Darn it Cholula :mad:, it's not only bad that we had to return the black helicopters and the ninjas, and now you have to tell them about our moderator salaries, come on! :mad:

At least you are right about the fact, or at least in my case, that I have no life ;)

BTW, I have done the reseach you mentioned, and I have the definite answer on who shot JFK :cool:

<ding, dong...>

Hold on, someone is at the door

<muffled sound coming from the door> "Are you Jay, eff , eeee"

Yes, who is it?

<crash, breaks door>

<jfe speaking as he is being hauled away by people in black suits and sunglasses>

What do you guys want? WAIT ! It is you, I knew it, I knew it, I knew it......

;)

No, they most certainly have not been answered. Having asked the same questions on sevberal occasions, I can only surmise that you and the other moderators lack the intestinal fortitude to answer these questions honestly:

Sorry to take this "off-topic" and risk a suspension, but I really have no choice since neither you nor the other OMNI moderators bother to answer my questions sent via the "report a thread" function. A few questions:

Am I to understand that all off-topic OMNI posts will result in a suspension (or the heavy-handed threat of a suspension)? Your posts here surely indicate that to be the case. If so, somebody has a lot of work to do.

My post was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the continued use of sophomoric name-calling and the effect that has on a poster's credibility, perceived intelligence level and reputation (oops - can I say that here?). At any rate, why not use that handy-dandy PM function and ask me about it? ScottC edited my post only 4 minutes after it was made. Clearly, I was on-line at the time and could have responded (perhaps even editing my own post if the case were made) vitually instantaneously. And why no answer from the Mod who made the edit? In any event, as ozstamps has capably noted, it certainly appears that a Mod is looking to "pick a fight", stalking my posts and then selectively enforcing the "rules".

"Insulting another member is a "personal attack". " Please define "insulting". Does this new rule apply uniformly across all FT membership? I am very curious to know, as I asked the very same question the last time the issue came up and, sadly, I received no response. Lord knows that I am insulted by other FTers on a regular basis. And since you have threatened me with suspension for violating this new rule, I think it is only fair that you define the rule. That should not be too difficult - it is as "simple as that", right?

So, why the witch hunt? :confused: How did I get on your list? And how do I get off?

I was simply pointing out to the poster that the continued use of sophomoric pejoratives entirely discredits any substance (what little there is) of his posts. How is that a personal attack?

Dude, we gave you an answer, but it just happened that you didn't like what you got.

Same case with you calling us gestapo, you gave me your answer, but I didn't like it.

And I do have intestinal fortitude, I am Mexican, and my family gatherings have meals that look like buffets catered by Fear Factor ;)

MMMMMMMenudo!

Wait on JUST a minute. Mexican. Based in El Paso. Hot food.

You are not a fake duplicate handle for that Cholula guy are you? ;)

Unabashed Cholula Spam (Longest thread ever, in the Delta Forum!)

Actually, I don't eat much spicy food ;)

I invited Mr. Cholula for dinner here in ELP, but we haven't gotten around to it yet.

You're not on the "list" because there is no "list". There's no witch hunt. You've made 8 posts on OMNI since yesterday, over 30 in the last week. and the moderators have a problem with exactly 1 of them. That 1 post was off topic and directed at another poster. How is that a witch hunt?

Your "job" on FT is to debate the issues not to provide your opinion on other poster's credibility. People can judge that for themselves.

I've already pointed out how this comment violated the TOS, and why it was removed.

Cafe Central, dude, on my nickel next time I'm in town and we can get our schedules together.
Now back to the regularly scheduled debate on "Closing Threads"....

What???? YOUR NICKLE??? And I gotta spring for the Carvels in FLL?

Where do I go to complain about pro-Mexican/anti-Israeli discrimination?

You are on dude, either I am in El Paso, Juarez or stuck at the bridge :D

So let me know.

1. I never 'called' anyone a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc. I said that they were easily compared to a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc. (actually I may have said that certain federal employees were dumber than nazis, or that I thought they aspired to be nazis, but not that they WERE nazis.

2. by saying that Evangelical Christians would be offended at being compared to Kangaroo Bone worshipers, you imply that there is something offensive about Kangaroo Bone worshipers. Otherwise why would anyone be offended? This attack against the dignity and sanctity of the Kangaroo Bone, is tecnically a violation of the rules as stated:
IMHO, by disparaging the Kangaroo Bone in comparison to Evangelical Christianity, you have tecnically violated this rule.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I, however, read the TOS with slightly different emphasis, viz:


Thus, I do not read the TOS as barring all discussion of "sexual orientation, gender, race, color, religious views, national origin, or disability;" in my opinion they bar only those communications that are "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or bashing."

Any discussion of value, or even of fact (since what is "fact" often depends on the reliability or credibility of the source cited for that alleged "fact") must of necessity deal with gradation, which of necessity means asserting that one thing or idea is superior (within the definition, express or implied, of what constitutes superiority) to another.

If the very assertion of superiority, with rationale for that assertion, constitutes banned discussion, OMNI would degenerate into the blandness of Barney the Purple Dinosaur and a "My, I'm OK, you're OK, we're all equally OK, and isn't it just wonderful that we're all OK" insipid saccharinity so severe as to cause diabetics to go into sugar shock.

I would agree that generally religion would not seem a fruitful field for rational discussion, since at a common level beliefs are not based on objective evidence and logic - indeed, "faith" has been defined as "belief despite the absence of proof". Further, it's difficult to continue a discussion when one party claims to be divinely inspired. However, there are at least three ways in which religion can be the subject of rational discussion (i.e., something beyond the "I'm right and you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell for that!" conclusory bombast):

1. The ethical structure of a religion can be rationally discussed and compared. If we hypothesize a religion that requires that every year 100 virgins must be thrown into a volcano after having been ravaged by the priesthood, one can discuss the ethical considerations in such doctrine, possibly comparing those considerations with the ones underpinning other religions or even civil law concepts.

2. Religions can be compared as tending toward or against realization of a particular (third) goal. For instance, if we hypothesize one religion that teaches that all non-believers must be put to death, and another that teaches a "live and let live" tolerance of competing beliefs, one can discuss which would be more likely to lead to a diminution in the violence found in the world today.

3. And, at an even higher plane, the logic of purported heresies can be debated, i.e., whether a particular conclusion follows logically from the doctrine and teaching of the religion. It may seem dry, but whether or not the Council of Nicea correctly resolved the Arian controversy ("The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation.") is a matter that can be rationally discussed.

All of these are critical (in the sense of exercising close scrutiny, analysis and judgment) of one or more religions, yet I would submit none are violations of the TOS. Admittedly, the overly-sensitive are often "offended" where the objective observer sees nothing to be offended by (and some are offended merely when someone else suggests they may be wrong), but I doubt the FlyerTalk TOS were designed or intended to protect such sensitive souls from exposure to the real world.

Robust, adult discussion may result in some becoming unhappy; that's how it goes, and I don't think the TOS means to change that. If it does, OMNI will no longer be an adult discussion forum.

Actually, on further consideration, all of the above aside, there's another reason why I believe your statement is incorrect.

You say:


Leaving aside the fact that I did not say that "Evangelical Christians would be offended at being compared to Kangaroo Bone worshipers" - indeed, I haven't the foggiest idea of what the tenets of the Kangaroo Bone religion are, and so can't say how they would be received by Evangelical Christians, the statement that one religion would be offended at being compared with another doesn't, in my mind, "disparage" either.

The basic tenet of most religions is that said particular religion is correct and divinely inspired. It follows that believers in that religion of necessity believe that "competing" religions are incorrect and thus not divinely inspired. They compare their religion with all others; it is accordingly nonsense to say they would be offended at being compared.

What they (and probably any other religion) would be offended at, is not being compared to other religions, but rather what would bother them is to have other religions considered equal to or better than theirs.

So the simple statement that religion A would be offended at being compared with religion B is in no way "disparaging" of either, and of itself is probably not even true. What devout followers of one religion might well be offended at is being unfavorably compared with another. (And who could blame them?)

Another thing that a devout believer may be offended at is the atheist who says in effect that "all" religions are the same - and that offense would be close to universal. For a believer, who (remember) believes that his religion is true and divinely inspired, and that necessarily "all other" religions are false, to be lumped in with all of other ("false") religions would be a deep insult - in his view, all religions are not "the same".

There are two main exceptions to this: One is the multi-theistic religion that admits of numerous gods; the other is the "tribal" religion that envisions itself as the only tribe which is capable of being saved and therefore their god is the only god that matters and who cares what the lesser tribes believe anyway. (Although anyone of their own tribe who dared to unfavorably compare or equate their religion with another would undoubtedly be resented or worse.)

I'm of two minds whether to push the "enter" button on this one. This post has really drifted off-topic, and while I think it has intrinsic value, it does seem out of place. On the other hand, to the extent this discusses the "metatopic" of what would be a violation of the "Offensive Language/Material" paragraph in the TOS, I suppose it's still marginally on topic.

I'll push the button, but if the moderators decide to excise this post, I'll understand. It's a close call.

Why not?


;) :D

:D Funniest remark on this thread.