Wow. You have one of those decoder screens, too?
“There’s right, and there’s nice.”
--S. SkinnerMy bad, Czarcasm.
Ziiiiiiiiing! I bet all the other mods are really impressed now.
You’re the one who surmised what his unedited post was, based on nothing.
[sub]Notice how I spelled all the words in this post correctly? [/sub] At least, I hope I did.
The title of the thread was Non-Catholics: How important is Ash Wednesday?. If the title has specified that it was only requesting opinions from christians, it is unlikely I would have opened it.
Yes, the specific questions in the initial post did specify “non-Catholic Christians” and referred to “services” and such. But the responses to the initial post did not lead me to suggest that only opinions from currently practicing christians were welcome and/or appropriate.
Also, having been raised Catholic, living and working most of my life in a very Catholic city, I do have considerable information, experience, and strong opinions on the subject. In short, believe me or not, I was not simply posting something antagonistic on a topic that I was ignorant of and had no strong opinion on.
By my rough count, of the folks who posted before me (#23) at least 4 clearly described themselves as non-religious, non-christian, or atheist. No objection had been made to their participation. Add to that several more who spoke of their religious practice in past tense or referring to their extended families’ practices, which suggested to me at least the possibility that they were not currently practicing christians. I also believe at least one poster ahead of me was at one time LDS, which many traditional christians would contend isn’t.
So, based on the plain wording of the title, and the number of non-christians posting ahead of me, I thought my post was within the acceptable boundaries.
I now know it wasn’t. I disagree with that decision, but am willing to abide by it. And I don’t really have anything more to say about it. I hope I am not characterized as “making a big deal out of this,” by responding to a direct question.
Thank you. Sometimes in life you just have to agree to disagree.
It was more like ‘then I know exactly what to do with you.’ But thinly veiled threatening remarks have never been against the rules for moderators here - or Tubadiva would not have gotten away with telling me that there are many things she would like to promise me.
So, you can’t say that ashes on foreheads are a way to identify idiots as a regular poster, but if you are a mod you can be as big a douchebag as you want if you’re a mod, even implying threats.
I believe this has been covered in post #169.
Then I stand by my assessment that moderator is SDMB term for ‘one who acts like a douchebag’.
Post #188.
Rinse.
Repeat as necessary.
Bye.
But not old enough, says Nina Simone.
No, as I already pointed out, his warning was for making an inappropriate comment in IMHO, not for “calling the religious idiots.” You lied about that previously in this thread, and now you’ve just lied about it again. This is particularly stupid, since anyone who cares to check the original can see that you are lying. Since you are lying repeatedly about an action that is the very basis of your complaint, of course it is not changing the topic to call you on it.
Liar.
You say his warning was about threadshitting, and I suppose you have talked to Czarcasm and confirmed it. I read it differently, I saw it as a warning for attacking the religious. He really did not say what was inappropriate, only that the response was. But, you are the mod, so I’ll defer to you. His correction of the capitalization of Catholic made it look like it was about religion, not threadshitting.
I never felt I was lying, only interpreting differently. If you feel better calling me a liar, OK, I can live with that.
Sorry, I ran out of edit.
So in post 32 Czarcasm replies to Ellen Cherry’s complaint
with
It’s an insult she complains about and one that Czarcasm suggests she report. That’s not threadshitting she’s complaining about, it’s an insult. Of the religious. Now do you wish to call me a liar again?
Did you read the warning in the original thread? I quoted it before:
This is the post in its entirety. If you “read it as a warning for attacking the religious,” then you’re reading something into it that isn’t there at all. This speaks more to your own prejudice on the matter than anything in the post itself.
In this thread, **Dinsdale ** asked Czarcasm to provide an explanation. Czarcasm’s very first response was:
Yet you have been blathering on and on, claiming that in the original thread he warned Dinsdale for insulting Catholics, which he clearly did not. You also claimed he changed his story to say that the offense was threadshitting, when in fact that was the first response he gave.
When your “interpretation” is directly contrary to the actual facts of the matter, as is easily shown by the posts above, and on top of that you repeatedly claimed that Czarcasm was lying about the sequence of events, I don’t think there is anything else to call you but liar. If you want to call lying “interpreting it differently,” I guess that’s up to you. But I don’t think anyone else is really going to buy it.
Rather late for that, don’t you think?
Yes. That’s not what Czarcasm warned Dinsdale for. Liar.
I’m sorry, did you not read the exchange between Czarcasm and Ellen Cherry? The one where he says that he won’t allow insults in his forum? Insults, not thread shitting? Please try again.
I’ll take this one.
Try to wrap your brain around this one-I’m not partial to insults or thread shitting in IMHO.
Once again, you’re ignoring the distinction between insulting a poster and insulting a group that includes posters.
We’ve done this argument-didn’t fly then and it doesn’t fly now.