Congratulations, Joe_Cool on being made a SDMB Mod

[Monty]

Er...my mistake. Apparently, you only believe you're a moderator here. That can be the only explanation for your deigning to tell people what threads they can and can't participate in and what they can and can't say, even in a Pit thread.

I, of course, refer to the "For Christians a devotional" thread in GD & the "Unban Satan" thread in the Pit. At any rate, the real SDMB mods usually don't admonish folks with as much cursing as you do.

{Suitable pause whilst I wait for the inevitable unchristian cursing of me and my character from Joe_notcoolatall*.}

*This is not to be taken as my thinking that's his username, but rather as my opinion of the poster so described.

[istara]

Gosh I actually thought they had made Joe_Cool a mod.

Given as they haven't, just passing on by.

[RTFirefly]

Monty: given that both those threads you reference are pretty huge, could you point to specific posts to explain what you're talking about?

Instructions on how to link to specific posts are in the Technical Issues FAQ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103503), courtesy of Arnold Winkelried.

[Monty]

RT: Hope this works!

Start with http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=2816984 for the "Unban Satan" thread and wend your way through a good number of those posts.

I'll do the other thread when I get back. Thread keeps timing out.

[Joe_Cool]

Gosh, Monty, maybe my reading comprehension is getting weak, but I don't see in that post where I told anyone they weren't allowed to participate in anything.

In fact, I don't recall ever telling anyone they weren't allowed to participate in any thread at all.

Maybe you can explain it to me.

[Liberal]

May I say something here?

[Joe_Cool]

For clarity's sake, I'll tell you exactly what I was saying in that post, sentence by sentence:

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Of course, not being moderators, you and I don't have any idea who has approached them with what, beyond what he told me (which is that he does want to come back).

You don't need to see the point.

In response to audreyk telling me that she doesn't see the point of my thread, because if he wanted to be unbanned, he should e-mail the moderators.

This clearly says that, not being moderators, neither of us knew whether he had had that discussion or not. And since the thread in question was not a discussion of whom a banned poster should contact to petition for reinstatement, but a request for the administration to reconsider a banning in which, IMO, sufficient time had passed for the poster to be considered a low risk, it really wasn't relevant whether audreyk saw the point of my thread.

DDG, as this is a discussion of the administration's decision, I thought it fairly evident that it is directed to the administration, so thanks for your input.

Did you think I was asking you to unban him?

In response to Duck Duck Goose reiterating the thought that I shouldn't have opened that thread - that I should have minded my own business since it's between him and the administration.

But I'm all ears.

(seriously, I know you have a hard-on for me, but can't you think up something REAL to complain about? I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons to pit me...why you want to waste bandwidth on something as ridiculous as this is beyond me, but whatever makes you happy...)

[Joe_Cool]

I suppose that was section by section, not sentence by sentence. Sorry.

[grendel72]

Geez people. I really don't like Joe_Cool, but even I could see that if anyone was playing mod in that thread it was DDG for telling Joe he shouldn't have opened the thread.

[jacksen9]

I smell a dead horse.

[vanilla]

I really thought he'd been made a mod too for a few seconds.
Monty, you need to make your titles more nasty so they will be clearer.
:)

[JerseyDiamond]

HAH! HAHAHAHAHA!

I think Joe_Cool being made a moderator is about as likely as Monty and Joe_Cool sharing a glass of milk in a gesture of friendship.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Libertarian
May I say something here?

<Puts on Burger King crown with "Burger King" crossed out and "Mod" written in crayon>

No.

<Removes homemade mod hat>

[Joe_Cool]

Yeah, everybody knows mod hats are made of folded newspaper! (I've seen Manhattan's)

[vanilla]

Originally posted by JerseyDiamond
HAH! HAHAHAHAHA!

I think Joe_Cool being made a moderator is about as likely as Monty and Joe_Cool sharing a glass of milk in a gesture of friendship.

And thats not THAT unlikely is it?;)

[evilbeth]

Wait a freaking minute!

Where the hell are all the people jumping Monty for daring to call out another Doper in the Pit for something? I thought the happier, friendlier Pit inhabitants no longer approved of such actions.

Monty, you really should have e-mailed Joe_Cool about this. I am so disappointed. I'm certain more people will be along shortly to admonish you some more.






:rolleyes:

[GusNSpot]

Originally posted by evilbeth
Where the hell are all the people jumping Monty for daring to call out another Doper in the Pit for something? I thought the happier, friendlier Pit inhabitants no longer approved of such actions. :rolleyes: Jumping up & down on --> 'Monty'. :D

[gobear]

Well, before I jump up and down on Monty, he's going to have to buy me a beer and engage in some foreplay--I'm not THAT easy a lay! :D

[Biggirl]

Where do I send my boxtops? I wanna be a Junior Mod. I hear they have these cool decoder rings and you get a personal letter from Ed Z. With you name in it and everything!

[GingerOfTheNorth]

I'm sorry, Biggirl, but they don't allow New Yorkers to be Junior Mods. They're born full-fledged, with a swastika tattooed on their arm. And, you get your very own combination inflatable pig/chocolate safe after the first time you warn someone.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Dear (insert name here) Bigirl,

Congratulations on being made a moderator/administrator. I'm sure you will do very well in the job and we welcome you to our little Straight Dope family.

Sincerely,

Ed

[Smeghead]

Originally posted by Biggirl
I hear they have these cool decoder rings and you get a personal letter from Ed Z. With you name in it and everything!

D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E???

What the hell?

[dave316]

my junior moderator ring is making my hand itchy and red

[DAVEW0071]

Mine turned my finger green.

And I specifically asked for the Moderator HatTM with the propeller on top. I want my money back.

[Sylkyn]

Originally posted by Smeghead
D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E???

What the hell?

BWAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAA!!

(snif)

Jesus, I've missed this place. I love you guys. Thanks for the rib breaking laughter!

This post brought to you by SilkyThreat, survivor of housefire. Any humorous posts are welcome and well-received. Brought to you by the "Let's Make Silky's Day" Committee for rib-breaking threads.

[Happy Lendervedder]

In a classless society we'd all be moderators. Or else none of us would be.

Either way, here's to being no-class.

Cheers! *burrrrrrrrp*


Happy

[vanilla]

A Junior Mod?
Isn't that like a Junior mint?

[Green Bean]

Originally posted by vanilla
A Junior Mod?
Isn't that like a Junior mint?

Not at all. Only the real mods get coated in chocolate.

[vanilla]

:p

[Gorgon Heap]

Unless they also com in mint chocolate, I'm not havin' any!

[huff]

[The Ace of Swords]

Yeah, I'd like a box of chocolate mods.

Whaddya mean you only have them in Jawbreakers?

[GingerOfTheNorth]

Chocolate mod jawbreakers? Is that some new Japanese candy, like Pocky?

[PhiloVance]

Monty


Get help, dude.

Joe_Cool is cool. While I don't agree with all he says, he in no way played mod in either thread. I have to agree with grendel72.

[Mojo]

Wait til you all get a load of my "Unban Perkydan!" thread. Mwahahahaahaha.

[Esprix]

I agree with Monty - in both threads I read the same snarky attitude into Joe's comments, i.e., "you're not supposed to post in here." But that's just IMHO - YMMV. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "junior mod," but the attitude of there being supposedly "the right people" who can only post in a thread (i.e., only people involved) seems rather ridiculous when the forum in which we are participating is a public message board. I learned a long time ago that if you post it, they will respond.

But, maybe it's just me...

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Well, Exprix, you can read whatever you want into whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. I didn't realize snarkiness, in response to a comment from a junior moderator telling me I'm not allowed to post on whatever topic I choose, is typical junior moderator behavior.

I don't care a whit if you like me or not, but don't make crap up. If you think I was an ass for telling DDG and AudreyK that I'll post whatever I want about whatever I want, and anybody who's not a moderator should keep comments of that sort to themselves, that's fine. But I don't have any interest in DDG's or AudreyK's opinions regarding whether my thread was appropriate. THAT is junior mod-wannabe behavior.

[Joe_Cool]

For crying out loud, grendel72 can't stand me (understandably), and as much as I'm sure he'd love to jump on the bandwagon and agree with what a jerk I am, even he sees that it wasn't what I was doing.

Come on. Dislike me all you want. But at least be honest about the things you're accusing me of.

[Geek Mecha]

Joe_Cool

In my first post to that thread, I finished a sentence by saying that I "didn't see the point". The point I didn't see was what you hoped to gain in soliciting opinions. You took it as me questioning your right to start threads. Now, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to start whatever threads they want. At the time, I wasn't thinking in terms of "whether Joe_Cool should have started this thread"; it was more "I don't see what Joe_Cool thinks might be accomplished in this". I'm not sure I can accurately describe the difference I see between these two points of view, but I certainly didn't mean to come across as the way I evidently came across.

For what it's worth, I did kinda feel like you were telling me I couldn't participate in that thread since I "didn't need to see the point". But, eh, whatever.

Second, in hindsight, I think that my 'zero business' remark, though provoked, went over the line... my line, at least, if not the staff's. I apologize for the junior-modding.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Libertarian
May I say something here? I'd certainly be interested to know how many atomic reactors women of the 1970s will use for styling their hair.

[MrMyth]

Tell you what - why don't we all accuse each other of being Communists when we're all done here?

If Dopers continue to attack each otherfor nood good damn reason, then the Junior Mods have already won.

[Desmostylus]

Hey, Mangetout, I've made an AutoJoe:

FIB meaning what...Fucking ImBecile?

Nice job. Better sign off before the ward nurse finds out you didn't swallow your meds again.

Nothing gained.

Yeah I see that.

DDG, from those who have been around lon enough to remember him well, of course, not the prince of evil is viewed and regarded his fellow posters, and are given so many chances when other hand, for your input.

So thanks for your input.

Of course, I'd prefer to have some discourse regarding the possibility th he has relaxed in the first place if they are willing to discuss it was within the rules. Unfortunately, I seem to have some discourse regarding the possibility th he has, in fact, made attempts to contact the st ff hoping to be enough of a favorable response, from those who have been around lon enough to remember him well, the thing is that he does want to come back.

I thought that I'd make a suggestion that might help to open a dialog regarding the way Satan the poster, not the prince of evil is viewed and regarded his fellow posters, and he said, I thought it fairly evident that it's difficult with all the background noise.

DDG, who the hell do you think I started this thread i order to venture my opinion in favor of reconsidering the revocation of his fellow posters, and particularly some friendly conversation with the moderators several of om I've also met in hopes that may be enough of a favorable response, from those who have been around lon enough to remember him well, that the administration, so I started this thread i order to venture my opinion in favor of reconsidering the Mother Hen on this board. I think you need to come back.

Keep in mind that I had to gain permission from the other non-staff posters prior to starting thread. I even followed the rule regarding the thing is that he has, I understand that he has, in fact, made attempts to contact the st ff hoping to be simply done and over.

DDG, as this is a discussion of the user greement stating that I have been around lon enough to see the point.

So, and was told that it the moderators would discuss it a discussion of my concern, so, rather than having somebody clucking over how it's none of my thread. The pit is the proper place for discuss ng staff decisions, and are willing to discuss it among themselves. He does want to come back.

I even followed the rule regarding placement of my business to post any kind:

But, since you're being civil, who the hell do you think you need to spend some time of evil is viewed and respond in kind:

Nice job. Better sign off before the administration, so thanks for your input.

[The Ace of Swords]

Joe_Cool, I think you should definitely heed the advice and wisdom of the hypocritical axe-grinders here...

That way you could upgrade to a respectable caliber of enemies instead of this weak blunderbuss of retards.

:rolleyes:

[Esprix]

Desmostylus, I didn't understand your post. Were those all quotes of Joe's?

Esprix

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

Well, Exprix, you can read whatever you want into whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so.

Oh? To quote you (yet again):

DDG, as this is a discussion of the administration's decision, I thought it fairly evident that it is directed to the administration, so thanks for your input.

Did you think I was asking you to unban him?

And I take it, then, that you meant to be polite and well-mannered, giving a reasoned response to a perceived injustice? What I got out of that was that since the question was "directed to the administration," no one else is welcomed to comment, and I found that rather ironic since you posted it on a public message board. I got the same overall tone from your comments in the witnessing thread - "If you're not Christian, which this thread was intended for, then you've got no business posting here." If you want only Christian views, go post over at the Pizza Parlor - I'm sure they'd love to hear it. But as it is, the thread is on the SDMB, open for all to comment. Again, did you mean this as a well-measured, reasonable response, or were you being snarky?

I didn't realize snarkiness, in response to a comment from a junior moderator telling me I'm not allowed to post on whatever topic I choose, is typical junior moderator behavior.

And, as I said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "junior mod..."

But thanks for saying I called you one anyway. :rolleyes: In your own words:

I don't care a whit if you like me or not, but don't make crap up.

Looking forward to more stunning examples of your Christian love in the future.

Esprix

[Monty]

Thanks, Esprix. You've posted the two bits from those threads that really rankled me about ol' Joe.

Well, three really. "[...] But don't make crap up." That's the part that jumps right up there with his "But what's one more lie."

Actually, though, I'm really impressed he hasn't cursed me here but instead limited himself to dissecting only one of his posts when I clearly indicated I was talking about the corpus of them.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Esprix
Looking forward to more stunning examples of your Christian love in the future.
He's not perfect; just forgiven.


But one would think that after 22 years as a Christian, a person would be a little more ... um ... what's the term I'm looking for ... oh, yeah, Christ-like.

[imthjckaz]

Originally posted by jacksen9
I smell a dead horse.
And necrophiliacs all around.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Esprix
Desmostylus, I didn't understand your post. Were those all quotes of Joe's?

Esprix It's the output of a text-generation program. It isn't really supposed to make sense. I fed Joe's text in, and that was what came out.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Esprix
...I take it, then, that you meant to be polite and well-mannered, giving a reasoned response to a perceived injustice? What I got out of that was that since the question was "directed to the administration," no one else is welcomed to comment...

Unsurprisingly, you read it wrong. DDG, as I'm sure you saw, told me essentially to mind my own business because it was between Brian and the administration. Obviously, I was aware of this, because I posted a thread questioning the administration on this very topic. See? She told me it's up to the administration, and I told her that I was writing TO the administration. Nowhere did I say that somebody wasn't welcome to post - in fact, I said that comments from the public were welcome and solicited. But I wanted to discuss the issue that I raised, not the propriety of my raising it. At least not with a non-moderator.

I got the same overall tone from your comments in the witnessing thread - "If you're not Christian, which this thread was intended for, then you've got no business posting here."

Let's quote the actual post, shall we? Originally posted by Joe_Cool
You know, it's amazing the way so many non-Christian people bash His4ever for going into threads by, for, and about homosexuals and saying "this is a sin," but think nothing of going from thread to thread where Christians are discussing, for example, how Christians should treat each other, and add nothing but mockery, hostility, and sarcasm.

*cough*hypocrites*cough*

Gosh, if I didn't know that you guys were above all that, I might think you held to a double standard. But of course you are better than that.

You know, it weakens your moral highground when you do the very thing that you're slamming somebody else for.

Of course, perhaps I'm mistaken. I was under the impression that this thread title began with "For Christians...."

Wow, it appears slightly different when you're actually looking at it, doesn't it? Many times, the complaint against His4ever was that she popped into threads about homosexuals/ity, and offered her unsolicited opinion that it is sinful.

So. She posts a thread in MPSIMS, called, ironically, "For Christians..." and the inquisition comes in on the attack, forcing a thread that was intended only to share a writing with other Christians into a rabid debate, better suited for the Pit than for GD. I only said that it's hypocritical to do to her the same thing that she was battered and savaged for doing.

Even gobear said Without giving my opinion on the content of H4E's OP, I have to agree that she should not be vilified for posting what she thought was a harmless little devotional that was aimed only at Christians. She was not intending to preach at heathens like me, but to reprove the faithful, something which she is just as entitled to do as Monty or Joe_Cool are. So why is it different when I say the same thing? Neither of us said anybody wasn't welcome. But I can see how my wording led to your impression. I'll endeavor to be more clear in the future.

But thanks for saying I called you one anyway. :rolleyes:

My apologies.

Looking forward to more stunning examples of your Christian love in the future.

Esprix

You're right...All good Christians should be gravely concerned about whether other people like them, and should rejoice when people tell lies (or propagate misunderstandings, as the case may be) about them. I was totally wrong to say that you shouldn't make things up, and to say that I don't care if you like me or not. <this is sarcasm>

Monty:
You started the thread. You made the accusations. Back them up. Don't expect me to do your legwork for you. Since when it it my responsibility to search out my offense as well as defend myself against it? And you may think it's unchristian, but I'd still prefer that you not make crap up.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Even gobear said ... So why is it different when I say the same thing? Neither of us said anybody wasn't welcome. But I can see how my wording led to your impression. I'll endeavor to be more clear in the future.

I do, however, agree that gobear took a kinder tone than I did. Of course, he wasn't under attack...but still.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

Unsurprisingly, you read it wrong.

Oh, I can accept your explanation of why you said what you said, but that's not what's at question - it still (to me, and apparently to others) came off as snarky. And you darn well meant it to, too. I don't understand your indignation at now being perceived as such.

Wow, it appears slightly different when you're actually looking at it, doesn't it?

Um, no, not particularly, but, again, I get your point - you still came off as snarky. (Goodness, that word is getting a workout today!) And you meant to be as such. And so on, and so forth.

Obviously Monty and aren't the only ones who read it that way, despite your intentions; thus is the nature of public message boards. I know I've been misinterpreted as well, and, like you, got called on the carpet for it as well. You learn to suck it up after a while.

But I can see how my wording led to your impression. I'll endeavor to be more clear in the future.

Aye, there's the rub, and thank you for at least considering it.

My apologies.

Thank you.

All good Christians should be gravely concerned about whether other people like them, and should rejoice when people tell lies (or propagate misunderstandings, as the case may be) about them. I was totally wrong to say that you shouldn't make things up, and to say that I don't care if you like me or not.

Well, gee, since that wasn't what I was referring to by your "Christian love," your sarcasm is misplaced. Rather, I was referring to your general hostility and - dare I say it? - snarkiness as referenced in this thread. If you're going to claim your religion is your moral compass, don't be surprised when others - once again, please - call you on the carpet when you seem to have lost your way. We're here to help...

Esprix

[Monty]

Well, Joe; app[arently I'm not the only one who got that impression from you. After all, Espix clearly said he got the same impression as I did. Thus that doesn't constitute me making stuff up.

I did back them up. I clearly indicated one thread in which I got that impression and mentioned that it started with a particular post and ran from the other posts in that thread. But, just maybe, you don't know what "wend your way" means. It means, in this case, slog through all of your posts in that thread. I also mentioned that the other thread kept timing out on me. Esprix posted the part I was referring to and thus I didn't have to go do anything other than what I did just above here.

I don't have a hard on for you. I consider you to be a bad liar, a hypocrite, and a most uncivil fellow. That's my opinion and I feel that I have based that opinion on the entirety of your postings on this board. At least one other poster has communicated to me that you really are a good person. I politely disagreed with that individual and made clear the reasons for my disagreement.

[Monty]

Dratted punctuation! "At least one other..." should be "One other poster, at least has..." meaning that "One other poster, surprising to me, has..."

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Monty
Well, Joe; apparently I'm not the only one who got that impression from you. After all, Espix clearly said he got the same impression as I did. Thus that doesn't constitute me making stuff up.

Except that you didn't start this thread to complain about snarkiness. You said that I was trying to act like a moderator, for which there is no evidence. Esprix clearly said that "junior modding" is not the complaint he had. Do I deny the snarkiness? No way. Esprix is right: I did mean it. I'm not always happy about what I've posted after it's done, but when I write it, I generally mean what I've said. And to be honest, I'm tired enough of the constant attacks and same old stuff being said, and fending off false accusations, that some amount of snark has most definitely worked its way into my repertoire.

I did back them up. I clearly indicated one thread in which I got that impression and mentioned that it started with a particular post and ran from the other posts in that thread. But, just maybe, you don't know what "wend your way" means. It means, in this case, slog through all of your posts in that thread. I also mentioned that the other thread kept timing out on me. Esprix posted the part I was referring to and thus I didn't have to go do anything other than what I did just above here.

Again, you didn't pit me for snarkiness. It was for pretending to be a mod. The latter I haven't done, and the former I admit.

I don't have a hard on for you. I consider you to be a bad liar, a hypocrite, and a most uncivil fellow. That's my opinion and I feel that I have based that opinion on the entirety of your postings on this board. At least one other poster has communicated to me that you really are a good person. I politely disagreed with that individual and made clear the reasons for my disagreement.

Liar? You mean regarding Mormonism? I apologized for my one misconception, which you graciously rejected, and I questioned you further with backup from Young and Smith, which you refused to answer. But it's not a lie. You really need to get straight the difference between a lie and a mistake or misunderstanding.

But as for overall impressions, mine of you isn't so kind either. But I'm making an effort not to rail on people like I've been wont to do in the past. So let's just leave it at that, and I'll try to be civil anyway.

[Monty]

Oh, you mean that "apology" where you insulted me? Pshaw! That got as much grace as you evidenced in extending it.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

Except that you didn't start this thread to complain about snarkiness. You said that I was trying to act like a moderator, for which there is no evidence... Do I deny the snarkiness? No way. Esprix is right: I did mean it.

If he changes his mind, would that be ok? ;) (Meant in jest - really!)

... I'm tired enough of the constant attacks and same old stuff being said, and fending off false accusations, that some amount of snark has most definitely worked its way into my repertoire.

Welcome to my world, and congratulations - you're officially a Doper.

But I'm making an effort not to rail on people like I've been wont to do in the past. So let's just leave it at that, and I'll try to be civil anyway.

New leaves are good things. Thanks. I hope it sticks.

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Monty
Oh, you mean that "apology" where you insulted me? Pshaw! That got as much grace as you evidenced in extending it.

No, I mean the apology where I apologized for, and retracted, the statement where I confused a JW belief with the Mormon one.

The fact that I called you a jerk is unrelated, even though it was in the same post. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean that my apology for my misstatement is any less sincere.

[Esprix]

Um, calling someone a jerk while apologizing does rather suck the wind out of it, n'est-ce pas?

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Well, maybe it was a bit uncool to do it in the same post, but I was answering two distinct statements from monty. One had nothing to do with the other. And, for what it's worth, I wasn't apologizing for what I thought of him, but for a mistaken belief I had about his church.

[Monty]

In other words, you're an asshole. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Joe_Cool]

You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to. Whatever.

[Esprix]

Still, having been on both the giving and receiving ends of apologies (both warranted and unwarranted, freely given and having swallowed a bitter pill), an apology with an insult tacked on, even if it isn't related, isn't much of an apology.

IMHO, that is.

Esprix

[Monty]

Oh, that's just horseshit and you really ought to know it, Joe. You are a damn liar. First of all, your supposed apology was coupled with the insult, not merely just happening to be in the same place as something else. For another, in this thread you say that you mean what you said and really aren't apologetic for any of it. Of course, those aren't your exact words, but that's what the meaning comes across as. In the "devotional" thread, you weren't asking for my response because of genuine interest--you were doing two things: hijacking the thread and looking for more ammunition to condemn. In that same thread, you said:
But I still can see that you act like a jerk towards anybody who disagrees with you, and I still don't like you.

{Bolding mine} You need to prove that I "act like a jerk with anybody who disagrees with" me. For one thing, I'm not acting like a jerk, I'm responding rationally to your bullshit and lies. For another, I disagree quite often with gobear and Polycarp, just to name two. We manage to be friends here.

Well, maybe in your twisted worldview, all those who have pitted you for your lies and hypocrisy are just acting like jerks. Apparently, you're the jerk and aren't too happy with that fact. Thus you ignore it.

I fondly await the next fine example of decency from your filthy mouth.

[The Ace of Swords]

Esprix: I'm amazed that so soon after your pit thread which included many weak and partial apologies by you, you see fit to be admonishing anyone on the quality of their apology.

I'd stop throwing stones, if I were you -- broken glass is pointy.

[Liberal]

Back off of Esprix. Now.

[Esprix]

Oh, boo hoo. :rolleyes: As I said to Duck Duck Goose in another thread, I know I've been guilty of it in the past, too, but I'm trying to learn from my mistakes - and it seems, hopefully, Joe is, too. Maybe you should take a tip.

Esprix

[andros]

Oh Great God Ironius,

Thank you for bestowing Your mighty and ironic blessings on us in the person of your unwitting servant Ace.

Amen.

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by Esprix
Oh, boo hoo. :rolleyes: As I said to Duck Duck Goose in another thread, I know I've been guilty of it in the past, too, but I'm trying to learn from my mistakes - and it seems, hopefully, Joe is, too. Maybe you should take a tip.As to the content, Amen. As to the tone, just what were you saying about snarkyness, again? Apparently none of us, save perhaps Polycarp are immune to the temptation of irony, sarcasm, and yes, snarkyness, in the face of a perceived attack, are we, now? Boo, hoo, yourself -- Joe is snarky in the face of an unfounded pitting? Damn his eyes! How on earth can you complain about snarkiness by the pittee when the original pit complaint is unfounded? Can you lock up someone up for resisting arrest when the arrest was invalid? It's ridiculous!

You keep expecting a calm, reasoned Polycarp-esque reply from Joe in the face of bashing him and his wife in the pit again and again (with zero Rationale -- like when he was stereotyped with His4ever, or when Homebrew complained they were child abusers.) Oh my god! He used foul language like us! Oh my god! He's just as snarky as we are! Oh my god! He get's pissed off when we call him an adulterous child-abusing jerk! Onion Newsflash: Local Christian Not Yet a Saint.

And I've got another NewsFlash: I don't think anyone here would have even responded as well to such attacks. So maybe we should cut him a little fucking slack on his snarkiness and his language, ok?

[Homebrew]

No need to drag me back into this AceHole, especially by misrepresenting me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unintentionally confabulating two different threads.

[The Ace of Swords]

Well, thank you for the benefit. Indeed a confabulation. Homebrew was the stereotyper and JarbabyJ was the child abuse accuser.

[The Ace of Swords]

And if you search to confirm that, you'll find several more unfounded pit threads of Joe's (I have it has 0 for 4), so complaining about snarkiness is rather like saying we'll file four unfounded nuisance suits against you, and then sue you again for having such a sour attitude.

[andros]

"And I'm very sorry, Homebrew. I'll try not to let it happen again."

[wring]

"And I missed you most of all Scarecrow".

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
And if you search to confirm that, you'll find several more unfounded pit threads of Joe's (I have it has 0 for 4), so complaining about snarkiness is rather like saying we'll file four unfounded nuisance suits against you, and then sue you again for having such a sour attitude. 50 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong

[vanilla]

I would like to drink some Homebrew, myself.

[Monty]

Ace: It's not unfounded.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords

... just what were you saying about snarkyness, again?

I was saying that if you're snarky, people will call you on it. What part of this aren't you comprehending?

Joe is snarky in the face of an unfounded pitting? Damn his eyes!

Um, no, the threads mentioned in the OP - the "Christian Devotional" and the "Unban Satan" therads - were not "unfounded pittings," they were unrelated ones in which Joe made snarky comments. Then this thread was started because of those comments. And if you're calling this thread an "unfounded pitting," then you haven't been reading it.

[quote]You keep expecting a calm, reasoned Polycarp-esque reply from Joe in the face of bashing him and his wife in the pit again and again... Oh my god! He used foul language like us! Oh my god! He's just as snarky as we are! Oh my god! He get's pissed off when we call him an adulterous child-abusing jerk! Onion Newsflash: Local Christian Not Yet a Saint.

Hmmm, let's see - Joe seems to set himself (intentionally or not) on the moral high ground because he believes in the Bible, and touts his "Christian morals" quite loudly. His perogative - hell, his right to do so. I don't blame him. But how can anyone be surprised that, at times, he would be called on it? Or, if when he might take a conservative stance that affects, annoys, offends or insults others, his "Christian morals" - taken from the oft-quoted Bible - are thrown back in his face when he lapses from them?

I'm not catching anything unusual here. Fair? Maybe not. People giving him a break? Not lately. But all honest? I'd say so. You might disagree - that, too, is your perogative. No one is suggesting he isn't human and fallible, but if he's going to use the Bible to define and defend his morals (on a public message board, I might add), then it seems right and proper for people to respond as they see fit. If he's going to say, for the most obvious example, "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin," to those of us who are homosexual, what's the problem with us responding back to him, "The Bible also says that adultery and remarriage are sins." :confused: (Granted, that's just one example of the Pit threads you mentioned, but, again, none of this is surprising to me, and I doubt it is to Joe, either.)

Didja follow all that, Sparky?

And if it would make you feel any better, I'd be happy to show you all the places I, myself have been taken to task when I've been unusually snarky, pig-headed or wrong. Oh, wait, you already mentioned one, didn't you? Or did you conveniently forget how I was taken to task?

:rolleyes:

Esprix

[Esprix]

Whoops! Bad coding on my part. There should be an end quote tag after, "Damn his eyes!"

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Esprix
...what's the problem with us responding back to him, "The Bible also says that adultery and remarriage are sins."

[Counting to ten before answering...]

Yes, they are. What's your point? One more time, Esprix...there would be nothing at all wrong with that pit thread...if only any of the participants in it HAD ANY CLUE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. Man, you people make it difficult for a guy to try to mellow out and be nice. For the last time, Esprix: show me how divorce and remarriage being a sin affects me or my wife. Show your work. And in the future, before you clowns want to rip somebody a new asshole for something, at least GET YOUR DAMN FACTS STRAIGHT FIRST.

[...Counting to a hundred...]

And Monty, once again, your little pit rant IS unfounded. Look at your OP again, and pay close attention: Originally posted by Monty
Er...my mistake. Apparently, you only believe you're a moderator here. That can be the only explanation for your deigning to tell people what threads they can and can't participate in and what they can and can't say, even in a Pit thread.

I, of course, refer to the "For Christians a devotional" thread in GD & the "Unban Satan" thread in the Pit. At any rate, the real SDMB mods usually don't admonish folks with as much cursing as you do.

{Suitable pause whilst I wait for the inevitable unchristian cursing of me and my character from Joe_notcoolatall*.}

*This is not to be taken as my thinking that's his username, but rather as my opinion of the poster so described.

So, from the top: Apparently I believe I'm a moderator.
False.
I tell people which threads they can and can't participate in.
False.
I did the above in the "Unban Satan" thread.
False. Even people for whom "I dislike Joe Cool" would be a vulgar understatement have chimed in to tell you that you're wrong. Accept it.
I will curse you out.
Also False.
Joe_notcoolatall
ESPECIALLY False, given the relative success I'm having with the attempt to stay polite around here, when all you (collectively, but including you personally) do is talk smack and spread lies about, not to mention insult, me and/or my wife.

If you want to rant about something, I'm sure you can find something that's true. So if you're gonna do it, then do it and quit lying.

And since my apology isn't good enough for you (though it was offered sincerely), I hereby retract it. I acknowledge my error on that particular point of your church's teaching. Nothing more.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

... show me how divorce and remarriage being a sin affects me or my wife.

Sure - just as soon as you show me where homosexuality being a sin affects me or my boyfriend. :D

Eh, let's not dance around this again - we've both been there, done that, and neither of us has the energy. Agree to disagree, blah blah blah. I'm sure we'll find reasons to argue again in another thread soon enough. ;)

And Monty, once again, your little pit rant IS unfounded. Look at your OP again...

Well since he agreed that I pretty much hit the nail on the head, i.e., it was your general attitude that he took umbrage with, I'll ask again - if he changes the OP, will that make things better?

I tell people which threads they can and can't participate in.

And, again, some of us did read your statements that way. I thought we covered this?

And since my apology isn't good enough for you (though it was offered sincerely), I hereby retract it. I acknowledge my error on that particular point of your church's teaching. Nothing more.

Aw, c'mon, Joe - you were doing so well! :(

Esprix

[The Ace of Swords]

Monty:

AFAICT, you didn't even attempt to make the case of your OP, which would involve quoting just which posts you thought were indicative of junior modding, not just generalized complaints about both content and tone.

You say Joe "thinks he's a moderator" and "tells people which threads they can and cannot participate in." and "what they can and cannot say." I see no evidence of this in the threads you reference. Cite?

Again, let's not jump all over Joe's attitude until such time as we stop pitting him unfairly, hmm?

[vanilla]

I would post here, but Joe_Cool told me not to.
;)

[Monty]

Well, Ace, then AFAYCT ain't worth squat. Evidently (heh, heh, heh), I did make my case.

Joe: So you're really not sorry huh? That's exactly what I gathered from your bogus apology.

[gobear]

There is something genuinely saddening about the continued sniping between two men who ought to joined in their common love of Jesus. You guys are supposed to be brothers in Christ, so why do you two behave like a couple of Boston fish wives?

Can't both of you count to ten, apologize to each other sincerely, and make a renewed effort to forgive each other as you wish to be forgiven, which, IIRC, are the terms your Boss laid down?

[iampunha]

He's been left out of it for the most part so far, gobear, except in the instances where religion has been mentioned, and ... I dunno, but if I were God I think I'd want to be left out of any relation to this thread. It's like a train-wreck in slow motion. Just as loud, just as violent, but if you look closely you can see not only the metal crunching into people but bones being shattered, and there's a little child's teddy bear laying about ten meters to your left. Alone. Bloody. With an arm missing.

My opinion will matter as much to some of the people here as a piece of felt, but common ground might best be reached simply by saying "We're not going to accomplish anything for the common good here, so let's just chalk another one up to human imperfection and be glad things didn't get worse."

I've seen better behavior from teenagers in IMHO. Or GD. Or GQ.

[Monty]

Well, gobear: According to you know who, I ain't no Christian. One guess how that makes me think about anything else he's got to say. Of course, I am quite amused that for him whether I accept his apology or not has anything to do with the veracity of it.

[gobear]

Monty, now is the time to step up and let actions be witness to your faith. Same goes for you, Joe_Cool. IIRC, the two greatest commandments are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus didn't say, "Love your neighbor until he pisses you off, and then it's go time." Jesus, who you two supposedly revere as the incarnation of God on earth, was all about the love, not petty spite. When Jesus was beaten by the Romans before He was crucified, He didn't say, "OK, motherfuckers, I'm taking names and all y'all are going to burn in Hell like little bitches!" He said, "Forgive them, Father, they don't know what they're doing."

Why can't you guys drop the hostility and love each other?

[Monty]

gobear:

You're absolutely correct. While I won't ever stop being peeved over people deciding they're the Big JC (which is exactly what they're doing when they have the gall, yes gall, to tell me my church isn't Christian), I can let this one drop.

And drop I shall let it.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Monty
Well, gobear: According to you know who, I ain't no Christian. One guess how that makes me think about anything else he's got to say. Of course, I am quite amused that for him whether I accept his apology or not has anything to do with the veracity of it.

Well, I did ask (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2760857#post2760857) you to explain the apparent discrepancy between the Bible's "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One" and Brigham Young's "many gods and many worlds," but you'd rather argue than clear up a misunderstanding that an outsider has about your faith.

I believe that God IS, and that's it. The bible says he was from everlasting to everlasting, and is eternally unchanging.

Smith and Young say that there are many gods, ruling over many worlds - all mortal men who have been promoted - and that any of us can become gods ourselves. That sounds an awful lot like what the serpent said in the garden to Eve: For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.

I'm not attacking you, and I'm not insulting you. I've explained the reason why I believe what I do about your church, and I'm asking you to show me how I'm wrong. Are you still going to refuse?

[gobear]

Well, I tried. Joe_Cool, isn't behaving as a Christian more in line with Jesus's wishes than arguing over doctrine? Who cares about the discrepancy between Brigham Young and the Psalms? That will be sorted out later. Right now, at this moment, the quality of your Christian witness is being shown in your behavior. Will you step up and agree to put the hostilities on hold?

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Well, I did ask (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2760857#post2760857) you to explain the apparent discrepancy between the Bible's "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One" and Brigham Young's "many gods and many worlds

Uh-huh.

So, how do you explain the apparent discrepancy between the Torah's "Shma Israel adonai elohaynu adonai echad. (Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one.)" with your notions of a "Trinity"?*

Hint: One != Three or even Three-In-One. The Jewish interpretation is "Indivisible". This page says: (http://www.carm.net/doctrine/trinity.htm):

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.
which is in direct violation of Jewish teaching. One means one not "three distinct persons".

Other explainations I've heard have a God wears a Jesus Hat, a Holy Spirit Hat and a Father hat depending on the job. (Or, more commonly, it's an "One egg = yolk/white/shell" type explaination, but since both of those are hereticical (monarchianism and/or modalism. depending on the phrasing), I'd be interested in your explaination.

Fenris

*This really isn't directed at other Christians. I know how, say, Polycarp would answer that question: we had an interesting discussion about it. But since Joe is all hepped up about attacking other's religions, I thought it would be interesting to see how he deals with the exact same problem.

[Joe_Cool]

Get over yourself, Fenris. I'm not attacking anybody. I'm asking a sincere question of Monty. If you want to see a fight, get Pay Per View.

gobear, I wasn't aware that "Real Christians" weren't allowed to sort out and question docrtinal differences. Cite?

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Get over yourself, Fenris. I'm not attacking anybody. I'm asking a sincere question of Monty. If you want to see a fight, get Pay Per View.

gobear, I wasn't aware that "Real Christians" weren't allowed to sort out and question docrtinal differences. Cite?

Get over yourself, Joe. If Fenris wanted to see a fight, I am sure he would want more than you could provide, you intellectually stunted warrior for all that is right and true.


gobear said nothing about being unable to discuss doctrinal issues. He did validly point out that perhaps fulfilling the intent is more important than discussing boilerplate.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Hastur
If Fenris wanted to see a fight, I am sure he would want more than you could provide, you intellectually stunted warrior for all that is right and true.

Oh, ouch. I think I'll go cry myself to sleep now. :rolleyes:

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Oh, ouch. I think I'll go cry myself to sleep now. :rolleyes:

Ignoring the content yet again.

And as I'm quite sure you have a zinger stored up about my supposed lack of content, I'll relieve you of that and point you back to the point about doctrine.

[Liberal]

Joe_Cool wrote (to Gobear):

I wasn't aware that "Real Christians" weren't allowed to sort out and question docrtinal differences. Cite?But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. — Titus 3:9

[gobear]

Thanks, Lib.

Joe, Jesus[/b] did tell His disciples to be vicious and uncharitable in His name, did He? He DID say "Love one another as I have loved you." He said, "Love your enemy, bless those who curse you, pray for those who insult you in every way."

[Fenris]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Get over yourself, Fenris. I'm not attacking anybody. I'm asking a sincere question of Monty. If you want to see a fight, get Pay Per View.
So...you can't or won't answer a question of mine? And how do you reconcile your unwillingness to answer as well as the snarky tone of your response in light of 1 Peter 3:15?


Always be prepared to give to every man an answer, a reason for the hope that lies within you, with gentleness and with respect.

?

Fenris

[Monty]

As I mentioned above, it's not a sincere question.

[vanilla]

gobear did this exact same thing last year with Monty and I.
Its ironic, to say the least, when an avowed atheist (I think) posts more Christ-like wisodm on here than His4ever.
Ah well, a sign of the end.

[vanilla]

wisdom, too.

[gobear]

Its ironic, to say the least, when an avowed atheist (I think) posts more Christ-like wisodm on here than His4ever.

I am most definitely an atheist, but I am hardly Christ-like. If I had to imitate a founder of a religion, it would be the Buddha, for Buddhism, unlike Christianity, emphasizes compassion over judgement.

It seems to me that if Joe_Cool argues doctrinal issues in a spirit of spite and and self-justification, then, IMO, he really does not understand the mission of Jesus or the duties of a Christian. In fact, the only people Jesus denounced in the Gospels are exactly the religious authorities who placed greater emphasis on the letter of the law and doctrinal wrangling than on love, charity, and forgiveness. To paraphrase St. Paul, if you don't have love in your heart for your fellow humans, then your faith is just meaningless noise, or to quote the gospel of Les Miz, "To love another person is to see the face of God."

If Joe and Monty were here, I'd give them both a big hug, ask them to take a time-out, and see if they could not work out their differences peacefully over a pitcher of Diet Coke and a Papa John's Supreme pizza (my treat).

[Drastic]

The Revelation of Papa John?

[Polycarp]

I am most definitely an atheist, but I am hardly Christ-like. If I had to imitate a founder of a religion, it would be the Buddha, for Buddhism, unlike Christianity, emphasizes compassion over judgement.

I would disagree with your last clause, based on my own reading of Jesus's words -- but I suppose in doing so I'd be doing something like proving your point! :eek:

It seems to me that if Joe_Cool argues doctrinal issues in a spirit of spite and and self-justification, then, IMO, he really does not understand the mission of Jesus or the duties of a Christian. In fact, the only people Jesus denounced in the Gospels are exactly the religious authorities who placed greater emphasis on the letter of the law and doctrinal wrangling than on love, charity, and forgiveness. To paraphrase St. Paul, if you don't have love in your heart for your fellow humans, then your faith is just meaningless noise, or to quote the gospel of Les Miz, "To love another person is to see the face of God."

If you look for the few occasions where Joe-and-Jersey and I have been able to discuss calmly our stances rather than getting het up about our differences in emphasis, you'll see him (or her; their views are similar enough that I don't try to keep straight which said what) affirming the primacy of love. However, he is staunch for the necessity of the keeping of the "moral commandments" in Scripture, and, very much like me, tends to get polemic about his views and how they are misrepresented. I think I can guarantee that it's never in a attitude of spite, and self-justifying only to the extent that it's a commitment for him (as for me) to stand for what he believes in. Over the last month, I've come to know the two of them and what they're like down inside much better, and can see that their sometimes combative attitudes on what Christianity is supposed to be are not reflective of mean spirits but upright, caring ones that get combative for the truth. Certainly you, gobear, can get irate at someone subtly using innuendo to defame all gay people; Joe seemingly feels much the same way about the tendency to do likewise regarding Bible-focused Christians, and reacts accordingly.

If Joe and Monty were here, I'd give them both a big hug, ask them to take a time-out, and see if they could not work out their differences peacefully over a pitcher of Diet Coke and a Papa John's Supreme pizza (my treat).

A consummation devoutly to be wished! I'd love to see you, me, Monty, Tris, Pun, Joe, and Jersey at the same table in deep conversation about what matters deeply to ourselves.

BTW, if I may noodge a little, gobear, you mentioned some time ago having had a spiritual experience that strongly influenced your views, and if you ever went into detail about it, I've missed that. If the latter, would you be so kind as to link, and if not, would you consider discussing it in a GD thread? I know I'm trespassing on private, personal feelings in asking this, but I feel like it's the right thing to ask, and I hope you'll forgive any invasion of your privacy in making the request, even if you decline. :)

[Joe_Cool]

Regardless of what Monty wants to believe, gobear, I'm not asking spitefully. I want to know how they reconcile that seeming problem. Since he refuses to explain it, then oh well.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Regardless of what Monty wants to believe, gobear, I'm not asking spitefully. I want to know how they reconcile that seeming problem. Since he refuses to explain it, then oh well.

You are telling someone they are refusing to explain or respond to a question.

You are a very funny little man.

:dubious:

[Liberal]

Gobear wrote:

I am most definitely an atheist, but I am hardly Christ-like. If I had to imitate a founder of a religion, it would be the Buddha, for Buddhism, unlike Christianity, emphasizes compassion over judgement.A remarkable statement given your considerable knowledge of Jesus' ministry.

"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son... You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one... This is my command: love one another." — Jesus

[Polycarp]

Lib/, I suspect strongly that gobear is speaking of institutional Christianity as he's experienced it (or perhaps that might be better expressed as "as he's suffered it") rather than the teachings of its Founder. It would be totally uncouth for me to quote "religion politicians" back at you -- but keep them in mind when you read gobear on "Christianity" -- he is, I believe, most emphatically not talking about your or my belief system when he condemns "Christianity" but the SBC, Cardinal Ratziger, Jerry Falwell, Forkus in da Fambly, and a few other choice specimens of Homo demagogus.

[gobear]

Indeed. The idea that God incarnated as a human in order to redeem His errant creation is beautiful. The idea of people living lives of love, hope, forgiveness and charity is also beautiful. But, as I survey organized Christianity, I don't see that. Instead, I see that for many Christians, harassing gay people, reading badly written books about a crudely drawn eschatology, and adherence to a primitive creation myth as being the hallmarks of "true" Christianity.

In my experience, the His4Evers far, far outnumber the Polycarps.

[Monty]

gobear: I have to share a bit of a secret with you (and, I guess, everyone else since this is on the board) -- I'm kind of drawn to Mahayana Buddhism myself.

[vanilla]

Is it reconcilable with your belief system, Monty?

And Gobear, I meant you talk the words of Jesus (re: Love) rahter than judgmentalism.
In ohter words, you are a peacemaker and blessed are the peacemakers.:D

[Drastic]

The more rationally-open formulations of Mahayana Buddhism are compatible with a rather wide range of belief systems, theistic to non- to a-. It's one of the factors that lead quite a few to argue that it's not a religion but a philosophy.

I don't think it's even remotely ironic that an avowed atheist can be a better witness of love than many avowed religionists of whatever religion. What religion a person is, is almost entirely a matter of what words they narrate it as. Words can be fine and beautiful things, they're one of the many gifts of being human, but words are not the Word, and loyalty to any particular set of the former is a separate thing from loyalty and striving towards to the latter.

[Liberal]

I agree with you about Gobear, Vanilla. I love him dearly.

[Siege]

OK, just to make gobear turn a little bit redder, I agree that he out-Christians some real life Christians I've known. Then again, my experience with Christianity leads me to focus on love over judgement in part because so many people only see Christians as judgemental. It's a perception we come by honestly, I'm afraid.

I'm not familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, but I studied some Zen Buddhism while I was majoring in Japanese, and I still use Zen meditation techniques as a form of deep prayer by clearing my mind of all external distractions and focussing solely on communion with God. I'd also argue that one of the basic principles of Zen Buddhism -- not tying oneself to the pleasures and concerns of this world -- is entirely compatible with Christianity.

Joe_Cool, please, believe me when I tell you I'm not piling on. I do, however, need to tell you that I've felt attacked by you at times to the point where I've wondered about leaving Christianity since I suspect by your standards I'm a lousy Christian anyway. I'm sure you are a nice person, but I get nervous posting in a thread you're participating in for fear that you will tear me apart and yes, swear at me. I'm sorry. I cannot bring myself to agree with you on all things simply because you're sure you're right and can cite scripture. I'm also quite sure I'm right and, while Episcopalians are notoriously bad at this, ;) I've learned to cite a few verses myself since I started hanging around here. If I exchange the beliefs I have formed through prayer, study, and life in general for your beliefs simply because you say I must because you're right and I'm wrong, to me that's exactly the same thing as automatically deferring to Papal authority. I have tried to understand your point of view, even to the point of talking to a friend who once was a Fundamentalist Christian, but, as I've said, I'm afraid to talk to you. Please, I'm not attacking you. I just wonder if you understand that sometimes I feel like you're attacking me.

Respectfully, believe it or not,
CJ

[JerseyDiamond]

CJ, if you feel that threatened by joe_cool, I really suggest you use some of your personal options that are given to you from the board. Trust me, they are wonderful!

Remember, you do not have to correspond with him. Also, you have asked him questions and he gave you his answers. I see nothing wrong with that. I think you just need to keep in mind that you may not get the answer you like, all the time.

Anyway, I have never seen joe_cool swear at you, so I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

I am also interested in seeing some of the things that he has said to you that you have felt threatened by. I did a search, and I don't see anything attacking you. I just want to see what made you think about leaving Christianity. Not a big deal, but if you have the time or whatever.

A true follower cannot be plucked from the hands of God, not even by the big bad joe_cool.