(July 2, 2015 at 1:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Here you go.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-p...#pid902393

(March 19, 2015 at 5:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It's a non-issue now, as we have permanently suspended Huggy's signature.

What part was I lying about? I had received no message in any OFFICAL capacity telling me to change my Sig, If you think I have please point it out.

Huggy, your signature was the main subject of that thread for seven or eight pages.  It was another case in which you quote mined, derailed an entire thread, and made it all about you.  You were told many times you needed to change your sig, and when you did, you just turned around, quote-mined some more, and then whined about our refusal to accept it.  

You're even lying now with your above post!

Now, can we please get back on-topic?  I swear, Huggy's got a game he plays to see how many pages he can make about him.

(July 2, 2015 at 1:10 am)Cato Wrote: I would be shocked if you didn't gag. God made me in his image, more specifically like Ezekial 23:20...
...
whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Take a good long look at my avatar buddy.....

See? I have a sense of humor too.

Ew.

(July 2, 2015 at 1:13 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 1:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Here you go.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-p...#pid902393
What part was I lying about? I had received no message in any OFFICAL capacity telling me to change my Sig, If you think I have please point it out.

Huggy, your signature was the main subject of that thread for seven or eight pages.  It was another case in which you quote mined, derailed an entire thread, and made it all about you.  You were told many times you needed to change your sig, and when you did, you just turned around, quote-mined some more, and then whined about our refusal to accept it.  

You're even lying now with your above post!

Now, can we please get back on-topic?  I swear, Huggy's got a game he plays to see how many pages he can make about him.

I said OFFICIAL capacity, you know, "mod hat on", green colored text.... People object to what I say / do on a daily basis.

Where is the official mod post telling me to change my sig?

What are we? The federal government? We're not required to post in red or green, or to PM you. We mainly do that to give people who might not otherwise know we are mods an easy way of figuring it out. You had seven or eight pages consisting mostly of staff admonishing to change your signature. Please, with the "official" bullshit.

Anyway, you said:

Quote:I should add, I've had my sig privileges revoked for quoting someone in my sig, while ironically you quote someone in yours... I could point out others doing the same, but who cares about fairness right?

No, you did not have your signature privileges revoked for quoting someone. That is what you are lying about. The thread you linked contains pages worth of staff explaining to you exactly why your sig privileges were revoked, and quoting someone was certainly not why. You know this- but you're so intellectually and blatantly dishonest, you're probably not going to admit it.

It'd be nice to get this thread off the Huggy train.

Can we just derail HIM instead?

(July 2, 2015 at 1:13 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 1:10 am)Cato Wrote: I would be shocked if you didn't gag. God made me in his image, more specifically like Ezekial 23:20...
...
whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Take a good long look at my avatar buddy.....

See? I have a sense of humor too.

I have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean.

Dude, I think I've been very polite in all this. I have led you to a place where you know you're wrong. I also think I've been very charitable in that despite a few back-and-forths on the subject, all I'm asking for is admission that you were wrong. No apology, no shaming, no dancing naked. Just admit on this one point you were wrong. That's it. Shit, I'm wrong more than I'd like to be, but I'd also like to think that I am honest enough to admit it. Give it up man, Denmark is NOT a Christian nation.

(July 2, 2015 at 1:56 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: Can we just derail HIM instead?

Hold on, not yet! Are you fucking kidding me? I have him strapped to the rails with my cow-scoop bearing down on him. If he's so proud (one of the seven deadly sins) not to admit defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence then I'll let you pull the whistle cord as the cow-scoop transforms him into mince. Fair?

(July 1, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 6:56 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: Just to clarify this false statement made by the poster above, the software allows for people to put everyone but the staff on ignore (which is what I presume the poster was referring to).

This is for good reasons, namely so that we know that if, as an example, we verbally warn or speedbump a thread, every poster can see it. If people can ignore it, then the message isn't getting through, which makes it pointless. It also works the other way around. We are unable to ignore people, because our job as volunteer staff who volunteer their time and money of their own volition, is to ensure that we maintain a standard. We can't do that if we put people on ignore.

If the person above is unable to put someone on ignore who is not staff, please bring it to the staff's attention so that we can look into it as this is obviously a fault with the software. If otherwise, please reacquaint yourself with the rules until you feel able to contribute.

Thanks.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

My objection is that staffers should have two accounts: one mod and one regular user (and your identity should be anonymous, btw)

If you want to tee off on someone as a regular user, then others could ignore you.

You would only switch to your mod account when taking action as needed.

As it is, there are more atheist mods in this Christianity forum than there are Christians to take action against.

Cthulhu Dreaming has suggested that I use the Suggestions forum to propose ideas like this, and I may do so. This post is just for discussion...in a "discussion forum".

When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

Post your suggestion, by all means, however.

(July 2, 2015 at 1:43 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: What are we? The federal government? We're not required to post in red or green, or to PM you.  We mainly do that to give people who might not otherwise know we are mods an easy way of figuring it out. You had seven or eight pages consisting mostly of staff admonishing to change your signature. Please, with the "official" bullshit.

You gave this answer clearly because there isn't any instance of a "mod post" telling me to change my sig. If it's your position that mods don't have to make themselves clear, and distinguish normal post for green or red ones... then don't act surprised when someone is confused.
*EDIT*
I'll add a quote from Pandæmonium who just posted this.

(July 2, 2015 at 2:23 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

Post your suggestion, by all means, however.

*emphasis* mine
So which is it?

(July 2, 2015 at 1:43 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Anyway, you said:

Quote:I should add, I've had my sig privileges revoked for quoting someone in my sig, while ironically you quote someone in yours... I could point out others doing the same, but who cares about fairness right?

No, you did not have your signature privileges revoked for quoting someone.  That is what you are lying about. The thread you linked contains pages worth of staff explaining to you exactly why your sig privileges were revoked, and quoting someone was certainly not why.  You know this- but you're so intellectually and blatantly dishonest, you're probably not going to admit it.

It'd be nice to get this thread off the Huggy train.

The first time I quoted someone in my sig, I was told to remove it despite NOT naming anyone, I hadn't visited the forum for a few days and came back to find the sig removed... how does that break the rules?

The second time I quoted someone in my sig, I asked permission because of the first case.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21336-po...#pid761884

(September 30, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Your continued arguments along this thoroughly discredited line of reasoning (one which you helped to discredit) deserves no respect.

Then you won't mind if i quote you in my sig?

(September 26, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

(September 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Which you so helpfully corrected me upon...thereby destroying your own argument.  Please, quote away.

Esquilax repeatedly requested that I remove that sig, even though Rhythm clearly indicated that he didn't care if I put it in my signature.... How is that against the rules?
So you're saying that even though the sig broke no rules, Esquilax simply asking for it to be removed (though not officially), should always be regarded as an Official mod request?