For the first couple of years after I joined, I can remember threads being closed due to software limitations. I can’t remember if it was at 10 or 20 pages. Hell, actually I can’t remember if it was software or hardware limitations. You should probably pay no attention to me. Make that your new motto, “Pay no attention to Frank.”
And I addressed this question directly, and of course the discussion included points made, originally by others, about the nature of the violence in Islam.I was responding to errors made in that discussion.
Again, legitimate discussion about what to do about the violent nature of Islam will involve discussions and disagreements about the reasons why it is violent, including refutations of erroneous statements made about this subject, including YOUR erroneous statements.
I never did that, this is your stupid caricature, and gets to the very nature of the problem of trying to debate Islam on a forum that you moderate. You continuously try to boil down any sort of comments made by those who are critical of Islam into this little mantra of yours.
There was no hijack on my part, and there was no ignoring on my part, I was taking part in the discussion, which of course sometimes included references to the WHY and the HOW of the negative aspects of Islam. This is just basic brain usage, discussions and especially debates of what to do about a problem are of course, by definition, going to involve the NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.
There already was another thread on Islam, and that thread was also closed.
This word “plenty” keeps getting used, when every single thread about Islam in that forum has been shut down. We can see what your definition of plenty is.
Your have this very convenient and biased notion of “hijacking” that just means “whenever the discussion is making tomndebb uncomfortable.” Again, it is not a hijack to talk about the nature of a problem you are discussing the solution to, to claim otherwise is just stupid.
I never made that claim. You constantly do this in your discussions and in your moderation, you re-frame what I say into something different. First of all your labeling of criticism of Islam’s prophet as an attack is suspect, and implies that something unfair is happening, when I have provided sources all along in all of these discussions. And especially your fabrications of what I say (again something you share with your counterparts at Stormfront), I never once said that no one could attack or criticize Islam or it’s prophet I said that you use your power as moderator to LIMIT this criticism, in the same manner and using the same means that the moderators at Stormfront LIMIT critiques of Holocaust denial.
Did anyone else hear that?
Your snark aside, the actual results are plain: all discussion critical of Islam in Great Debates have been shut down, and here we talking about talking about Islam, instead of talking about Islam, in a thread where talking about Islam is expressly forbidden. Stormfront mods get all conceited and jokey in these circumstances too.
I’m fairly sure that you were responding to my post, but still, nice timing.
…Tomndebb, eh…? (nods sagely) Say no more.
Keeps bumping? You mean the one time I responded to my own thread that I had refrained from responding to because there were already two others about Islam, after those two had been terminated? Or are you talking about something else?
Right, I am free to post a limited amount of criticism of Islam as long as I obey every possible interpretation of a vague set of rules that a moderator who crashes every thread about Islam with ignorant arguments, characterizations, and heavy handed moderation might come up with. I get it.
That is not what Robert123 was doing. I only Modded his nonsense. He posted. I responded. He never addressed the points I made, simply haring off on “Mohammed is evil” over and over. It was only after he had refused to actually address the OP and persisted in his hijack that I Mod noted and later Warned him.
You can re-write the story in your mind as much as you wish. The thread is still there for anyone to review. (You never did address the OP of that thread and your claim to need to bash Mohammed is pointless if you cannot be bothered to actually participate other than to complain that Robert123 has a need to hijack the thread.)
Where did I claim this?
You claim I said this, I say you are misrepresenting me. Where is your cite?
You keep claiming this, and I keep linking to where I did, including in this thread. Do you really need me to find the link for you* again*? You are simply wrong. You continuously falsely portray what I post, and it is obvious that your moderation is based on these falsehoods, rather than what is really happening in the threads. You greatly decrease the quality of the discussions possible in Great Debates by doing so.
There is not much point in my continuing a discussion with someone whose imagination creates events that never occurred.
You can hardly “keep linking” to where you responded to the OP of the thread in question. This is the only exchange we have had outside that thread and there are no such links in this thread.
I will grant that some of your posts got near the point of that thread, but then, I never Mod noted you to stay on track until you made a nonsense attack on my posts, accusing me of actions I had never taken in the thread. In fact, despite your odd accusation that I was shutting down the thread to prevent “my side” from losing, I persistently posted to all posters to stay on track. I also never made any move to close the thread either by threat or by action.
Well, there was this…
and this…
and this…
But aside from that, yeah, you never said that.
You are wrong. Post #49
This is the same post that I pointed out when you accused me in that thread of not responding to the OP.
To you “on track” appears to mean avoiding critical examination of the Koran and the example of Mohammed, in a thread debating what to do about the violence motivated by Islamic beliefs.
And as crude as his solution was, Robert’s post that you moderated, where his solution was to admit the facts he enumerated about Mohammed, was directly addressing the OP. It was actually more on subject than your posts in that thread were, on average. But all you saw was the fact that it was insulting to Muslims. Well, yes it is that too. The thing is, the very nature of the debate means that the degree of overlap between solutions-to-problems-caused-by-Islam and things-that-are-insulting-to-Muslims is one of the main contentions. In fact the recent dialouge betwwen Majid Nawaz and Sam Harris spends much of it’s time grappling with this issue. I don’t pretend to know what configuration is best exactly, and if I did I have very little power to implement any solution anyway. But I do know that unless we can address this prime factor of the issue we aren’t even having the debate.
Wow, you guys are harsh! Not only was he suspended but he was docked 40 points too. 
Again, there is a difference between what I said, LIMITING the discussion, and what Tom accused me of saying, which was that “one may not attack Islam or Mohammed on the SDMB”. Again, Stormfront.org allows arguments that counter it’s Holocaust denial, but it limits them. The fact that it allows them to this limited degree obviously does not mean they aren’t biased, or that it is a place where one can have a real debate about the historical facts of the Holocaust.
The “critical examination” is not necessary if we grant the premise that it is evil for the purpose of the thread.
Regardless, that was not what Robert123 was doing. Nothing he posted could be regarded as a “critical examination” of anything. He posted one time that we should make sure that everyone knew how evil Islam and Mohammed were. I responded, noting the probable reactions of various groups to his “message,” with no reaction resulting in a lessening of violence. Instead of providing a way to actually convey his message to all the persons who needed to hear it in a way that would actually have an influence, he went haring off on a diatribe of all the evils of which he could accuse Mohammed. When it was pointed out that we were granting those beliefs for the purpose of the thread and that his rant did nothing to address the thread, he began simply repeating demands that anyone provide proof that Mohammed was not guilty of the crimes of which he accused him. That was irrelevant to the thread. When he persisted with his hijack and claimed that I was abusing my powers by telling him to address the topic of the thread, he refused to the point of collecting Warnings. Had he simply addressed the topic, he could still be posting today and that thread might still be open. He never suggested a method to get his message out to the world. He never proposed a way in which getting that message out would actually produce a change. He never addressed the objections raised to his first post. He simply demanded that other posters admit the “truth” of his claims, (despite those “truths” being accepted as the premise of the thread), and then began lashing out at me because I held him to the standard that everyone in the thread was held–to address the OP.
Then you began chiming in that I was abusing my Mod powers by telling one poster to do what I told every poster to do. Other posters did make suggestions–including eliminating Islam, altogether–without drawing Mod attention. Only his refusal to actually participate while demanding that other posters join his hijack got him in trouble.
Then, you began to chime in with your ludicrous claim that I was suppressing him.
The thread was never about “proving” that Islam or Mohammed were evil; it was supposed to be an exploration of ways to reduce the evil and the violence associated with Islam. Simply demanding that other posters try to defend positions that they were not stating while setting up the thread for hijacks is not participating.
And while I will admit that I do not share your extreme hostility toward Islam, it is silly to claim that I was “losing” a debate in which I contributed only a couple of posts beyond the attempts to get other posters, (especially, but not exclusively, Robert123), to refrain from hijacking it.
It looks like it’s only a temporary closure for a time out. The Mod indicates it will reopen in a few days. You’re getting worked up over nothing.
We could never have settled on the value of 0.999… in a scant 500 posts!
Pretty much how I feel.
No, it has not. There was a pretty lively thread here about the famous Ben Affleck vs. Bill Maher argument on Islam a few months ago that naturally got into a discussion about who was right and hence about the issue of Islam itself. I got into it siding with Maher and with a very negative assessment of Islam. Later on in the thread I got into a debate with tomndebb about some of the issues. We each made our points and then moved on with our lives. And the thread is still open. So your claim is wrong and maybe you need to look harder at where the problem is. There also seems to be a consensus in this thread about your complaints, and the consensus quite frankly is not in your favor. At all.
Answer;
Global Warming & Islam.
Question;
Why do mods drink before reporting to work?