Open Letter to Forum Moderators

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

I shouldn't think so, moldy brownies and armadillo meat are my favourite scent. However, if you were to imply a phrase like 'leftist progressivism' to be a contradiction in terms, you might well find yourself part of the growing membership of the infraction club.

---

Is "leftist progressivism" a contradiction in terms? Maybe its redundant, like "right-wing conservatism," but I don't see it as contradictory. Maybe I'm just not getting the joke if there is one.

Wow, this has been quite a thread. Personally I have never had a real problem with atheists, not on here and not anywhere else. Maybe because I don't aggravate them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.

---

Oh I've been accused of being that. Bullied with it even. I am not though. I was accused of it, I think because I mentioned the word 'God'. Didn't go down well. Maybe you did that once...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krymsonkyng

How does someone find out if they have infraction points? I kinda feel left out if I don't have any. They sound kinda like prison tattoos for troll cred or something.

If I say something like "The next person to post in this forum smells of moldy brownies and rotten armadillo meat" will I earn a point or do I need to be more offensive?

---

Oh, I think I don't have any. Unless I didn't get the message (although I am a very nice girl :D).

I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

---

Define rigid in terms of Buddhism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Is "leftist progressivism" a contradiction in terms? Maybe its redundant, like "right-wing conservatism," but I don't see it as contradictory. Maybe I'm just not getting the joke if there is one.

---

There's no joke but here's an extract from my novel that puts it into perspective:

That section of the Labour party that leaned towards the USSR, had found an outlet for its frustration through the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a recently formed pressure group made up of people from various social strata. It was headed by academics, politicians and churchmen, but driven by communist sympathisers whose motives were, to say the least, questionable.

"rigid in terms of Buddhism"

The sound of one hand clapping.

Non-rigid is the sound of one hand flapping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Define rigid in terms of Buddhism.

---

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

---

For starters, you might want to move to a city with a tougher-sounding name than "Eugene."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

OK...then who I really qualify as a Christian Fundamentalist? I've been accused as such here on this site. I'm just wondering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I don't want to do anything offensive, or nasty, but I'd like to get some "infraction points" just so I'll look like a tough guy. Then people will be scared to mess with me. Can anyone help me out and tell me how?

---

Just say you have some. Know one will know you're lying. Well, except in this case since you told everyone you have no infraction points.

Just call someone an idiot and pepper some curse words in there. That should do it.

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

This is what you said originally.

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

So are we saying fundamental, rigid or both? My question was what do you mean by a rigid belief system in Buddhism. Both words have associations beyond religious doctrine or dogma, but say something about the attitude or application of the person.

I'm just interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Fundamentalism is a rigid adherence to a religious doctrine. This term does not apply to a specific religion but describes a person who has a rigid belief system.

This is what you said originally.

I said a rigid belief system. It means any religious doctrine or dogma.

So are we saying fundamental, rigid or both? My question was what do you mean by a rigid belief system in Buddhism. Both words have associations beyond religious doctrine or dogma, but say something about the attitude or application of the person.

I'm just interested.

---

Well, language is not perfect, isn’t it? :ihih: I said fundamentalist as a description of a person who has a rigid belief system. Maybe I should clarify what I mean by a rigid belief system. For example, a person who accepts a religious doctrine or dogma without questioning has a rigid belief system. In contrary, a person who has a flexible belief system is not afraid to question any belief he or she holds as the truth.

Second, as Tao Te Ching said, “ Those who know are still” Unfortunately! :banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

For starters, you might want to move to a city with a tougher-sounding name than "Eugene."

---

Don't knock the dark side of Eugene, Oregon. It is a hippie haven, and that may lead you to think we're all wimps. Also, I'll grant that there are several Quaker Meeting Houses in town, so the uninitiated and naive think we are wussies. However, if you go inside one of the Meeting Houses, the first thing you see is a huge poster of the Quaker Oats Man, wearing a black beret and two ammo belts, and holding a submachine gun. Underneath is the caption, "Never Again".

I asked a well armed attendant at the House what it meant. "We're the Provisional Wing of the Quakers," he told me. "Never Again!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Dear moderators,

Currently, on the front page of this Religious Texts forum, in which participants are enjoined to respect the beliefs of others, there are the following threads: Why I Don't Believe in God, Why I don't Believe in the Bible, Why Does God Hate So Much, Spanish Catholic Church and Baby Trafficking. The largest group of participants in this forum appears to consist of atheists, who will generally show up in a thread to disabuse the "lemmings" of their "delusions." Very often they openly call theistic beliefs crazy, stupid, delusional and various other varieties of disrespectful things. This sort of behavior seems largely unpoliced. However, as soon as a theist says something comparatively innocuous, such as "atheism is vacuous" a moderator shows up wagging his finger. In the thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" in which there are slurs against belief in God from the first page including the suggestion that Christians are dip****s and idiots, it is not until page twenty-eight when I, who am a theist, say something that is, at least, not so obviously pejorative that the moderators show up. Based on my experience in this forum, one can say that a Christian is stupid, idiotic, delusional, crazy, a douchebag with no repercussions; however, statements such as "you are incapable of understanding logic" and "are you in elementary school?" result in infractions if made by theists.

Previously, I have written you privately. You did not respond. I regret having to address you so publicly, but I see no other means by which to get your attention.

What are the mechanisms by which the moderators police the forum? Are they entirely reliant on members reporting incidents? Is the problem I am witnessing due simply to theists not reporting anyone and atheists reporting everyone? Are the moderators predisposed against religious belief? Can a thread that obviously concerns no religious text and seems to have no other purpose than to antagonize those adhering to various varieties of belief be anything other than disrespectful to the beliefs of others?




Respectfully,
Stuntpickle

---

I think all your answers will be found here:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...cement.php?f=9

Believe it or not moderators do not read every thread, if you feel someone has violated a forum rule please report the incident. We do not close threads because we or members do not like the content.

And since we have addressed this matter this thread can now be closed.