"Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together".
This^ is apparently a banishable offense. That, taken together with the OP ^ that anyone can read. If these things are reason for deletion and banning then saying mary had a little lamb could be deleted.
They lie like their father.
I command you, swamp ranger and your pagan sidekick, in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, to relinquish your evil hold over the forum that purports to be also in His Name.
Nope, not banishable, I said the full comment appeared deletable on its face, and said that without republishing the whole of it, and a comment like this would not have suffice to rise to the block level like your attack post did.
The full comment was: 'Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together but they have no quarter for your prophesies nor for your preaching. You are in "error" or "liar." Let them burn hot with their false doctrines. There are many souls to be had, elsewhere.'
Remember that deletions are typically quick decisions and are appealable. When this was deleted, the deleting moderator relied both on your general tone and, your oblique statement "you are ... liar", and your accusation of "false doctrines" as constituting a deletable attack. The reason code was logged as "divisiveness". Yesterday before this drama segment I was reviewing logs and noticed that you may have meant not that your interlocutor was a liar but that you believed he was called a liar. That still leaves the false-doctrine charge but it does vitiate the gravity of the offense. Accordingly I will tell the mods to take this as an appeal of your two deletions.
Since your repeated request to relinquish is partly based on incomplete information, I will take that into account in my response and will also discuss it with CIAMM. The problem is that your other charges are not panning out either. However, we're considering whether we might be able to give a response that is above and beyond the level of the evidence presented out of conciliation. Your patience and consideration during this time will help, especially considering that CIAMM has just reported dealing with a serious injury in his immediate family.
This is what they have so far -
"Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together".
This^ is apparently a banishable offense. That, taken together with the OP ^ that anyone can read. If these things are reason for deletion and banning then saying mary had a little lamb could be deleted.
They lie like their father.
I command you, swamp ranger and your pagan sidekick, in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, to relinquish your evil hold over the forum that purports to be also in His Name.
Nope, not banishable, I said the full comment appeared deletable on its face, and said that without republishing the whole of it, and a comment like this would not have suffice to rise to the block level like your attack post did.
The full comment was: 'Understand something, my brother, you are dealing a Euchre hand at a Poker table. The spirit of religion is strong amongst these people, they have wandered away. They all babble about coming together but they have no quarter for your prophesies nor for your preaching. You are in "error" or "liar." Let them burn hot with their false doctrines. There are many souls to be had, elsewhere.'
Remember that deletions are typically quick decisions and are appealable. When this was deleted, the deleting moderator relied both on your general tone and, your oblique statement "you are ... liar", and your accusation of "false doctrines" as constituting a deletable attack. The reason code was logged as "divisiveness". Yesterday before this drama segment I was reviewing logs and noticed that you may have meant not that your interlocutor was a liar but that you believed he was called a liar. That still leaves the false-doctrine charge but it does vitiate the gravity of the offense. Accordingly I will tell the mods to take this as an appeal of your two deletions.
Since your repeated request to relinquish is partly based on incomplete information, I will take that into account in my response and will also discuss it with CIAMM. The problem is that your other charges are not panning out either. However, we're considering whether we might be able to give a response that is above and beyond the level of the evidence presented out of conciliation. Your patience and consideration during this time will help, especially considering that CIAMM has just reported dealing with a serious injury in his immediate family.