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.
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.