Why did you start a second thread, Andy? Now I need to ask you to pull both of them. We don't have any known Catholic mods; I'm Hebrew-roots, u/CuomoisaMassMurderer is Orthodox, and the others deliberately don't share that data publicly. I'm all up for Catholic criticism; I tried to enfold the strong Catholic critic we had last week, but he fell apart in the sense that nobody was buying his take and he eventually deleted his account. The fun threads are linked from "inquiry forum" in our new sidebar.
Again, my best suggestion at this hour is that we delete these public threads that attack us mods, that we end the ban early, and that we thrash it out in a 3-way. Can you consent to this or propose an alternative? It's important to me that I don't imbalance the forum toward Catholicism in some blindspot fashion. Is it a fair baseline to admit professing Catholics who support the creeds and to admit criticism of Catholic leaders and practices? I never could tell what was wrong with our baseline in your view.
I have no fear to "name the Jew" either, since you've hinted that you think we might be shilling for any person or position. From day one I've informed people of my accountability structure through SwampRangers.com and you can check them out and tell me if you see any secret Jewish conspiracy there. I do have this problem, I worship exactly one Jew. Aside from that I have no affiliation for or against any Jewish or other race-based advocacy and will be happy to supply any other denial statement you find useful. It's because of my transparency that I can look at each race- and religion-based issue in the Biblical light, as far as the Lord shows me right.
So I've said, whatever imbalance you perceive we can address. Please answer.
Thanks! The GAW mods deleted the threads at our request (they are still visible to those with the link but are removed from the main forum). We should have a ban decision before morning. It appears u/Andy_Man45 will continue the 3-way within the deleted threads (semiprivately) rather than privately and the board has accepted that.
Maybe you can remind Andy that we two and he all agreed to use Matthew 18 to resolve offenses arising out of Bible study, 6 months ago? I'm just seeking what I can do to obtain his forgiveness and see his offense released.
You ask me to do these things behind closed doors where you can gaslight me. And I'm sure I'll have to listen to the pagan run his filthy, low IQ mouth at the same time, with no recourse to it as usual. Gee, thanks but no thanks.
And since you have no time for searching your own heart, I must ask you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, to relinquish the forum, that is in His Name, in which you have violated your own rules, bringing false witness against me.
Ingrid Bergman starred in the film Gaslight, where her character's husband constantly lies to her, blames her with things he secretly set up, and leads her to believe she is imagining changes in the gaslight (which are actually evidence of his deception). So it means lying thoroughly about something that should be verifiable in an attempt to make the other suspect their own reason.
I know you'll have more to say about that from your experience observing abusive people!
Actually, the word for ALL that is 'Crazy-MAKING...' where 1 person, plus (in my case 98++ others) say & do Abusive things, that they Blame on me & demand my "Apology-&-Repentance" for - when I had nothing to do with Any of it. And
making matters worse, because of my Naivete in wanting to live in a perfect world, I then aquiesce... to the wolves, which is just the excuse they're looking for, to keep the whole scheme going for (in my case) 63 years, YIKES!.
so Gaslighting is Illegal acting, that when Reported, other people think you're crazy? - If that's right, doesn't this Strengthen Andy's position in his case? -
Good morning. I will retract one point that I hadn't considered: I should have said that when all the offenses are committed in public, I have conceded that there is not that much of a problem with carrying on the reconciliation in public also, if it is not disruptive to public order. The proceeding now is not disruptive to public order. Yet you are not being too responsive to our questions.
Matt. 18 is about gaining brothers: Do you desire to gain us back as brothers, or not?
Matt. 18 is about resolving offenses: Do you desire to resolve your offenses, or retain them without obeying Jesus about them?
You're behind closed doors now, the GAW mods agreed with u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, and deleted these two threads as off-topic for this forum. Only people who have the link can see it, such as those who visit your user profile.
I honestly thought you were a strong upholder of Matthew 18:15 ff.: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Have you obeyed this command, or do you think it doesn't apply?
I will take all the time I have to seek God (including within my heart) for the answers here. I count you as a brother and your use of the Lord's name is painful to me. If he told me that one or both of us should step down, I'd submit.
But if you're going to prosecute charges they need to be cognizable. You used "false witness". In context I found one comment from CIAMM that applies by containing the word "ridiculous". Would you like him to edit that? That could've been done privately as Jesus said rather than starting three attack threads.
This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
Yeah, I didn't get time to reply to these. Basic internet forum theory is that any comment is potentially subject to removal at the will of one, yet this is in total agreement with limited free-speech theory. All speech is inherently limited by timeframe and physical ability, and society adds further commonsense limits. On this foundation a modest additional restriction can be added by sponsors such as prohibiting lawbreaking, and another modest restriction by moderators such as support of a focused forum purpose. Rules must be fair and applied fairly, and to this end appeals and procedures are to be welcomed. Transparency.
My intent is to list all the claims you've reasonably provided in this thread, including in this comment, so that we can render judgment on ourselves all at once. CIAMM has indicated agreement by already modifying two sentences you objected to. Your latest comment suggests you might be willing to accept this method. It takes time, of course, and other life factors intervene. If you are willing to self-moderate the two urgent requests you make, i.e., general incompletely defined offense and demand in the Lord's name for relinquishment, that will greatly ease tensions and facilitate our taking the time to get it right.
Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
And you think you get free reign to maliciously misrepresent half the Christians on the planet, on my watch?<
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one.
The unsourced statement "Catholics are satanists" would get deleted right out in virtually every case, because even though it's a voluntary religion rather than a race, the charge against the voluntary practice of so many is too strong. The unsourced statement "Muslims are satanists" would meet the same fate, but there is just a flicker more possibility that context might bear retention out because Muslims reject the creeds that Catholics accept. All comments are judged by standards similar to this, usually independently by me and CIAMM (two checks for each one), sometimes by the others too. But this is a preview of showing you the baselines and judging the accused behavior in accord with them. Instead (and I know you don't go as far as those examples), proceed with the facts and logic as best as you remember them, and allow friendly amendment, and you'll find the drama initiated by unconnected dots and sweeping generalizations will disappear. You did this in your other recent comment.
We've had a few 365-day or indefinite bans, but always for accounts easily classified as NPC's by the totality of their behavior.
If you've checked out the public prayer thread, you know that CIAMM has done what he could for his adult son and has still consented to deal with you despite our concern that you could be subject to the same charges you deal against us, and his having to respond to the results of that. Slack is appropriate.
CIAMM deleted it because it was an escalatory personal attack. It was essentially the same content as the second thread you saw (this comment is on the third thread). He described our behavior as false witness; then he said we call his ideas false in an abuse of our power, implying we have a double standard. He called us mashers running our mouths and implied we were directed by Catholics, of which there is public evidence to the contrary, as I'm submitted to First Century Bible Church.
Our considerations were that we could delete it (for other reasons than the censorship he accuses us: namely for the dramatic increase of the attacking language, the misrepresentation, and the target being the mod board rather than a contributor); or we could retain it (and invite the similarly minded to pile on, causing more disruption to the flock). Between him and me, CIAMM made the decision to delete and ban, and we continued to discuss and observe the situation. When it became clear that his ban note could be misconstrued and would become public, we admitted our mistake and have now moved the discussion to answering his concerns. These are tricky decisions, we don't always get them perfect. Thank you for your concern and understanding.
Nuts ~ to that ^ All I can say is, wait for it.... Thank God I'm Not a moderator... in christianity.
However I have successfully Intervened & moderated & brought to successful Outcomes in real life, with parties bodily in front of me. iow I know it can be done :)
Attack = Telling the truth. When I put up a "public" post, I am opening myself up for comments against my position. I am not afraid of airing this out. Not at all. 24 upvotes, comments that agree with me, comments of people trying to tiptoe all around the subject matter. Perfect thing to discuss among the body of Christ, is it not? The harlot church wants to shut the lights off. Climb any mountain, cross any border to silence dissent, for real.
Andy, most people know the difference between facts backed up by logic and subjective opinion backed up by speculation. Just before you made the post, you called CIAMM "a person who abuses their power against even mild criticism of their own religion". While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post. In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence. You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
I already answered the charges in your deleted post. Do subjective statements comparing us to Democrats and worse count as "telling the truth"? (In the first months of c/Christianity, you might've gotten deleted for mentioning Democrats; ask u/Perun.) No. But my answering your concern here isn't advancing the debate much better than my answer to your deleted post, despite your insistence upon airing and discussion. Are you asking us to move the venue to the forum you promised not to return to? What good do those 24 anons do you that you keep citing them?
I'm concerned that you may be evidencing the adrenaline theory more than I suspected. You used to work together with us, share the load, agree to disagree on eschatology, dish it out and take it, roll with all comers. Since the fallout, which apparently had something to do with CIAMM's immense appreciation for your first Irenaeus link, I haven't been able to parse the depth behind what you're saying.
In the name of Jesus, I command the spirit of confusion to depart from this conversation and from the presence of the three of us gathered in his name.
While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post.
This is not true. I took my complaint to the body of Christ, in the form of a post, subject to approval or disapproval of all. It was wiped immediately. That was your "reply."
In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence.
Christianity.win Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules
I specified in great detail. This was not "a remembered experience." It was in direct response to your "reply," which was deletion.
You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
Remember when I called myself the "Happy Anathema?" Christ would never label me an anathema, do you believe He uses such language? I remember Him specifically cautioning against shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven. I told the truth. This is what authority does, unless it is checked.
It is true that the link I provided, if properly parsed (I have now corrected the format), shows that you charged him with abuse and we both replied directly, very shortly after; only one other comment separates these three in the public comments log. I could use a tool to determine how many minutes it was between your charging abuse by comment and your escalating to the deleted post, but that would require server time and would not be an immediately answered request. So I think it's fair to say generally that "while we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post". If you're taking it from us to the body, that is escalation by definition. After CIAMM replied as visible in the link ("Your charge of abuse is laughably baseless ...."), we saw the post and made the deletion decision in further reply, while keeping dialogue open to test developments. The fact that you could've stayed in the thread rather than escalating is not that important; the nature of the charges (hasty mod accusations) being Biblically different from any other issue you've taken to the community via new post is important. (This applies not only as to elders but also as to general Scriptures about respect for leaders.)
I grant that your second nearly identical post was in response to our deletion of your first post, but the specifications in your first post were not in response to their own deletion. You specified by using four of our quotes, of which we don't know the exact initial links, but of which we've already self-deleted two candidates based on your partial assistance. So I said "without evidence" meaning without links to establish which comment(s) you were interpreting from what era. Whenever you accuse someone on the net of a quote, use links if it's not obvious!
I don't know what you mean about anathemata and it does not appear directly related to resolution. Yes, you have "checked the authority" under the ordinary check/balance system whereby you are exerting your appeal rights and we are working toward restitution acceptable to you, including standing policy changes. This does not appear to be anything special.
I grant that you were sincere in your post, but telling the truth requires facts, and the attribution of opinion to the opiner. Here's my quick analysis. Title, "not confined", judgment. Sentence 1, "false witness", generalized charge to be proven. 2, four quotes (five words) charging double standard in deletion; evidence that might be backed up by research, but no evidence that it applies to deletion as stated (I later provided links that might be judged later as backing up this claim, but you didn't even bother at first to state the context e.g. "a couple weeks ago"). 3, your knowledge of warning policy, supportive to claim but speculative. 4, "abuse of power" and comparison to a certain political party, opinion stated as fact, and politics are off-topic. 5, "mashers run their mouths etc.", colorable but basically opinion stated as fact. 6, "their church", and 7, "closer to your bishop", here is the plain false statement because my church doesn't use the title "bishop" and (as I determined from the context of your earlier and later general discussions) your implication is that CIAMM has an RCC bishop, also false. 8, Scripture, "soft answer", applies to us all.
The charge that we are both of the same church and that this church thinks it is God's personal spokesperson, supported by allusion to bishops, is thus a demonstrably false charge, disqualifying your post from being fully "telling the truth". The remainder escapes when colored in the best light, but imagine coloring it in the worst light.
Accordingly, your statement "This is not true", your implication "I told the truth" and nothing but, and your implication that your first charge "Not Confined ... was in direct response to ... deletion" of the post, have each been demonstrated to be inaccurate. That's not too relevant, it's just correcting the record. I'd like to proceed to analyzing your comments and listing the grievances reasonably implied or inferred, as you seem to have completed your list and are cycling your past grievances along with the treatment you're getting in this thread. I'm hopeful we can be circumspect enough not to accumulate new grievances while seeking to answer the old.
No, he is right. Not all are. God reads all of our hearts, we can hide nothing from Him. Even the deceived can be righteous. I might be wrong, you might be wrong or they might be wrong. Do not condemn like they do. Teach as our Lord has instructed us.
Hi Andy - Please, - obviously you were or ARE still Very upset... or else Why would you type "the installed catholics low IQ filthy mouth, your rage..." does the 1st mean CIAMM, & the rage means SR ? Hopefully am wrong, or again clueless which is nothing new.
u/Andy_Man45 - From my own life-experiences, I do understand no-one
likes to be called bad names like "idiot, & liar" etc.. And too It's OKAY to be upset, particularly when you don't think there's a chance of getting to Resolution & behavioral change via (PM's = I don't like them either) as I told Swampy, because a moderator has power & when you get 2 mods Fully supporting each other, it is like they're destined to gang up on you, - so it's over before it begins. Thus I can understand Why you thought doing that mess in Public was the only way forward. -- Too, given the circumstances some of your responses here I thought were Understandable also. So you Released some of your frustrations & anger from you, & that has got to feel good...., so What now?
The Time-out is about ended, right? - I ask you Andy : How would you like to Re-integrate into our group in which we share...to PRAISE God via our Individual & Collective SPIRITUAL (albeit often weirdly struggling) group. - I can think of 1 or better 2 ways that YOU can contribute straight away.
Ready? - See, CIAMM's son's house Burned to the ground. It did. The dog is fine. But his adult son needs 6 surgeries for his BURN-injuries, - so while he is in ICU would you Please join us in fervent prayer https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/13zgNlU548/community-prayers-for-ciamms-son/c/ - Even if you still don't much Care for either of the 2 mods, - You would Show... by your own Example... How to LIVE the Bible you teach so well...
God/Jesus would like this action on your part very much, Agreed?
Also, what has Jesus been Sharing with you during these difficult days? You know Jesus LOVES you 100% perfectly... True. And you also know that LIFE is God's present to you, & how you Choose... living this life is your gift to Jesus
Hear, hear! u/Andy_Man45 can come back early as soon as we know he wants to.
This is all great analysis. The default model is that all mods should support each other unless there are enough to have formal minority reports. When there are two primary mods you never want to have the "ask the other parent" game where there is a constant risk of undoing each other and then undoing the undo. We almost have enough critical mass, because sometimes I count Cuomo and CIAMM as two mods :) and even so it's still more valuable to the team for us to be patient and affirm each other until additional consensus can be reached in difficult cases.
Actually I'm pretty sure that when u/Andy_Man45 said, "Your rage reminds of the Dark Ages", he was talking about u/Lyonessrising, to whom he replied. No offense Lyoness.
I never said we cannot speak out against it. In fact, if you have followed my posts and comments here, we are COMMANDED to speak out against it. When God shews you something, He expects you to teach others of it.
Andy, please explain - WHY (other than being pissed off) you started a 2nd. thread ?? - What are you Hoping this will achieve, that your first thread could not? I don't get it.
Notice: The c/Christianity moderation board has agreed to accept this hidden thread and its companion thread as a structured semiprivate negotiation for resolving u/Andy_Man45's concerns. The board will be represented by myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer (CIAMM). Given the position and tolerance of the moderation board of c/GreatAwakening, this should serve as an equal hearing for all where resolutions can be reached.
All, please recognize that within the last 24 hours CIAMM has had a medical crisis in his immediate family that has now stabilized, but he has still committed to engage the negotiation to the greatest capacity possible.
For simplicity, I'd like to start here (speaking for myself and within the scope of the board's delegated authority to negotiate tentatively) by attempting to summarize informally u/Andy_Man45's specific requests that can be accommodated.
He has asked me and CIAMM twice in Jesus's name to relinquish the forum. While this could be interpreted as both of us stepping down as mods (an option which the other two mods are now evaluating), it's likely that he recognizes that this would itself be disruptive and that some middle ground of mod discipline would be more called for. I hereby ask you, Andy, to please reframe your sincere request in a form that accounts for the shepherding needs of the forum participants.
We have taken his statements as an appeal of his ban. This is under consideration and his responses in this informal negotiation will relate to this consideration.
We have taken his statements as an appeal of his last two comment deletions. Same status as previous paragraph.
CIAMM has offered to edit the comment in which he described Andy's position ("The other thing to remember is that 75% of what Luther wrote would be deleted if it were posted into this forum") as "utterly ridiculous". He seems willing to proceed and I have asked him to expedite this, although it may take some time for him to get back to that thread.
It appears Andy has not completed listing the remedies for his concerns, but there is also an understandable overhead to the research time to making a complete list. I hereby ask you, Andy, if you could list additional content-related steps that would address unresolved concerns, whether by summary or in any other way that we can cognize the offenses and remedies.
Besides remedies, it is important that we all apologize genuinely for whatever sins we are convicted of committing and that we take steps to prevent their recurrence. While this is partially dependent on identifying those sins, it would be expected that these steps will also be identified in accord with that process. I have begun by apologizing for our failure to oversee civility in ban notes.
This is an inexhaustive list and I may find additional past suggestions fitting of response here, besides the future suggestions I'm asking of Andy. Off the top of my head, clarification about the standards we use for enforcement decisions, to demonstrate their freedom from double standard, is an example of a step likely called for.
I trust this channel suffices to begin to answer the concerns you've expressed to us in the Lord's name.
u/Andy_Man45, CIAMM has now admitted that other words would have conveyed his point just as well, and has edited his comment to remove the words "ridiculous" and "foolish" in relation to your position. Initial search for similar comments from either of us did not find any, although it is granted that they may exist in the history and can be dealt with similarly if any are found. We await your acceptance or counterproposal.
I thank you for this. Taken together with the installed catholics low IQ filthy mouth, your rage reminds of the Dark Ages, when you people used to rule over everything. Would you like to burn me?
New idea, Andy. Without asking u/CuomoisaMassMurderer yet, I know he and I are so interested in balanced criticism of Catholicism that we could easily work on a statement outlining the folk practices permitted that are most obviously beyond the pale, and the known past abuses. It probably wouldn't be able to rise to the level of a community statement but it could be a document setting boundaries. That would mean the forum would have a resource from our three different "anti-Catholic" traditions that would answer your concerns that we might be too apologetic for Jesuit Jorge.
Would a project like that interest you in releasing your charges against us? Is there a core of certain facts about Rome that are solidly and easily stated and should be understood by all professing Christians?
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer has now found and deleted additional comments of his containing the words lying, lies, nonsense, lie, lie, false, lie, lies, falsehoods, error. These were the comments that, as you alluded, provoked you to respond harshly in the first place, so he has made a massive conciliatory step in doing so. For those keeping score at home, that's more comments deleted than those I still have on my list for asking him to consider editing in case it might give you the restitution you seek. Does this move discussion forward? May I ask what you're doing to address our concerns that you've launched three attack posts against us and reserved your right to launch a fourth? Shall we make a list of words that attack us that we'd like you to delete in the same way we have deleted all these words?
Add: He also edited the word "crap" out of two comments. IIRC, that's everything you've complained about from start to finish except the rape statement. Shall I ask him about that one too? What shall I tell him about your plans to regain him as a brother?
Why did you start a second thread, Andy? Now I need to ask you to pull both of them. We don't have any known Catholic mods; I'm Hebrew-roots, u/CuomoisaMassMurderer is Orthodox, and the others deliberately don't share that data publicly. I'm all up for Catholic criticism; I tried to enfold the strong Catholic critic we had last week, but he fell apart in the sense that nobody was buying his take and he eventually deleted his account. The fun threads are linked from "inquiry forum" in our new sidebar.
Again, my best suggestion at this hour is that we delete these public threads that attack us mods, that we end the ban early, and that we thrash it out in a 3-way. Can you consent to this or propose an alternative? It's important to me that I don't imbalance the forum toward Catholicism in some blindspot fashion. Is it a fair baseline to admit professing Catholics who support the creeds and to admit criticism of Catholic leaders and practices? I never could tell what was wrong with our baseline in your view.
I have no fear to "name the Jew" either, since you've hinted that you think we might be shilling for any person or position. From day one I've informed people of my accountability structure through SwampRangers.com and you can check them out and tell me if you see any secret Jewish conspiracy there. I do have this problem, I worship exactly one Jew. Aside from that I have no affiliation for or against any Jewish or other race-based advocacy and will be happy to supply any other denial statement you find useful. It's because of my transparency that I can look at each race- and religion-based issue in the Biblical light, as far as the Lord shows me right.
So I've said, whatever imbalance you perceive we can address. Please answer.
Swampy, RE "Again, my best suggestion at this hour is that
Thanks! The GAW mods deleted the threads at our request (they are still visible to those with the link but are removed from the main forum). We should have a ban decision before morning. It appears u/Andy_Man45 will continue the 3-way within the deleted threads (semiprivately) rather than privately and the board has accepted that.
Maybe you can remind Andy that we two and he all agreed to use Matthew 18 to resolve offenses arising out of Bible study, 6 months ago? I'm just seeking what I can do to obtain his forgiveness and see his offense released.
You ask me to do these things behind closed doors where you can gaslight me. And I'm sure I'll have to listen to the pagan run his filthy, low IQ mouth at the same time, with no recourse to it as usual. Gee, thanks but no thanks.
And since you have no time for searching your own heart, I must ask you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, to relinquish the forum, that is in His Name, in which you have violated your own rules, bringing false witness against me.
What is "gaslighting" ? Sounds DEADly to me. Sorry that I don't understand Internet language, like everyone else, apparently.
Ingrid Bergman starred in the film Gaslight, where her character's husband constantly lies to her, blames her with things he secretly set up, and leads her to believe she is imagining changes in the gaslight (which are actually evidence of his deception). So it means lying thoroughly about something that should be verifiable in an attempt to make the other suspect their own reason.
I know you'll have more to say about that from your experience observing abusive people!
Actually, the word for ALL that is 'Crazy-MAKING...' where 1 person, plus (in my case 98++ others) say & do Abusive things, that they Blame on me & demand my "Apology-&-Repentance" for - when I had nothing to do with Any of it. And
making matters worse, because of my Naivete in wanting to live in a perfect world, I then aquiesce... to the wolves, which is just the excuse they're looking for, to keep the whole scheme going for (in my case) 63 years, YIKES!.
so Gaslighting is Illegal acting, that when Reported, other people think you're crazy? - If that's right, doesn't this Strengthen Andy's position in his case? -
Nowadays, accusing someone else of gaslighting might itself be gaslighting. The answer is always sunshine, transparency, and justice.
Yep, and who is the one cloaking everything in darkness?
Good morning. I will retract one point that I hadn't considered: I should have said that when all the offenses are committed in public, I have conceded that there is not that much of a problem with carrying on the reconciliation in public also, if it is not disruptive to public order. The proceeding now is not disruptive to public order. Yet you are not being too responsive to our questions.
Matt. 18 is about gaining brothers: Do you desire to gain us back as brothers, or not?
Matt. 18 is about resolving offenses: Do you desire to resolve your offenses, or retain them without obeying Jesus about them?
You're behind closed doors now, the GAW mods agreed with u/CuomoisaMassMurderer and I, and deleted these two threads as off-topic for this forum. Only people who have the link can see it, such as those who visit your user profile.
I honestly thought you were a strong upholder of Matthew 18:15 ff.: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Have you obeyed this command, or do you think it doesn't apply?
I will take all the time I have to seek God (including within my heart) for the answers here. I count you as a brother and your use of the Lord's name is painful to me. If he told me that one or both of us should step down, I'd submit.
But if you're going to prosecute charges they need to be cognizable. You used "false witness". In context I found one comment from CIAMM that applies by containing the word "ridiculous". Would you like him to edit that? That could've been done privately as Jesus said rather than starting three attack threads.
This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
Yeah, I didn't get time to reply to these. Basic internet forum theory is that any comment is potentially subject to removal at the will of one, yet this is in total agreement with limited free-speech theory. All speech is inherently limited by timeframe and physical ability, and society adds further commonsense limits. On this foundation a modest additional restriction can be added by sponsors such as prohibiting lawbreaking, and another modest restriction by moderators such as support of a focused forum purpose. Rules must be fair and applied fairly, and to this end appeals and procedures are to be welcomed. Transparency.
My intent is to list all the claims you've reasonably provided in this thread, including in this comment, so that we can render judgment on ourselves all at once. CIAMM has indicated agreement by already modifying two sentences you objected to. Your latest comment suggests you might be willing to accept this method. It takes time, of course, and other life factors intervene. If you are willing to self-moderate the two urgent requests you make, i.e., general incompletely defined offense and demand in the Lord's name for relinquishment, that will greatly ease tensions and facilitate our taking the time to get it right.
Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one.
The unsourced statement "Catholics are satanists" would get deleted right out in virtually every case, because even though it's a voluntary religion rather than a race, the charge against the voluntary practice of so many is too strong. The unsourced statement "Muslims are satanists" would meet the same fate, but there is just a flicker more possibility that context might bear retention out because Muslims reject the creeds that Catholics accept. All comments are judged by standards similar to this, usually independently by me and CIAMM (two checks for each one), sometimes by the others too. But this is a preview of showing you the baselines and judging the accused behavior in accord with them. Instead (and I know you don't go as far as those examples), proceed with the facts and logic as best as you remember them, and allow friendly amendment, and you'll find the drama initiated by unconnected dots and sweeping generalizations will disappear. You did this in your other recent comment.
We've had a few 365-day or indefinite bans, but always for accounts easily classified as NPC's by the totality of their behavior.
If you've checked out the public prayer thread, you know that CIAMM has done what he could for his adult son and has still consented to deal with you despite our concern that you could be subject to the same charges you deal against us, and his having to respond to the results of that. Slack is appropriate.
Wait - re "rather than starting three attack threads" - did Andy really start THREE ?
Yes, one attack thread on our forum (immediately deleted) and then two here.
Why? did you Delete his 1st. thread in "christianity"
CIAMM deleted it because it was an escalatory personal attack. It was essentially the same content as the second thread you saw (this comment is on the third thread). He described our behavior as false witness; then he said we call his ideas false in an abuse of our power, implying we have a double standard. He called us mashers running our mouths and implied we were directed by Catholics, of which there is public evidence to the contrary, as I'm submitted to First Century Bible Church.
Our considerations were that we could delete it (for other reasons than the censorship he accuses us: namely for the dramatic increase of the attacking language, the misrepresentation, and the target being the mod board rather than a contributor); or we could retain it (and invite the similarly minded to pile on, causing more disruption to the flock). Between him and me, CIAMM made the decision to delete and ban, and we continued to discuss and observe the situation. When it became clear that his ban note could be misconstrued and would become public, we admitted our mistake and have now moved the discussion to answering his concerns. These are tricky decisions, we don't always get them perfect. Thank you for your concern and understanding.
Nuts ~ to that ^ All I can say is, wait for it.... Thank God I'm Not a moderator... in christianity.
However I have successfully Intervened & moderated & brought to successful Outcomes in real life, with parties bodily in front of me. iow I know it can be done :)
Attack = Telling the truth. When I put up a "public" post, I am opening myself up for comments against my position. I am not afraid of airing this out. Not at all. 24 upvotes, comments that agree with me, comments of people trying to tiptoe all around the subject matter. Perfect thing to discuss among the body of Christ, is it not? The harlot church wants to shut the lights off. Climb any mountain, cross any border to silence dissent, for real.
Andy, most people know the difference between facts backed up by logic and subjective opinion backed up by speculation. Just before you made the post, you called CIAMM "a person who abuses their power against even mild criticism of their own religion". While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post. In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence. You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
I already answered the charges in your deleted post. Do subjective statements comparing us to Democrats and worse count as "telling the truth"? (In the first months of c/Christianity, you might've gotten deleted for mentioning Democrats; ask u/Perun.) No. But my answering your concern here isn't advancing the debate much better than my answer to your deleted post, despite your insistence upon airing and discussion. Are you asking us to move the venue to the forum you promised not to return to? What good do those 24 anons do you that you keep citing them?
I'm concerned that you may be evidencing the adrenaline theory more than I suspected. You used to work together with us, share the load, agree to disagree on eschatology, dish it out and take it, roll with all comers. Since the fallout, which apparently had something to do with CIAMM's immense appreciation for your first Irenaeus link, I haven't been able to parse the depth behind what you're saying.
In the name of Jesus, I command the spirit of confusion to depart from this conversation and from the presence of the three of us gathered in his name.
While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post.
This is not true. I took my complaint to the body of Christ, in the form of a post, subject to approval or disapproval of all. It was wiped immediately. That was your "reply."
In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence.
Christianity.win Moderators Are Not Confined By Their Own Rules
I specified in great detail. This was not "a remembered experience." It was in direct response to your "reply," which was deletion.
You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
Remember when I called myself the "Happy Anathema?" Christ would never label me an anathema, do you believe He uses such language? I remember Him specifically cautioning against shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven. I told the truth. This is what authority does, unless it is checked.
Have I checked the authority?
I am thankful the spirit of confusion has left.
It is true that the link I provided, if properly parsed (I have now corrected the format), shows that you charged him with abuse and we both replied directly, very shortly after; only one other comment separates these three in the public comments log. I could use a tool to determine how many minutes it was between your charging abuse by comment and your escalating to the deleted post, but that would require server time and would not be an immediately answered request. So I think it's fair to say generally that "while we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post". If you're taking it from us to the body, that is escalation by definition. After CIAMM replied as visible in the link ("Your charge of abuse is laughably baseless ...."), we saw the post and made the deletion decision in further reply, while keeping dialogue open to test developments. The fact that you could've stayed in the thread rather than escalating is not that important; the nature of the charges (hasty mod accusations) being Biblically different from any other issue you've taken to the community via new post is important. (This applies not only as to elders but also as to general Scriptures about respect for leaders.)
I grant that your second nearly identical post was in response to our deletion of your first post, but the specifications in your first post were not in response to their own deletion. You specified by using four of our quotes, of which we don't know the exact initial links, but of which we've already self-deleted two candidates based on your partial assistance. So I said "without evidence" meaning without links to establish which comment(s) you were interpreting from what era. Whenever you accuse someone on the net of a quote, use links if it's not obvious!
I don't know what you mean about anathemata and it does not appear directly related to resolution. Yes, you have "checked the authority" under the ordinary check/balance system whereby you are exerting your appeal rights and we are working toward restitution acceptable to you, including standing policy changes. This does not appear to be anything special.
I grant that you were sincere in your post, but telling the truth requires facts, and the attribution of opinion to the opiner. Here's my quick analysis. Title, "not confined", judgment. Sentence 1, "false witness", generalized charge to be proven. 2, four quotes (five words) charging double standard in deletion; evidence that might be backed up by research, but no evidence that it applies to deletion as stated (I later provided links that might be judged later as backing up this claim, but you didn't even bother at first to state the context e.g. "a couple weeks ago"). 3, your knowledge of warning policy, supportive to claim but speculative. 4, "abuse of power" and comparison to a certain political party, opinion stated as fact, and politics are off-topic. 5, "mashers run their mouths etc.", colorable but basically opinion stated as fact. 6, "their church", and 7, "closer to your bishop", here is the plain false statement because my church doesn't use the title "bishop" and (as I determined from the context of your earlier and later general discussions) your implication is that CIAMM has an RCC bishop, also false. 8, Scripture, "soft answer", applies to us all.
The charge that we are both of the same church and that this church thinks it is God's personal spokesperson, supported by allusion to bishops, is thus a demonstrably false charge, disqualifying your post from being fully "telling the truth". The remainder escapes when colored in the best light, but imagine coloring it in the worst light.
Accordingly, your statement "This is not true", your implication "I told the truth" and nothing but, and your implication that your first charge "Not Confined ... was in direct response to ... deletion" of the post, have each been demonstrated to be inaccurate. That's not too relevant, it's just correcting the record. I'd like to proceed to analyzing your comments and listing the grievances reasonably implied or inferred, as you seem to have completed your list and are cycling your past grievances along with the treatment you're getting in this thread. I'm hopeful we can be circumspect enough not to accumulate new grievances while seeking to answer the old.
Not all Catholics are monsters, just saying.
But they are a part of a false Christian cult, just saying.
http://www.mtc.org/rc_bible.html
No, he is right. Not all are. God reads all of our hearts, we can hide nothing from Him. Even the deceived can be righteous. I might be wrong, you might be wrong or they might be wrong. Do not condemn like they do. Teach as our Lord has instructed us.
Hi Andy - Please, - obviously you were or ARE still Very upset... or else Why would you type "the installed catholics low IQ filthy mouth, your rage..." does the 1st mean CIAMM, & the rage means SR ? Hopefully am wrong, or again clueless which is nothing new.
Brother, I am sorry. -
u/Andy_Man45 - From my own life-experiences, I do understand no-one
likes to be called bad names like "idiot, & liar" etc.. And too It's OKAY to be upset, particularly when you don't think there's a chance of getting to Resolution & behavioral change via (PM's = I don't like them either) as I told Swampy, because a moderator has power & when you get 2 mods Fully supporting each other, it is like they're destined to gang up on you, - so it's over before it begins. Thus I can understand Why you thought doing that mess in Public was the only way forward. -- Too, given the circumstances some of your responses here I thought were Understandable also. So you Released some of your frustrations & anger from you, & that has got to feel good...., so What now?
The Time-out is about ended, right? - I ask you Andy : How would you like to Re-integrate into our group in which we share...to PRAISE God via our Individual & Collective SPIRITUAL (albeit often weirdly struggling) group. - I can think of 1 or better 2 ways that YOU can contribute straight away.
Ready? - See, CIAMM's son's house Burned to the ground. It did. The dog is fine. But his adult son needs 6 surgeries for his BURN-injuries, - so while he is in ICU would you Please join us in fervent prayer https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/13zgNlU548/community-prayers-for-ciamms-son/c/ - Even if you still don't much Care for either of the 2 mods, - You would Show... by your own Example... How to LIVE the Bible you teach so well...
God/Jesus would like this action on your part very much, Agreed?
Also, what has Jesus been Sharing with you during these difficult days? You know Jesus LOVES you 100% perfectly... True. And you also know that LIFE is God's present to you, & how you Choose... living this life is your gift to Jesus
Welcome back, Andy :)
Hear, hear! u/Andy_Man45 can come back early as soon as we know he wants to.
This is all great analysis. The default model is that all mods should support each other unless there are enough to have formal minority reports. When there are two primary mods you never want to have the "ask the other parent" game where there is a constant risk of undoing each other and then undoing the undo. We almost have enough critical mass, because sometimes I count Cuomo and CIAMM as two mods :) and even so it's still more valuable to the team for us to be patient and affirm each other until additional consensus can be reached in difficult cases.
Actually I'm pretty sure that when u/Andy_Man45 said, "Your rage reminds of the Dark Ages", he was talking about u/Lyonessrising, to whom he replied. No offense Lyoness.
I do not condemn but I cannot participate or entertain it.
I never said we cannot speak out against it. In fact, if you have followed my posts and comments here, we are COMMANDED to speak out against it. When God shews you something, He expects you to teach others of it.
I don't condemn, God does.
Andy, please explain - WHY (other than being pissed off) you started a 2nd. thread ?? - What are you Hoping this will achieve, that your first thread could not? I don't get it.
Notice: The c/Christianity moderation board has agreed to accept this hidden thread and its companion thread as a structured semiprivate negotiation for resolving u/Andy_Man45's concerns. The board will be represented by myself and u/CuomoisaMassMurderer (CIAMM). Given the position and tolerance of the moderation board of c/GreatAwakening, this should serve as an equal hearing for all where resolutions can be reached.
All, please recognize that within the last 24 hours CIAMM has had a medical crisis in his immediate family that has now stabilized, but he has still committed to engage the negotiation to the greatest capacity possible.
For simplicity, I'd like to start here (speaking for myself and within the scope of the board's delegated authority to negotiate tentatively) by attempting to summarize informally u/Andy_Man45's specific requests that can be accommodated.
He has asked me and CIAMM twice in Jesus's name to relinquish the forum. While this could be interpreted as both of us stepping down as mods (an option which the other two mods are now evaluating), it's likely that he recognizes that this would itself be disruptive and that some middle ground of mod discipline would be more called for. I hereby ask you, Andy, to please reframe your sincere request in a form that accounts for the shepherding needs of the forum participants.
We have taken his statements as an appeal of his ban. This is under consideration and his responses in this informal negotiation will relate to this consideration.
We have taken his statements as an appeal of his last two comment deletions. Same status as previous paragraph.
CIAMM has offered to edit the comment in which he described Andy's position ("The other thing to remember is that 75% of what Luther wrote would be deleted if it were posted into this forum") as "utterly ridiculous". He seems willing to proceed and I have asked him to expedite this, although it may take some time for him to get back to that thread.
It appears Andy has not completed listing the remedies for his concerns, but there is also an understandable overhead to the research time to making a complete list. I hereby ask you, Andy, if you could list additional content-related steps that would address unresolved concerns, whether by summary or in any other way that we can cognize the offenses and remedies.
Besides remedies, it is important that we all apologize genuinely for whatever sins we are convicted of committing and that we take steps to prevent their recurrence. While this is partially dependent on identifying those sins, it would be expected that these steps will also be identified in accord with that process. I have begun by apologizing for our failure to oversee civility in ban notes.
This is an inexhaustive list and I may find additional past suggestions fitting of response here, besides the future suggestions I'm asking of Andy. Off the top of my head, clarification about the standards we use for enforcement decisions, to demonstrate their freedom from double standard, is an example of a step likely called for.
I trust this channel suffices to begin to answer the concerns you've expressed to us in the Lord's name.
u/Andy_Man45, CIAMM has now admitted that other words would have conveyed his point just as well, and has edited his comment to remove the words "ridiculous" and "foolish" in relation to your position. Initial search for similar comments from either of us did not find any, although it is granted that they may exist in the history and can be dealt with similarly if any are found. We await your acceptance or counterproposal.
Stop pigeonholing people based on your bad interactions w people. Haters gonna hate..lame brain.
I thank you for this. Taken together with the installed catholics low IQ filthy mouth, your rage reminds of the Dark Ages, when you people used to rule over everything. Would you like to burn me?
New idea, Andy. Without asking u/CuomoisaMassMurderer yet, I know he and I are so interested in balanced criticism of Catholicism that we could easily work on a statement outlining the folk practices permitted that are most obviously beyond the pale, and the known past abuses. It probably wouldn't be able to rise to the level of a community statement but it could be a document setting boundaries. That would mean the forum would have a resource from our three different "anti-Catholic" traditions that would answer your concerns that we might be too apologetic for Jesuit Jorge.
Would a project like that interest you in releasing your charges against us? Is there a core of certain facts about Rome that are solidly and easily stated and should be understood by all professing Christians?
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer has now found and deleted additional comments of his containing the words lying, lies, nonsense, lie, lie, false, lie, lies, falsehoods, error. These were the comments that, as you alluded, provoked you to respond harshly in the first place, so he has made a massive conciliatory step in doing so. For those keeping score at home, that's more comments deleted than those I still have on my list for asking him to consider editing in case it might give you the restitution you seek. Does this move discussion forward? May I ask what you're doing to address our concerns that you've launched three attack posts against us and reserved your right to launch a fourth? Shall we make a list of words that attack us that we'd like you to delete in the same way we have deleted all these words?
Add: He also edited the word "crap" out of two comments. IIRC, that's everything you've complained about from start to finish except the rape statement. Shall I ask him about that one too? What shall I tell him about your plans to regain him as a brother?
I'd down vote you but you arent woth losing the way up voting looks. Maggot.
That place is sad