To: JamesR - WHERE is it against the rules?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

neoclassical

Banned
Banned
Yes, I know this thread is in your view grounds for my banning. Of course, that never stops me. Honesty is more important than politics.

Questions:

1) Where here (http://sciforums.com/faq.php) does it say what I posted was against the forum rules?

2) Why did you censor it instead of deleting it then?

3) You claimed what I posted was "illegal," but then locked the thread that showed you a legal opinion in a mainstream newspaper proving that it was not indeed illegal. You then changed your position to "it's against the rules."

4) What is your religion? (Germaine to this issue, since a conflict of interest on your part is likely)

To All: JamesR is abusing his authority as a moderator and trying to cover up his tracks. What's he afraid of?
 
Of you. Obviously. You're a bad, bad man. You might be the second coming of christ.
Either that or diarrhea.

Probably the latter.
 
neoclassical,

could you repost the evidence?

I think James explained him self clearly:
It is the fact that it advocates violent, criminal acts which resulted in its being closed.
Click to expand...

as a internet forum we can place up what ever rules we want, if we say we will not allow that, there is nothing you can do about it. If you disagree with the rules here there are plenty of other internet forums to troll.
 
Last edited:
It is the fact that it advocates violent, criminal acts which resulted in its being closed.
Click to expand...

So does the Bible. Are they not allowed to quote the Bible in religion?

as a internet forum we can place up what ever rules we want, if we say we will not allow that, there is nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

You don't speak for Admin. Admin has made it clear that Admin will be bound by Admin's rules. Mysterious are the ways of Admin.
 
I don't speak for him but I can put a good guess that how things work. Yes in indeed the admin works in strange and mysterious ways.
 
neoclassical:

In answer to your questions:

1) Where here (http://sciforums.com/faq.php) does it say what I posted was against the forum rules?

Nowhere. That link takes you to the FAQ for using the forum software. It does not contain the forum rules.

You posted in the Religion forum. The Religion forum rules are there for all to see in a sticky thread which constantly sits at the top of the thread list in that forum. Here is a link to that thread:

Posting Rules for Religion forum

2) Why did you censor it instead of deleting it then?

I censored it so that interested people could see what you posted. I knew you would probably whinge about it, and I wanted people to be able to make up their own minds. It is a simple matter for people to find the site your were referring to with a simple search, if they are so inclined.

3) You claimed what I posted was "illegal," but then locked the thread that showed you a legal opinion in a mainstream newspaper proving that it was not indeed illegal. You then changed your position to "it's against the rules."
Click to expand...

This is not an accurate respresentation of what I said. Since the evidence is there in the relevant thread, there's no need to repeat myself.

4) What is your religion? (Germaine to this issue, since a conflict of interest on your part is likely)

This is certainly not relevant. As explained before, I take a dim view of any post which incites violence against particular religious or ethnic groups, regardless of what those groups are.

To All: JamesR is abusing his authority as a moderator and trying to cover up his tracks. What's he afraid of?
Click to expand...

If I had wanted to cover up my tracks, I would have simply deleted all traces of the thread and banned you without any warning.

You were previously warned about posting further threads on this moderation issue. Specifically, you were told that you would be banned for 1 week if you did so. Because I am in a lenient mood, I will only ban you for 3 days.
 
I think that JamesR is a great moderator.

Sometimes mods have to call the shots in controversial subjects. I don't see him abusing power. There is sometimes a fine line between what is legal and what is not but I usually truse JamesR's decisions. SO, I think that he was not abusing his power.
 
Neoclassical learned a lot in white supremacy school.....steps to being a white supremist jerk

1) do or say something abrasive
2) wait for a reaction
3) based on that reaction make yourself out to be the victim
4) retaliate as the victim and claim it to be self defense....

good job retard......hope you got an "A" in nazi class.
 
Xev said:

So does the Bible. Are they not allowed to quote the Bible in religion?
Click to expand...

Are those contrasting examples remotely the same thing?
 
neoclassical = neonazi

The world does not, and will not ever tolerate your ideological existence.
 
How annoying. Let's be practical and let people make up their minds about propoganda, why don't we?

Honestly, James R, you can't think that a few words in a post will incite anyone to violence.

There's a reason we have free speech in the United States. Too bad it hasn't been realized here.

The world does not, and will not ever tolerate your ideological existence.
Click to expand...

So instead of censoring it, let's allow people to make up their minds, hmm? :rolleyes:
 
Balder1,

The hate sites have their internet space, and we have ours. They can run their sites as they see fit, but we do not have to endorse them here. We are also free to choose our membership, just as they choose with whom they want to associate.

You, as a reader, are also free to examine their material, if you wish. A simple google search will find the relevant site for you. But I'm not going to help them by giving them free publicity.

Look at the symbols shown on various pages and logos at sciforums. Think about what they tell you about the forum. Nobody is completely unbiased. Everybody has views, and this forum, as a collection of people, has a particular set of principles. Much as we differ as individuals, by posting here regularly we agree implicitly with that set of principles. Some of the principles are explicit. Others have grown organically with the forum, into a mutual tacit understanding. Those who are fundamentally opposed to the philosophies of the site itself will soon leave, entirely of their own accord.

Sometimes, you have to stand up for what you believe. You can't sit on the fence all the time, because doing that allows bad things to happen. Free speech is great as a general rule, but all rules must be applied with some thought, not blindly.
 
Dividing the world into "hate speech" and "free speech" is a mental psychosis.

Like "good" and "evil."

I await the maturity of future child molest JamesR. Here's my reply to him:

Dear Mister James R,

You have classic authority fixation syndrome.

I hope you don't have kids, as they'll be candidates for sexual abuse and endless parental passive aggression.

If you need help, I can recommend a quality psychologist who is used to dealing with these issues.

Does the "R" stand for Rosenberg? LOL

cheers

neo


James R said:
neoclassical,

You have narrowly avoided being banned from sciforums. I am writing you this message in case you have received a PM from me by mistake telling you that you had been banned. Obviously, you haven't been, or you wouldn't be reading this.

After deleting your thread, and sending my previous warning message to you, I noticed that you had posted another copy of the same thread. If you had done that after you received my warning, it would have been grounds for immediate permanent banning for overriding a moderator edit.

Luckily, I checked the times carefully. As it turns out, you read my PM 2 minutes after you posted the second copy of the thread. Before I noticed this, I was in the process of composing a final goodbye message for you. There was a glitch with the forum software, and I'm not sure if that message might have been sent to you by mistake. Hence the current message.

In summary, you missed being banned from sciforums by a 2 minute margin, this time.

I hope no further moderation action will be necessary on my part with regard to your future posts, so we won't have any unfortunate mistakes.
Click to expand...
 
robtex said:
1) do or say something abrasive
2) wait for a reaction
3) based on that reaction make yourself out to be the victim
4) retaliate as the victim and claim it to be self defense....
Click to expand...

Neither I, nor the NSDAP, were white supremacists. We're nationalists. I don't identify myself as a Nazi, either - if you want to actually learn (LOL) about my beliefs, try this: [deleted]

I think the point of the process you attempt to detail above is thus:

Side A claims it supports tolerance, and the other side does not, therefore must be exluded.

Side B forces side A to be intolerant.

Thus Side A is placed into paradox, as it claims to be tolerant.

Considering the worst killers have been leftists (Stalin), it's legitimate.

Dividing the world into "hate speech" and "free speech" is not even sane, much less legitimate.

LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"It is the fact that it advocates violent, criminal acts which resulted in its being closed." - JamesR

(That's why he censored the article which quoted the ACLU and JDL as saying it did not advocate violent, criminal, or ILLEGAL acts. LOL)
 
James R said:
Free speech is great as a general rule, but all rules must be applied with some thought, not blindly.
Click to expand...

Why do you call it free speech then? When by your own admission, it means "free speech except for things that conflict with what I stand up and believe in"?

LOL
 
You missed JamesR's post above:

"Sometimes, you have to stand up for what you believe. You can't sit on the fence all the time, because doing that allows bad things to happen. Free speech is great as a general rule, but all rules must be applied with some thought, not blindly."

LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top