then why did Bruce get a warning from doing it? [/quote] ICTHUS, There is no need to be obstinately obtuse. The phorum guidelines were shown to you. There is a way to criticize a religion that is fair, intelligent, and fostering of disucssion. Then there is a way to criticize a religion that is an exercise in bigotry, and hate, and shuts down effective dialogue. As Homer would say... DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 18 2004, 09:27 PM'] Then why did Bruce get a warning from doing it? [/quote] He did it negatively as opposed to constructively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now