Originally posted by FMF"The Guidelines
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Unfortunately, yes.
You've got some cheek, Grampy Bobby, in view of how you tried to use Mike's death to troll divegeester on the Spirituality Forum. Have you forgotten?
Several posters had to implore you - repeatedly - to remove your odious posts, which you eventually did ~ although you never did apologize ...[text shortened]... yours. Bar none. And you know exactly what I am referring to. You should be ashamed of yourself.[/b]
The following twelve points are the guidelines that should be followed when posting to the forums.
•Discussions in forums can often get heated, but while you may take issue with another poster's viewpoint, you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflammatory remarks that stray beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal.
.
•Do not harass other members of the community. Harassment is any unwanted conduct including insults, jokes and any remarks affecting the dignity of another. Such conduct could relate to gender, race, nationality, sexuality, religion, disability or other similarly sensitive issues.
•Do not rant. Ranting is defined here as a style of post that comes across as a political broadcast or an angry protest that does little to progress the discussion or to involve other posters. Such postings often feel like an intrusion into the general debate, regardless of the validity of the points being made." Help : forumguide
Originally posted by FMF"The Guidelines
Offer to PM it to him. Maybe one of his "sabbaticals" will ensue.
The following twelve points are the guidelines that should be followed when posting to the forums.
•Do not rant. Ranting is defined here as a style of post that comes across as a political broadcast or an angry protest that does little to progress the discussion or to involve other posters. Such postings often feel like an intrusion into the general debate, regardless of the validity of the points being made." Help : forumguide
1 edit
-Removed-I wonder about the moral implications of retrospectively dragging up elements from the past so as to confront others with them in an attempt to discredit or embarrass them. Can you tell us what you hope to achieve by this and if you feel its morally justified and on what basis you feel its morally justified. Finally as a self professed Christian do you think its in harmony with your understanding of Christian principles?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGrampy Bobby's hypocrisy regarding "a moving moment in the more cynical world of forums" is utterly rank - bearing in mind his behaviour on that SF thread when news of Mike death reached us. In that respect, he ought to have remained under his dark rock on this particular matter rather than attempting to preen himself in response to Ponderable's comment on page 3.
I wonder about the moral implications of retrospectively dragging up elements from the past so as to confront others with them in an attempt to discredit or embarrass them. Can you tell us what you hope to achieve by this and if you feel its morally justified and on what basis you feel its morally justified. Finally as a self professed Christian do you think its in harmony with your understanding of Christian principles?
3 edits
Originally posted by Ponderable (Page 3)
"Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those.
A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!"
____________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Unfortunately, yes."
Please note the correct attribution of these two post quotations. Thank you.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt's rich coming from you, Grampy Bobby, when easily the most odious posts on this web site at the time of Mike's death that I saw were yours ~ bar none. And you know exactly what I am referring to.
Originally posted by Ponderable (Page 3)
"Mikelom's death is the course for a lot of postive posts and people are recommending those.
A moving moment in the more cynical world of forums!"
____________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Unfortunately, yes."
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI am not interested in Grandpa Bobby's morality I am interested in ascertaining whether its morally reprehensible to retrospectively drag elements up from the past with which to confront, discredit and embarrass other people with. What you hope to achieve by doing so and in the case of a professed Christian such as divesgeester whether he feels that its in harmony with Christian principles to do so.
Grampy Bobby's hypocrisy regarding "a moving moment in the more cynical world of forums" is utterly rank - bearing in mind his behaviour on that SF thread when news of Mike death reached us. In that respect, he ought to have remained under his dark rock on this particular matter rather than attempting to preen himself in response to Ponderable's comment on page 3.
If you have any insight to offer on these issues then please do so and i would be pleased if you refrained from introducing further irrelevancies in future.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's nothing wrong with holding people accountable for what they say in a public forum. Your sarcastic-serious-not-funny contrarian comedy routine is water off a duck's back here, robbie. You use your complete hogwash about "retrospective trolling" and such like as a fig leaf for your own inability to take responsibility of your many obnoxious comedy routine train wrecks over the years. 😀
I am not interested in Grandpa Bobby's morality I am interested in ascertaining whether its morally reprehensible to retrospectively drag elements up from the past with which to confront, discredit and embarrass other people with. What you hope to achieve by doing so and in the case of a professed Christian such as divesgeester whether he feels that ...[text shortened]... do so and i would be pleased if you refrained from introducing further irrelevancies in future.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes holding people accountable for their words is one thing FMF, retrospectively dragging elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass and discredit them is quite another.
There's nothing wrong with holding people accountable for what they say in a public forum. Your sarcastic-serious-not-funny contrarian comedy routine is water off a duck's back here, robbie. You use your complete hogwash about "retrospective trolling" and such like as a fig leaf for your own inability to take responsibility of your many obnoxious comedy routine train wrecks over the years. 😀
Obviously you held Grandpa Bobby accountable for his words at the time, can you tell us why its necessary to drag them up from the past and hold him accountable for them again? otherwise your statement that you retrospectively drag elements up from the past so as to make people realise that they are responsible for their own words isn't really holding much water. Do you see yourself as a kind of forum judiciary FMF?
I have told you already i am uninterested in irrelevancies, please try to refrain from introducing them in future. All irrelevancy will be ignored.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour stuff about "retrospective" references being "morally reprehensible" is self-serving hypocritical nonsense. You, on one hand brandishing the forum persona that you do, while on the other, lecturing others on their Christian principles, is ludicrous - and not as funny as you seem to think. 😉
Yes holding people accountable for their words is one thing FMF, retrospectively dragging elements up from the past in order to confront, embarrass and discredit them is quite another.
Obviously you held Grandpa Bobby accountable for his words at the time, can you tell us why its necessary to drag them up from the past and hold him accountable f ...[text shortened]... ancies, please try to refrain from introducing them in future. All irrelevancy will be ignored.