Father Disowned Me Because I'm Still Atheist

[Esquilax]

Rule 14. And yes, OP could be a cunt to his father and want to disown his father because he perceives his father is a cunt to him and wants to disown him.

I'll be interested to see where Rule 14 comes into this.

[naimless]

I'll be interested to see where Rule 14 comes into this.

"...may not change the quoted text in any way" - I got slapped in the wrist by one of your fellow crackers yesterday for doing this, yet when ya'll do it to me it remains perfectly fine...

Keep up the double standards, Gestapo.

[Bad Writer]

Are you talking about adding bold lettering? You do realize that's not actually changing your words, but is in reality a tool to draw the reader's attention to the focus of the respondent, right?

[LastPoet]

"...may not change the quoted text in any way" - I got slapped in the wrist by one of your fellow crackers yesterday for doing this, yet when ya'll do it to me it remains perfectly fine...

Keep up the double standards, Gestapo.

I wonder if your highness ever thought about reporting the post where the post was misquoted. Nahhh, his highness can't be that dumb!

And to top that with a cherry, you just quote mined the rules. Wow, just wow! You have a pet peeve, we know that, get over it. What are you? 20?

[modhat on] Users should report any posts that breach the rules. This is for everyone. Also, try to make clear that one has altered a quote like saying "(bold mine)" or "(Fixed that for you)". Of course, all instances will be analised by the staff, should reports arise.

[Cyberman]

What naimless tells us Rule 14 says:

“...may not change the quoted text in any way“

What Rule 14 actually says:

Quoting Others Accurately
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but may not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule may result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned, banned, or have your post edited to indicate the violation and / or amend the misquote. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (i.e. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the additions are yours and not the quoted member's, and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text. Use of textual alteration for the purpose of parody may be allowed, provided it is clear that the changes have been made to the original quote. In the case of ambiguity, staff will err on the side of preserving the author's original words rather than preserving your artistic license. If in doubt, include the phrase "Changes made to original quotation." at the top of your post. Staff reserve the right to consider misquotations on a case-by-case basis, weighing context and additional factors.

Yeah, no discrepancy there.

[Jackalope]

Bold added by me. Thoughts?

Rule 14.

Nope. She made it perfectly clear what she added and that it was her words, not yours.

[LastPoet]

Oh shit! He misquoted the rules while whining for injustice, by quoting just the part of the rules that served his purpose. I could report that as a violation, but I'll just point and laugh at the idiocy. Seriously dude, get a grip. No one here is out to get you, almost everyone falls afoul of the rules one time or another.

[Esquilax]

I'll be interested to see where Rule 14 comes into this.

"...may not change the quoted text in any way" - I got slapped in the wrist by one of your fellow crackers yesterday for doing this, yet when ya'll do it to me it remains perfectly fine...

Keep up the double standards, Gestapo.

Yeah, generally speaking we don't count sentence fragments as grounds for an infraction. If we did, I could ban you right now, because buried within what you quoted of the rules are the words "may not... quote... text in any way."

But that would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as calling me a Gestapo because I won't punish someone based on the tail end of a sentence that was itself a part of an entire paragraph. Keep up the histrionics, mega-Hitler.

[Mystical]

When I say you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, I mean it. You seriously have no fucking CLUE, what it is, you are talking about. You're on the inside yelling at us from the inside, that we can't see what's goin on outside while we're outside. It's actually kinda sad.

I suggest you do some studies on cults. If you look up the WEBSTER definition, you're in one.

It's you whose in denial, friends. The fact that you stood up for the abuser of the situation, says everything as to your abnormal mindset.

I'm no theist and I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck if you mean it, or really mean it...or really, really mean it. I do have "an abnormal mindset" though, whatever the fuck that is.

I have apologised for making assumptions to the OP, maybe you could stop doing the same.

I don't even know what to say to that. You've been informed what an invasive cult Mormonism is, and yet you still stick up for the OPs dad?


Naimless, try responding to my post this time instead of sidetracking the thread eh? Or is that all you have to say about this thread?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Generally speaking, it's pretty silly to misquote the rules to the staff in an attempt to claim that a staff member abused the rules.