Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spammers wasteland

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I didn't ban him from the discussion.

    I gave him an infraction for being disrespectful to TOL staff. That infraction triggered a ban because he still has multiple previous active infractions.
    I know how the system works. He's effectively banned from the discussion because he's banned from TOL for whatever period of time.

    Your opinion has been noted.

    I'm not going to tolerate when a poster compares me to a pharisee just because he doesn't want to answer a direct question.

    Move along, before I remove you from this thread.
    You gave him an infraction because he compared you to a pharisee?

    That's sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    Yes. Problem.

    You get involved in a discussion and then you ban people from the discussion.
    I didn't ban him from the discussion.

    I gave him an infraction for being disrespectful to TOL staff. That infraction triggered a ban because he still has multiple previous active infractions.

    I don't think it's a good idea for mods to be moderating discussions they're actively involved in.
    Your opinion has been noted.

    I'm not going to tolerate when a poster compares me to a pharisee just because he doesn't want to answer a direct question.

    Move along, before I remove you from this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    For disrespect of TOL staff.

    Namely, the "or 'super moderators"" comment comparing me to a pharisee.

    Problem?

    Yes. Problem.

    You get involved in a discussion and then you ban people from the discussion. I don't think it's a good idea for mods to be moderating discussions they're actively involved in.

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]

    Did you give jgarden an infraction for this post?
    For disrespect of TOL staff.

    Namely, the "or in this case 'super moderators"" comment comparing me to a pharisee.

    Problem?

    Leave a comment:


  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by jgarden View Post
    I have presented the "larger picture" as to how Christ would have us deal with homosexuality and other offences listed under Mosaic Law - a lesson that "JudgeRightly," in his/her infinite wisdom, has chosen to ignore!

    Another lesson that "The Woman Caught in Adultery" teaches Christens is not to allow oneself to be caught in "traps" set by scribes, Pharisees or in this case "Super Moderators!"
    @JudgeRightly

    Did you give jgarden an infraction for this post or his previous post?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sherman
    replied
    This is what you get when you necro a thread. Your posts get put in the spam bin and the thread gets locked. Please don't practice necro to draw attention to old dead accounts.

    Leave a comment:


  • steko
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    What the heck is a koban?
    It's some other dude.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    What the heck is a koban?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rusha
    replied
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    An agrarian holdover. Farm families and settling. In the 1880s the age was far lower, on average, but by the 20s forward in the last century that changed dramatically. And most consent laws are subject to other considerations, like close ages between the individuals (Romeo and Juliet laws) to keep prosecutors from having to prosecute, say, a 17 year old girl in New York with a 19 year old boyfriend. That sort of thing.
    ^ This. ... though I am against marriage for individuals under the age of 18.

    Leave a comment:


  • Town Heretic
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    So what's doser going on about with New York?

    I'd say it should be 18 across the board as it is over here.
    An agrarian holdover. Farm families and settling. In the 1880s the age was far lower, on average, but by the 20s forward in the last century that changed dramatically. And most consent laws are subject to other considerations, like close ages between the individuals (Romeo and Juliet laws) to keep prosecutors from having to prosecute, say, a 17 year old girl in New York with a 19 year old boyfriend. That sort of thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    So what's doser going on about with New York?

    I'd say it should be 18 across the board as it is over here.
    in California, state legislation is proposing to lower the age of consent to 15 so that homos can more easily prey on young boys



    btw, the age of consent in britain is 16, not 18

    Leave a comment:


  • Rusha
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    So what's doser going on about with New York?

    I'd say it should be 18 across the board as it is over here.
    Yep ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Age of consent in the U.S.

    18: Vermont, New York, Delaware, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Utah, Oregon, and California.
    17: New Jersey, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho.
    16: Every other state.
    So what's doser going on about with New York?

    I'd say it should be 18 across the board as it is over here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthur Brain
    replied
    Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
    It seems plain to me sir that the difference is, Heretic can see his posts and therefore he is not talking behind Heretic's back. Or hadn't you considered that. I would contend that your objectivity is clouded by your negative emotions. That is never a good thing. You should work on that.
    1: CC can choose to see TH's posts if he wants. Nobody has forced him to put TH on ignore and if he's gonna go around inventing up garbage and bad mouthing a poster he supposedly has on ignore then neither he, nor you (either) have any sort of case, not that you had one anyway.

    2: Neither you or you, sorry, CC have any basis for lecturing anyone about objectivity.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrumpTrainCA
    replied
    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's funny that he and Train call responding to someone who commented and then initiated ignore "cowardly" but don't find talking from behind a wall something similar.......
    Its funny that you keep perverting the simple fact that attacking someone who cannot see your post and respond is cowardly. It is. But people like you never admit their own wrongdoing. You just dive deeper into self-justifications.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X