Spammers wasteland

Spammers wasteland


  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
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.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
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.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
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.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 

Sherman

I eat Trolls, Spammers, and Loons
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
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?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
[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?
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
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.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
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.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top