Why is god hiding?

[pocaracas]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Like I said Esq, I didn't quote you. The name I used was "Esquilax the dishonest".

"I'm just gonna start punching air, and if you get hit, it's your own fault!"

Would you spare us the fucking kindergarten bullshit, Frods? It was clear to anyone with a functioning brain what you were doing, and you're not going to weasel out of it with childish sophistry.

Frodos right. You call anyone that disagrees with you a liar. I keep trying to be respectful of you but really you're acting like an asshole right now.

I can post a link to the thread, if you like. We were all asked what we would think of a sign from god, the general answer was that we would investigate it as we would any other phenomena, but that the automatic assumption wouldn't be god, and you decided then that we just would never accept a sign from god no matter what, when that's not what any of us said.

That pretty much seems like a lie to me.

There's a big difference between making a mistake and telling a lie. I didn't read the posts as carefully as I should have and went off half cocked. Even still I find it hard to understand the difference between assuming there is a natural but as yet unknown cause and never accepting something as evidence of God. But I never tried to decieve anyone. Unless you can prove that someone means to decieve others by knowingly misrepresenting the facts, then calling people liars is baseless slander.

[fr0d0]

I'm impartial to this, fr0d0, and I think you're in the wrong.

You may not like the fact that Esquillax called you dishonest, but you dealt with it in a childish manner that is against the rules.

You think I'm in the wrong how?

Show me how it's against the rules. It's against the rules to alter a quote. I neither quoted Esq, nor used his precise username. My pretend quote was obviously that for all to see. Esq started the childishness... a taunt too far to me, who responded in kind... the only kind that Esq cares to use. Esq hates being called dishonest, despite handing out the ridiculous accusation out like a village idiot.

Now again Faith, I ask you to butt out.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Faith, Esq, its called parody. Any fair minded reader would immediately recognize frodos post as a spoof. To suggest otherwise is a lie ;-)

[fr0d0]

Yeah a slap on the wrist from you, who has the axe to grind. Best not let someone impartial do the dirty work huh Esq? Very honest of you.

Like I said, five other people also voted for the same action. There is simply no way in which this represents an "axe to grind," here; whether performed by me or any other of the mod team, the result would have been the same.

What I also find interesting is that you claim you never quoted me, but then when you started whining to the mod team about this, you said that I shouldn't be acting on reports that are about me personally. Why would you say that if it was so obvious that you weren't quoting me?

Of course you have an axe to grind. It's your own silly wind up. Yes, if it's a team decision someone unrelated to the event should meet out the punishment. Coming from you it just looks like what it is - you venting your personal frustrations.

I never quoted you. My jibe was obviously aimed at you. There's a difference even you should be able to grasp, if you weren't trying to be deliberately obtuse. Dishonesty again from you. How many times and how obvious does it have to be for you to admit it?

Me : I let people believe what they want. Respect that and try to understand their POV. You : call people dishonest because they don't share your particular POV.

Once you do that, you lose all credibility.

[Faith No More]

You think I'm in the wrong how?

Show me how it's against the rules. It's against the rules to alter a quote. I neither quoted Esq, nor used his precise username. My pretend quote was obviously that for all to see. Esq started the childishness... a taunt too far to me, who responded in kind... the only kind that Esq cares to use. Esq hates being called dishonest, despite handing out the ridiculous accusation out like a village idiot.

You mockingly quoted Esquillax and attempted to get around that by adding a title to the end of his username. The intent is clear, and your squirming about not using the "precise username" is childish.

[Faith No More]

Faith, Esq, its called parody. Any fair minded reader would immediately recognize frodos post as a spoof. To suggest otherwise is a lie ;-)

It doesn't matter if it's parody. The integrity of the quote system is something we strive to keep in order to maintain honest discussion.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Faith, Esq, its called parody. Any fair minded reader would immediately recognize frodos post as a spoof. To suggest otherwise is a lie ;-)

It doesn't matter if it's parody. The integrity of the quote system is something we strive to keep in order to maintain honest discussion.

I see your point.

[fr0d0]

You think I'm in the wrong how?

Show me how it's against the rules. It's against the rules to alter a quote. I neither quoted Esq, nor used his precise username. My pretend quote was obviously that for all to see. Esq started the childishness... a taunt too far to me, who responded in kind... the only kind that Esq cares to use. Esq hates being called dishonest, despite handing out the ridiculous accusation out like a village idiot.

You mockingly quoted Esquillax and attempted to get around that by adding a title to the end of his username. The intent is clear, and your squirming about not using the "precise username" is childish.

If I quoted him the link would lead to his post. It doesn't and I didn't. Apart from the word "dishonest", what did I quote of his? The intent is clear indeed. If I'd meant it to be seriously saying that esq had indeed said what I'd put I wouldn't have added the fake poster name of " Esquilax the dishonest " now would I?

Come on faith, get serious.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I dunno why God is hiding, but the last page of this thread has been