You ignore the rest of the post and focus on this part because, again, you feel that you're right. No one else could ever possibly be correct when you're around.

But, as with the rest of your 350 Plus posts on these boards...You...Are...Wrong.

_________________

It is almost impossible to be wrong when the vast majority of what a person posts is from a book, and you're only argument is 'this person thinks this'.

Indeed.

One can always rebut a book.

It is there. It is fixed. You can examine it. See if it misinterprets the data. I am doing that now with a book from Van Seter's.

"I believe," however.

"Believe" is not the same as "I know."

--J.D.

I did not say otherwise. The majority of your posts here though are not your arguments. They are arguments with the authors of various books by proxy. Few people want to engage in arguments of that type as it is largely without use (the authors cannot respond, and it is not very entertaining).

No one has argued that "I believe" and "I know" are the same. Let's not forget the fact that this entire thread started by Tarot was for people to post their opinions and beliefs on Hell. There are no 'facts' to post about Hell, except that its existence or nonexistence cannot be proven with modern science.

Lets look at the definition of the word "Faith"....

Faith - Noun

Etymology - From Middle English feith,
from Old French feid,
from Latin fides, faith, trust.

1.) Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
I have faith in a just and loving God.

2.) (Christian theology) Belief and trust in the Christian God's promises revealed through Christ in the New Testament.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

3.) A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen.
Have faith that the criminal justice system will avenge the murder.

4.) A trust in the intentions or abilities of a person or object.
I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man.

5.) A system of religious belief.
The Christian faith has been spread by proselytizing

6.) An obligation of loyalty or fidelity.

7.) The observance of such an obligation.
He acted in good faith to restore broken diplomatic ties after defeating the incumbent.

Now lets take a look at the definition of the word "Belief"...

Belief (plural Beliefs) - Noun

Etymology - Middle English < Old English lēafa.

1.) Mental acceptance of a claim as truth.

2.) Something believed.
The ancient people have a belief in many deities.

3.) The quality or state of believing.
My belief that it will rain tomorrow is strong.

4.) Religious faith.
She often said it was her belief that carried her through the hard times.

5.) One's religious or moral convictions
I can't do that. It's against my beliefs.

Notice number 1 under both definitions is nearly identical?

One does not need a perfect translation of an ancient text to hold true to ones beliefs. My faith in God is not shifted personally by the difference of "from above" or "from below", because those words are not some huge deciding factor for the core beliefs of Christianity. Arguing the semetics of such is nonsense. And trying to say "Well, if you really do believe what the bibles tells you, then you're stupid if you don't want a correct translation" is a coup out that self proclaimed intellectuals like yourself use to back out of an argument while trying to still appear like you've won a great debate.

So speaking from a Christian point of view and I say "I believe in God", there is not distinction between that and "I know, from the bottom of my heart, that God is real and working in my life". That is both my faith and belief in action.

So, in a manner of speaking Doctor X...You are wrong...again...



Exactly. However, if you do 100% agree with what the scholar's you've cited here have said/researched...then you need to say the reasons why you agree. Because until you do, they are not your views but theirs.

References -
Faith - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith
Belief - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

_________________

Where have I implied you did?



Ipse dixit but incorrect. I am merely honest enough to acknowledge the shoulders upon whom I stand.

Would that others have the integrity to do the same. . . .

Nevertheless, if you "had understanding," you would have seen where I agree or disagree with individual references and add to them.

Did you miss that? Skim past that?



Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Evidence is evidence. If you have a rebuttal to any of it, you might be surprised by the response. Why attempt to distract attention from that? Would you attack Greene by stating, "you are just quoting Einstein?" He is. Does it make him and the rest of physics "wrong?" You know . . . Einstein used Newton. Einstein must be wrong by your estimation!

Only if you can rebut the evidence is your opinion relevent.

So . . . go ahead: rebut.

Waiting. . . .


Waiting. . . .

If you cannot, you are merely wasting time, merely waffling. You are "attacking the messenger," because you cannot deal with the "message." I would rather hope you would be above that; the behavior of Children.

In the rain.



Wrong.

You have not actually read the thread have you?



Fine. Let me help you. Noblesse oblige 'n all. . . .

Consider this recent quote from Bale:



That is a claim. Did you miss that? Skim past it?

How about what Sshaaz wrote on the FIRST PAGE:



Gee . . . THAT proves rather an examinable claim.

Did you miss that?

Did you skim past that?

Did you miss Fibur's claim:



only to be shown he did not actually read it? Only to see him degenerate into tantrums?

Did you miss that as well? Skim past it as well?

Can I spare you the indignity of quoting to you EVERY instance of a poster who argued what they "believe" and "know?" Can we dispense with that horrible task?



No.

Wrong.

Please read the thread. I was rather invited HERE to provide said "facts." To assist those who merely "thought" what the texts said rather than "knew."

Did you miss that? Skim past that?

Regarding the "no 'facts' to post," you claim that only because you are afraid of them.

They are there, and they have been posted for you.

For some reason, you do not address them.

Why?

--J.D.

Here we go again....

Fuck you Tarot.

I'm not attacking the messenger at all. I'm not a Christian, I do not think that Christians are correct in their views of God, life, or the afterlife. Your 'message' does not apply to me in the least. The fact that you are pointing out inaccuracies is only to my benefit.

Even if I disagree, which I can't say that I do beings I have no interest in looking up the various people you are quoting as what they say doesn't pertain to my beliefs, it would serve no purpose for me to say so.



Well considering this all takes place in a thread designed for people to post their opinions and beliefs on hell, it's easy for me to conclude that at least Bale is referring to his beliefs. The fact that his beliefs may or may not be based on inaccurate translations or text does not have any effect on the belief at all. Also, the fact that none of this can be proven one way or another makes it opinion by itself.

I couldn't care less about why you were invited here. That does nothing to change the topic of the thread. What a stupid fucking argument.
I don't address them because I don't care. Whether or not any biblical location or person has ever actually existed does not effect me in any way.

How can there be 'facts' about Hell if no one can prove whether or not there even is a Hell? There can't. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Unfortunately it does apply to you since you made the erroneous objections. Reality knowns no favorites. There is a lesson in that.



Evasion noted.

Perhaps, then, you should not have complained about the use of references as you did above?



Wrong again.

You really should read the thread. It will help you avoiding such errors.

I will try this again: if you base belief on text and your interpretation of text is wrong--as demonstrated--then what does that say about your belief?

Let me try that again, since I have only made that point about three or four times:

If you base belief on text and your interpretation of text is wrong--as demonstrated--then what does that say about your belief?

Miss that?

Skim past it?

How about this:

If you base belief on text and your interpretation of text is wrong--as demonstrated--then what does that say about your belief?



That my beliefs may or may not be based on inaccurate interpretations of Nicole Kidman's restraining order does not have any effect on the belief at all.

Sorry, but "fact" beats "reality."

Simple as that.



Ipse dixit and incorrect. HAD you read the thread, you would have realized the above quoted claims were disproved.

Simple as that.



No, your rage indicates you do. It has imbalanced you.

Then tries to argue that facts are irrelevant to an argument. . . .

"What can I say but . . . 'Salieri!'"



Your verbiage and passion indicates otherwise.



You really should read the thread; this has been covered numerous times. I cannot do your homework for you. You should not have to be a "genius" to read.

--J.D.

digi wants to put this up to a vote, but fuck that.

locking this thread, since everyone is sounding like a broken fucking record now.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Since you failed to counter anything I said, fair to steal one of your own quotations?

"In other words, you basically confess to being unable to contribute anything of relevance..."

Perhaps you'd like to respond to one of us and tell us how much time of yours we're wasting.. because, you know, obviously people don't like you because of the information that was given and not your condescending attitude. No, it could never be that.

Right.



That you ignore the rebuttals to your claims do not mean they have not been made.

Sticking your fingers in your eyes is not an argument. Did not work for Peter Gabriel, how should it work for you? [Stop that.--Ed.]



Perhaps you would like to read the thread, because you would find that.

Cannot "read for you."

--J.D.

It is unfortunate, but the one who did not bother to read the Thread Original, decided he would just close it because . . . well . . . "those darned old facts scare me!"

Pathetic.

--J.D.

I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to resist that last one.

To deny that any rebuttals on my part were made is the kind of douchebaggery that's already been pointed out.

It's now plainly obvious why you were banned from the other boards. The clarification is appreciated.

I rather find ignoring Lies difficult, yes.



If you consider yourself a "douchebag" I will not disabuse you of that opinion of yourself. However, should you actually read the thread, you might actually make a rebuttal.

Until then you are being--to use your vernacular--a "douchebag."

Then defends the practice of accusing Jewish scholars of being Anti-Semitic because their conclusions make the accuser cry.

Pathetic, but, given your willful ignorance demonstrated above, unfortunately not surprising.

--J.D.

Thank you for starting this thread. Restarting a thread that was closed by the mods in direct defiance is the kind of thing that gets you banned from message boards. Unbelievably, as someone who almost never is in favor of moderation, I wouldn't mind seeing that at this point. You are not worth having around.

C'mon Fribur. Someone like him is always worth having around, even if for no other purposes than to serve as a bad example and provide some sophomoric amusement for otherwise rational, intelligent people.

I really was hoping to see the thread make 30 pages.

_________________

The topic will remain locked, until I can talk with some other admins about what to do, in theory it shouldn't be locked, but as a community board I am not overly sure the community would mind it being closed.

However, it is bad joojoo to start a new topic to continue a closed topic on any message forum, I went ahead and merged the threads and kept this thread locked while waiting on input.

As a more detailed reason for the thread lock :

This thread has been nothing more than "nuh uh" "uh huh" "you are" "no you are" for the last 100 posts.

It's grown old, and has quite possibly stifled new threads from coming up that might actually go somewhere besides a dead end.

And DoctorX, on a more personal note.

If you have a problem with my moderation, take it up with me via private message. Or is that solution not public enough for you? I, for one, do not find you a complete douchebag, just a self important, self repeating one. You may, one day, contribute to this community in some fashion, but you have not in this thread, nor any other you have participated in.

The next time you start a new thread to continue one that is locked, I will ban you from this forum. I acted unilaterally in locking this thread, and I will not hesitate to do so in the future. Tarot and Qindyin may not like that approach, but I feel that we've been more than lenient in this thread derailment and incessant blather from all sides.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Typical of those who cannot handle evidence that makes them uncomfortable, an individual tries to delete information.

A bit like a Creationist trying to pretend science does not exist.

Nevertheless, here is what the threads actually said:

Right.



That you ignore the rebuttals to your claims do not mean they have not been made.

Sticking your fingers in your eyes is not an argument. Did not work for Peter Gabriel, how should it work for you? [Stop that.--Ed.]



Perhaps you would like to read the thread, because you would find that.

Cannot "read for you."

--J.D.



I rather find ignoring Lies difficult, yes.



If you consider yourself a "douchebag" I will not disabuse you of that opinion of yourself. However, should you actually read the thread, you might actually make a rebuttal.

Until then you are being--to use your vernacular--a "douchebag."

Then defends the practice of accusing Jewish scholars of being Anti-Semitic because their conclusions make the accuser cry.

Pathetic, but, given your willful ignorance demonstrated above, unfortunately not surprising.

--J.D.


It is unfortunate, but the one who did not bother to read the Thread Original, decided he would just close it because . . . well . . . "those darned old facts scare me!"

Pathetic.

Though I would recommend that those who made decisions that ended up getting reversed with apologies more than once might want to "check" with their superiors before acting out again.

--J. "He Brings Down the Fire from the Sky!" D.

The same could be said for you.

Ban him, please.

DoctorX,

If you have a problem with the moderation of this forum, rather than strut about flouting authority, why don't you take it up in private with the ones you have problems with, or the ones you don't have problems with, if that suits you better.

Regarding "deleting information" -- the thread is not deleted. That has never been a practice used at these forums. Locking a topic that has gone nowhere and has stifled growth, however, is.

This thread is locked.

If you post again, I will take more drastic measures.

HAND

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I'm glad I'm going to work in a couple of hours (come on noon hurry up~)

Nothing has been deleted, the previous thread you reopened (against overall interweb forum culture policy) was merged with the FIRST thread (if you read it~).

I should merge this thread.. again, but I will not.

Do not make new threads to continue old threads, it makes my head hurt

After thinking it over, I figured it was best to unlock the topic now.. Can always relock.

Locking topics that really aren't 'flagrant' abuse of board 'policies' isn't something done here, especially in RnR.. maybe it should be renamed 'anything goes' or the like.

I've merged some of the topics DoctorX made into this thread, I left the one topic with the poll for thread closure (as it's a community board, let the community decide? Though my personal feeling is I wouldn't carry out 'closing' the thread without a 2/3rds majority.

However, should a thread be closed, like with pretty much any other message board, 'reopening' the topic by making a new thread would not be allowed.

Have fun calling each other douchebags and children :p

Lou

Evidently the mods aren't staying impartial and are doing the same thing Khameir has been doing for the whole thread. I don't see what harm this thread is doing only than continuously seeing an orange "New Post" sign in the r&r section. More so, if people were actually insulted by DoctorX, they wouldn't fucking be reading this thread. But with over 22 pages now, those who are saying DoctorX should be banned (for no fucking reason other than their weak self-esteem has been hurt), they themselves should be banned if DoctorX even gets a ban. This isn't a case of banning the new guy because he's new, this is a case of being impartial and doing the same to the other fucking side, I don't care if you're friends with khameir, fribur, shareef, or whomever else keeps putting wood in the fire.

I think we're way beyond getting insulted by anything here. Vanamar should know that. I don't remember ever seeing the "Word Association" post being locked in the old boards for having absolutely nothing new in over 100 pages. Maybe because those Three old mods were different than the new mods. Shrug.

Stop suckling Doc's cock. I did not want to ban him for this thread, although I certainly find him to be an idiot. I wanted to ban him because he started new threads on the same topic as the closed thread. That kind of flagrant disregard for moderation is bannable in almost any forum environment.

I am (still) not involving myself in moderating things regarding this thread. I did feel I should address a couple of issues.

1) Lock: As far as I know, the thread shouldn't have been locked. Which was why someone else reopened it. As to why it was originally locked...I don't know yet. As to why it was reopened, it was due to an admin. seeing it shouldn't have been locked. Will it be locked again? I don't *think* so, but can't say as I don't know the reason it was locked in the first place.

2) Bannage!

As far as I know, DoctorX made multiple posts circumventing the locked post. This is not something we allow. A warning of potential ban incoming was issued. This was appropriate. I can understand *why* it was done (the multiple new posts), and it wasn't malicious flooding or spamming. Many members of this community have done so in the past, including for reasons of not agreeing with moderation/administrative action. The same result occurs...they're asked/told to knock it the fuck off. If they continue to do it, they get a time out and a come to Jesus chat.

In memory the only person ever banned for this was Wenevil (or some name similar to that) but not solely for that issue, they had had repeated warnings on other things. They also had a temp. ban, a come to jesus chat, and when unbanned continued to do it. They were also doing it maliciously (intending to flood the forum). They were also stupid enough to do it from a work computer, which resulted in a 'You're banned, don't come back, and if you ever pull this shit again on another account the employer will be notified' as the content of their flooding was severe enough that no work place would be pleased by it. Again all from memory.

Other than that, it takes quite a bit to get banz0red. But the issuing of a warning was appropriate (obviously).

3) Moderation/Administration

As I said previously and apparently I need to say again, I'm not moderating this issue as I started the thread, was involved in the thread, etc. It's not that I believe I would be biased (I don't) but there's certainly a potential for it, and could be a perception of bias. And there's plenty of other people who can do it. So to state again, while I have been involved in recieving/responding to PMs or posts in the admin. section on this stuff...I'm not using admin/mod tools, nor have I made any decisions. If decisions get made, I'd weigh in on them though (IE: tossing my two cents in).

Hopefully that resolves any questions regarding those specific issues. If it doesn't feel free to PM me or another mod/admin. as we might not see something posted. =)

_________________

Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool?

Fucking tool.

Get this through your fucking face.....the majority of people that hate the guy do not, and have not, called for him to be banned just because he's a douche. That sect is very minor, and I'm pretty sure even then it was said in vain because the guy is worthless here.

He does not want to debate, discuss or engage even the most simple first grade level of a point/counterpoint discussion. He doesn't give a shit about what anyone but some 1,000 year dead guy wrote on a piece of parchment while he was tripped on opium and sitting on the shitter.

Wipe the drool off your chin. The rattling of the sabres comes from people who realize what the guy is on about. Nearly every single person who tried to enter discussion with him, now can say "Yep, you guys were right to shit on this asshole".

Except for you. Even Dola got the hint that licking his balls from taint to crown wasn't garnering him any brownie points. You on the other hand must like the taste and texture because you've been coo coo for coco puffs since page one.

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

Merely reopened that which it has now been conceded should not have been closed.

No more, no less.

Bigteeth discusses the issues with Administrator/Moderator abuse quite succinctly. With "power" should come responsibility. However, now three of them have used the ability to break the rules by acting out of personal spite.

Right, when the Children have finished their tantrums and are having their naps--when discussion returns--I am sure I will be informed of this. Until then, this little documentary may prove amusing regarding official attempts as censorship:



rest of the parts available at Youtube.

--J. "You Can Tell He's Doing Well By the Look in Human Eyes!" D.

Yes, you said this already.

Three times.

Your 15 is up.

In the rain.

Now, if you have anything of value to contribute to this forum, which I doubt you ever will I'm sure one of my children will inform me. In fact, I believe a special forum should be created for you, Red Dragon and Bigteeth so you can play meatspin all day long together.

Since 90% of the community has you on ignore, and the rest save for about 4 sheep could give a damn about what you think about the price of tea in China, I don't see this as unreasonable.

P.S.

Wiping your ass is not censorship.

What discussion? I thought discussions were a two way conversation. All I see is people trying to make a point and you (if you don't give your LINES bullshit) answer with your smug "I responded to this before... read the thread... <insert smug Latin phrase>" When if you DID answer the fucking question before then people wouldn't be asking it over and over again. As much as the people on here don't get along they do, for the most part, have a decent reading comprehension. If you are not answering the questions you will be called on it.

but why do I continue to post on this thread?

It's funny that he keeps calling me out, specifically or by grouping..

I've spent time proving he isn't Akai Ryu, I looked twice and tried to get a more definitive answer as the first time I looked, it was fairly apparent that they were not the second person, and when Dashkast brought it up again, I looked even deeper.. I did make some mistakes about some of my actions to which I apologized to the affected parties, on my own not because I was told to apologize. In the earlier parts of the thread and lately I've posted 'just ignore the SoB' and the like and khameir needs a new hobby cuz following him to other boards is kinda psycho.

I do not like the guy, why I wish I could ban him, that's now how we do things here, why I wish we could close this thread, that's now how we do things here (Plus like Givin said, there is some personal satisfaction in watching someone selfown themselves.)

Basically, I feel I've gone out of my way, as an admin even though I think the guy is a waste of space, to be as impartial as I can be.

Sure as an admin I've made mistakes, but all of them have meant well, other than the 'Girly Mon' group, which I found personally funny, but removed on my own have been 'innocent' and 'non-malicious' mistakes.

Hopefully, someone, maybe his friend Akai Ryu will get it into his head that he is not a victim here of anything but himself.

This post is as digilos, the user and not the admin btw...

With that good luck on your flame baiting, hopefully you're enjoying the attention you're getting that you missed as a child. You're not the parent here, you're the snot nosed child who thinks their shit doesn't stink, when in fact it makes everyone else in the room gag.

I've tried to remain impartial, now should you have an issue you'll have to go to someone other than me or Tarot (not that you would go to me as you've ignored communication from me in anyway possible) good luck with that. Cakvala and Leolan come around once a month, should you need something.

These boards aren't a democracy btw, they're a cheerocracy.

And you circumvented the rules, and blame your actions on moderators...just like you did on the last forum you were banned from. I'll post the response I got from the IIDB.com forums moderator regarding your banning...and yes I posted this nearly a month ago, but NOW it is relevant.



So, you are playing the same game again. How is circumventing a moderator decision any different that reediting posts that moderators edited due to content?

Bigteeth - Not once have I called for this weenbag to get banned. Asking him to stop insulting people who he responds to, asking him for some personal opinion to the research he cites, or even telling him that he's not welcome doesn't say "OMG BANZORZ HIM!!!". He nor I in our childish responses to each other, broke no rules of this forum. He has now, however, used a loophole to get what he wants.

I was asked, very nicely, to leave the dude be more then once...and I did comply. Then he invited a friend here to try and give the flame a new spark...so I responded in kind.

_________________

Hey has anyone read a Confederacy of Dunces? Tell me X isn't a dead ringer for Ignatius Reilly.

It appears the Children are still posting.

Lines . . . so many lines. . . .

--J.D.

You're acting like a child yourself "Dr"...

Who is this fucking hump Dr. X anyway?

He makes you like Bill Cosby and everyone's best friend...

The man who stole your lollypop.

Sorry to make you cry.

Thanks.

--J. "Better Not Compromise! It Won't be Easy!" D.

...so says the worst of the children

_________________

Aww. Someone has had their feelings hurt.

At the very least this thread is a great avenue to get post counts up.

Givin, you're hilarious. You think I'm defending DoctorX? I don't need to defend anyone, much less on a forum. I am merely pointing out the irony in that you keep complaining he has had nothing new to say for over 20 pages, yet aren't you in the same case? And everyone else who keeps responding over and over? But what do I know, you're the guy that feels his life revolves around flame wars and to create one where there isn't a need for one.

I've said it and I'll say it again, if you guys want DoctorX gone, why not stop responding to this thread or his posts? The reason is, some of you want to feel important and feel like you're doing something good for society (on a message board none the less) by calling for his ban and continuously fueling that which some call for to be locked. Word.

Haha, if anyone needed proof of what an actual douchebag he is he goes and starts 3 new threads. Bravo dumbass, it really is obvious why you get banned off other forums. I'm sure you feel yourself quite the victim too.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

and there we have it folks. the Thread Killer.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

I think everyone is just shocked that he said he stole bagsy's lollipop.

Why would anyone want bag's lolly?

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Awesome post, love the ending, ROFL.

And....... Sorry about rehashing, aparently i hadnt read the thread in a while(it turned to shit long before i stopped posting, stupid me), and missed the part where that was already covered. Regardless sorry for the stress, it was more a joke.

Khameir could definately use some valium or something...


HAHAHAHAHAHA

On a much more serious note I think after 5 more Youtube embeds and perhaps 3 more pictures of a bib(LOL!!!) he will become one of the cool kids. He's hip and up with the times.

I think someone should just make me a moderator. I will make this a better place for everyone.

Now that's the best suggestion I've seen the whole thread. Tempting...very tempting...

_________________

To moderate one must be objective.

--J.D.

...so says the one who circumvents moderators in an attempt to try and prove that what he says is beyond moderation

_________________

I guess if you ignore messages from an admin who attempted, and correctly (save an error in sharing IP address with another user) moderate you, you can play the victim and pretend to be on the high road.

Droma, I've thought that many a times that you would make a great mod... it is tempting :p

Mod 'em up!

MORE PHOTOSHOP FUN!!!



Lou - You ain't pictured cause I couldn't find a picture of you...your myspace seems to have vanished

_________________

But I wanna be Doc Holiday.

_________________

You want to be Val Kilmer?

--J. "You're a Daisy if you Do!" D.

I want to do lots of things to Val Kilmer.

_________________