Lying For Jesus Award

I was going to let this go, but since you just had to bring it up... Eh, agree to disagree then. Either I was not trolling or trolling is a legitimate strategy. What say you? Are you calling me a liar? <-- please! I think she did just call me a liar, albeit not explicitly, while nothing I typed was a lie.I was not misrepresenting/lying about my true view and I was presenting my view sincerely. So this can mean two things. Either I was not, in fact, trolling, or trolling is not as bad as it seems.Here's the original reply: I find this reply to be ridiculous. I think anastasia had a good point. Your reply has almost nothing to do with what she was saying typing.My reply to yours was: Now you say that I can: I did rationally and factually right here:

quote:

---

Not being a whiny liberal who bitches about everything...

---

A very rational reason for not speaking out against them.I continued to support it rationally and factually here:

quote:

---

That {refering to not speaking out against them} doesn't meant they support him. People are just miding their own business, or not giving enough of a fuck, or not be bitches. Maybe they don't think its that big of a deal and just ignore him. There's plenty of reasons other than the one you hint at.

---

And then I did it logically: Now, you, youself have two choices:

quote:

---

1) Rationally, factually, and logically explain why you think what I say is worthless and ridiculous

---

I feel my reply was right on. You were acting ridiculous. Calling me a troll and/or a liar is neither of these. You reply is quite hypocritical.Or, more importantly:

quote:

---

2) Ignore my posts.

---

If you really think it was so bad (ie trolling or lying) THEN DON'T REPLYNow, WRT your other complaint: I was not seeking to only goad and deceive you, but was actually trying to make you think about what you typed (perhaps unsuccessfully), so we have two choices:Either I was not trolling you,orTrolling is a legitimate way of making someone think (making your definition inaccurate).What is your reply?I think that I was not trolling, according to your definition.Now, according to my (less strict) definition, I was trolling, because I was expecting a reaction to my reply. So, in my view, it was a legitimate reply. I was trying to make you realize that not everyone thinks like you do and your reply was totally off. In fact, if I define trolling in this way, what you were doing was, itself, trolling. You did not rationally, factually, nor logically explain why you thought she was wrong. You just replied with a rhetorical question that expected reaction. You are either a troll too, or acting hypocritically.Now, I realize this is all off-topic, but I would like to get this settled. I feel like you called me a liar, and you definately called me troll, perhaps unjustly. An explanation or appology is due, IMHO. If you cannot reply here then I expect a reply somewhere.

quote:

---

I was trying to make you realize that not everyone thinks like you do and your reply was totally off.

---

I already know that everyone doesn't think like me.If you think my reply was totally off, then you didn't make much of an effort to explain why, and instead just behaved poorly and had some sick, disrespectful fun at my expense.I can't help but notice that in your analysis you left out the end of our of our conversation.You know, the part where you behaved the poorest.You called any Christian leader who stood up to denounce Falwell a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything".When I asked what you call conservatives like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly who bitch about everything, you gave a flippant non-response: "Informants".Now, it very much appears that you gave that non-response in order to avoid the point I was making, which was that there are just as many (if not more) whiny, bitchy conservatives out there as liberals.You didn't concede the point like a good debate partner would. Instead, your responses became even more flippant and contentless with comments like "You're easy".That's trolling, and what's worse is that it is really poor quality debate.It seems to be what you've been resorting to lately in order to avoid addressing good rebuttals.

See subtitle.Don't reply to this message in this topic. That will get you suspended.If you must reply, go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

False. I aready explained why my "non-end-of-our-conversation" reply was acceptable. I only reply in the sense that I was relied too. Can you not see the hypocrisy? False. I said no such thing. Quote me. Or shall you call me a liar, again? Not quite the behavior expected from an admin, eh?Not being a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything" as something that prevents someone from standing up to denouce Falwell does not equate to anyone who does stand up to Falwell as being a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything". This is the most basic logic, schraf, you are failing miserably. True. Your reply was trolling, in actuallity. It was a non-response. Even if it was true that anyone who stands up against Falwell et al, is a "whiny liberal who bitches about everything", which it is not, then that does not mean that anyone who stand up against the opposite is a whiny conservative who bitches about everything. Your logic is ridiculous. You are so wrong it is borderline retarded. Why would I avoid that point? It is obviously true. I was NOT avoiding that point. The point is that your point does not follow, logically. God!, how hard is this to see? If this is the extent of you logic, then my pont that "you're easy" is by far true. You've failed miserably. Your logic is unsound and your conclusion is false. How much easier could you make this for me? <-- question False and false as explained above. LOFL, wake up, sister. Quit being retarded.

Catholic Scientist is suspended for a yet to be determined period.Discussion will commence at the "General discussion..." topic (link below), and probably also at the "Private Administration Forum".Adminnemooseus

---

Hi CS,I've unsuspended you. The situation in this thread was the subject of some admin discussion. Though there was no unanimity, there was a strong consensus that both you and Schraf were at fault, not just you.I was not part of the consensus, not precisely anyway, and here's why. Had you stated that your aim was to, for example, pursue liberal bias wherever you found it on the board, that would be fine. But you instead stated that your purpose was to pursue an individual, and your signature was addressed directly to Schraf. Such behavior is inconsistent with rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines, and I think it's important to always uphold it if civil discussion is to be maintained.Adminnemooseus stated in the admin discussion that his intention was to suspend you until discussion identified the appropriate best response. I think he sensed your closing comment alluding to diminished mental capacity was a dangerous escalation. It is possible suspension was perhaps not necessary, that a warning might have been sufficient, but there is no way to know for sure. So the end result is that you were suspended for a short while and Schraf wasn't, and I'm sorry if that seems unfair.A bit of advice. If you're here because you're fascinated by the topics, you'll do fine. But if you're here because you're outraged by some of the participants, then you'll probably often be engaged in some kind of brinkmanship that has the potential to end as this incident did.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Anglagard, I have to admit that some of the stuff may be taken as a lie but imo a lot of it appeared to be just plain carelessness or change of mind et al. If you superscrutinize everything any given person says who talks on TV as much as a pastor and chancelor of a large church and university you could likely dig up plenty of irregularities. It appears that Falwell should be more careful to either keep commitments he voiced or refrain from voicing them knowing so many are out to defame him.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

FYI I replied to this in the current General Discussion of Moderation Procedures thread.

I think we have an obvious difference in opinion concerning those who presume to speak for God. To me, any such person who enjoys wealth and power enough to have their mug all over the TV should be held to a higher standard of morality than the average person. On the other hand, you appear to believe that such people should be held to a lower standard of behavior than we would demand of the average person.The argument that anyone who says what you want to hear should be given a free pass to break any commandment is a major factor in driving people away from Christianity. Is this your purpose in defending, or at least minimizing, the actions of such liars, thieves, adulterers, and blastphemers? I should certianly hope not.If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, why don't you just outright condemn such behavior as the Bible does? Even Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple, or do you think that was just a myth?Why are you seeming to blame Falwell's critics for Fallwell's lies? Maybe if Fallwell didn't lie as much, he would have less critics. You may want to ponder that idea for awhile.