Colibri, moving threads, or not, and names for rules

On this thread, Colibri attaches a name to a rule that he went to the mat with me about two weeks ago, moving and merging threads all over the place in order to make sure I never got the straight dope.

So, is the upshot that as a result of all that, TPTB got together and created a succinct name for the rule (maybe I missed the announcement on the threads that were related at the time)?

If there was no announce, and the rule now has a name, perhaps there can be an announcement and explanation, and maybe a sticky since it seems to come up a lot lately?

Alternatively, if the name existed prior to the go-round with me, why wasn’t it simply dropped as casually as it was in the current thread?

Would you please just give it a rest? This board is working fine without your idiotic and obsessive complaints.

If you’re talking about the “jesus loves you” thing, I don’t think that was in GQ was it? So probably wouldn’t be covered by the “no religious jabs in GQ” rule. This may be why it wasn’t mentioned in your threads.

Edit: Ditto to Crotalus; maybe you should spend a few weeks in some impoverished part of Africa and get a little perspective on life.

Jesus Fucking Christ, not_alice. And I mean that in a totally non religious way.

General Questions Rules:

The basic question in the OP was examples of other religions besides Scientology which are secretive about their doctrines. The issue of whether or not Scientology or other religions are fraudulent is a side issue, and at any rate would be better handled in Great Debates. People are free to discuss this issue in the appropriate forum.

I am not going to rehash any of the discussion relating to your previous complaints; that has been covered more than adequately.

Yes it did originate in GQ, but thanks for reading along closely and sharing.

not_alice, this thread looks to me to be another excuse to revive your complaints about Colibri’s prior moderation. Those have been discussed to death, and you could have answered this yourself by reading the GQ Rules sticky. The “no political jabs” wording has been there since 2008, and that concept has been used in moderating GQ for much longer.

-from June 2005

We did not make up a new rule for you, or change the name of a rule for you, or change anything about the rules in regard to your other dispute. Enough already.

The “factoids that sound right, for a moment” thread that started all this crap was in MPSIMS.

[quote=“Marley23, post:7, topic:570790”]

not_alice, this thread looks to me to be another excuse to revive your complaints about Colibri’s prior moderation.


It’s not that at all. If anything, I am asking if there was some behind the scenes effort to put a name to the rule that was vague before?

OK, but then why not simply have said that a couple of weeks ago instead of mods creating a lot of drama by shifting threads all over the place? Pointing to the sticky would have worked, after all I noticed that wording today and independently thought it a better and sufficient way to say what Colibri was trying to say last time.

stop it.

Actually, by merging and moving threads, you managed to dodge ever answering or even addressing the question, and you are doing so again.

I don’t want to rehash it beyond that either, but let’s not pretend that didn’t happen.

Indeed it was, and I just checked, GQ stickies have the no religious jabs rule, MPSIMS stickies don’t. Perhaps they should, since it seems to happen? (and it wasn’t me who did it). Just a thought.

Then why did you include “moving threads, or not,” in your title if all you were really asking about was the “name of the rule”?

The threads were moved because you kept wanting to have a debate in GQ and ATMB not because of a name of a rule.

Because not_alice’s primary purpose is to complain. She’s not so fussy about the subject of the complaint, as long as (a) it’s about the mods/rules and (b) she can get worked up about how inconsistent and unfair they are. This conveniently frees her from having to concern herself with factual inaccuracies in her complaints or with any clarifications or explanations the mods may provide as to why they did what they did.

I was a little confused at the numerous warnings re: Scientology being a fraud. Not so much with the general rule provided in the warnings, but given the OP stated, in the OP…I’m not trying to debate the merits of Scientology, because we (most of us, anyway) know it’s a fraud, etc. but I’m wondering about the secrecy of religions.…wouldn’t that open the door to discussing the fraud aspect in the thread?

The OP himself stated he was not interested in a debate on the fraud issue itself. Therefore it is a side issue to the basic question in the OP, which is secrecy in religion. The issue of whether Scientology is a fraud is best dealt with in GD (especially since this opens up the question whether other religions are frauds). If the question had simply been whether or not Scientology was a fraud I would have moved it to GD in the first place.

If the discussion of fraud in Scientology and other religions were allowed in that thread, I think it would shortly overwhem discussion of the secrecy issue. Therefore I think it is better to restrict the discussion to the latter as long as it’s in GQ. People are welcome to start another thread in GD on the fraud issue.

No, there was not.

Who cares? It was explained then, it’s been explained now.

Obviously, the mods are conspiring to…um…do something really really bad. And we shouldn’t let them get away with it. Whatever it may be. Cuz it’s bad. Really bad. And stuff. I, for one, am glad we have not_alice on the job. Gotta keep those scheming moderators in line, I tell ya. No religious jabs in GQ, indeed. Harrumph. Sure that rule has been in play for years, and pretty much everyone knows it, but sometimes we need somebody to stamp their foot and huff and puff and blow the house down.

Or maybe not. I dunno. I been doing double-shots of Nyquil for three days now…so woohoooo!

Normally, one could argue the OP making a comment declaring Scientology a fraud opens the discussion for rebutting that comment. However,

  1. the OP said that was not the point of the thread; holding that debate would have been a topic hijack.

  2. the thread was posted in GQ, whereas any debate over the nature of Scientology vis a vis fraud belongs in GD. Ergo, the admonishments regarding limiting the discussion to the secret information would be expected even if the OP had not explicitly said that the fraudulence was not his point. Either limit the thread to a GQ appropriate topic, or move the thread to the appropriate forum for the topic. Since (1) clearly indicated the point was to remain GQ, the admonishment serves to make everyone clear that even though a potentially inflammatory comment was made, it is not appropriate to rebut that comment in the existing thread. It preemptively reminds posters, so anyone who violates it later doesn’t get a “polite reminder”, they go straight to Warning, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

You misread. The “Jesus loves you” comment was in MPSIMS in the thread on factoids. Your thread about “Jesus is love” was posted in GQ, then moved to GD. Two different threads. But thanks for reading along closely and sharing.