Watch What You Say!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

It is becoming more obvious as time goes by that we who are not of the forum's orthodoxy must be careful about what we post. It is not to our advantage to reveal our faith for risk of being deleted.

Please post your comments within the narrow line of conformity. If your faith is questioned, it is probably better to avoid defending it. It is fine for the powerful to have their say while the "unorthodox" remain impotent with eyes averted and mouth curtailed.

Much like Judaism, the name is "G-d". Therefore, "S-la Scr-ptura" must be posted with complete awe, lest we risk our time here.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004

Answers

Once again, it has become uncomfortable to post in this forum, Moderators.

What does James have to do to be allowed to post here?

Or, will James even wish to continue to post here?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 29, 2004.


What did James do to get banned? Sorry I missed it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 30, 2004.

I guess I don't see where he broke any rules.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 30, 2004.

By the way, there should be a comma after "Sorry" as in

"Sorry, I missed it."

Punctuation can make a difference.

-- Andy ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 30, 2004.


I never saw James' infractions. But, I did see his character. I can't figure out what happened, either.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.



It's a good thing we don't live during Bruno's or Galileo's time. We'd be toast by now. Elpidio would be burned twice.....thrice. All because of "free thinking". Bruno was burned for his heretical beliefs: life on other planets, aliens believing in their gods, the infinite universe, the Trinity as being a false theology. Today, many think that life exists beyond our planet. History has shown evidence that peoples had their brand of theology and gods/goddesses. Einstein is the band leader when we speak of the infinite universe. The Trinity is questioned and down right rejected by today's "believers". I guess the least that can be done is to censor or ban such heresies. But, is it right? This isn't a specialized doctrine kind of forum. This is still a public domain kind of place where people share ideas, thoughts, and beliefs (check your kindles and flints at the door, please). Is a person's faith so weak that it cannot at least leave one eye opened, one ear uncovered, or one question mark available? Faith can be a difficult thing to embrace.

Jesus walked on water?! Imagine the new kid on the Christian seas of faith trying to swallow such an event. How can a man walk on water? How can 5,000 be fead from a handful of fish and bread? How can a man named Lazarus be re-animated from a stone cold 3 day rotting death? How can a mere man become/be the vessle of God? For some, it is a giant leap of faith to accept those miraculous events recorded in Scriptures. It isn't even more difficult to accept those doctrines/ theologies that are unorthodox. People have gone to their deaths in keeping their faith.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Uh, "fead"? Oh, "fed".

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


James was banned for being a brilliant pro-Catholic apologist. That is the only reason. His reasonable articulate responses to attacks against the Church cannot be dealt with by "reasonable articulate" responses, so he must go . . . It's that simple!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Yes Gail...the Catholic would know--

Isn't that--after all, why I was banned from ther Catholic forum?

Though I highly doubt that james stumped David.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


David banned James. James did not ban David.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.



Faith, you can flatter yourself if you want to, but you are not what would be called a "brilliant Protestant apologist," by any stretch of the imagination.

You were banned for being rude, sarcastic and beligerant. That is all. No one gets banned for having differing opinions on the Catholic forum, nor the Trads, but it is when one person gloats and emotes, patronizes and belittles others, that gets one banned.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


FYI, if all the regular non-Catholics on this forum, Kevin is by far the most scripturally adept person on the forum, with David running a very close second!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


This forum is different. I can't go into details; I'll get banned.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Kevin? Scriptural? Gail, perhaps you did not know Kevin denys God knows all things. How is that for scriptural?

I say Max is the most "scripturally adept" person. Which is weird, since he hardly post any ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.


Gail,

Perhaps you would like to read the "Original Sin" thread and some of the baptism threads where Max is 'debating' Kevin. I think you will see my point.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.



Max? "Intuitive" Max???

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Yes, Mr. Darity- Max ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Here is the original Sin thread Gail, it's pretty long.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00B6lE

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.


You are a liar Gail...

I am not guilty of any of the things you accuse me of. I have always been respectful and I always followed the rules.

Ed had a personal problem with me because I frustrated him. He actually banned me because I reposted a post from jake's Traditional Catholic board--asking if what it said was true?

You can lie if you want--but the truth always shines through...

You said it yourself:

If a person cannot be dealt with by "reasonable articulate" responses, she must go . . . It's that simple! And that is exactly what happened to me.

If you continue to lie--I believe you can be banned.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 30, 2004.


Scripture savyy would be Paul M.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Well now, obviously Paul M. hasn't met Max ;)

Paul M. reminds me of the Iraqi informations ministers. "We are united! Protestant Chaos". <-- you find that phrase is almost every post he makes.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.


Not at all rod..,

Paul misses the nose on his own face.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Naw! no ad hom's here! What was I thinking??

Hey, folks. Don't be talking about my heroes in a bad way. Paul M. knows Scriptures. Our noses have nothing to do with that.

Kevin knows his Bible, too. And, John F. Gecik is another pro.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Well rod--

That clearly can't be true.

Just because there is a lot of error out there--doesn't mean everyone is right then...

Each of those people interprets Scripture to their own destruction..

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


We've been saying that for the longest time, Faith.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


But, remember that Catholics do not interpret Scriptures. So, Catholics generally are of the same faith. That has been the message I've come to understand.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


You mean individual Catholics can't interpret Scripture...surely though--the Church institution has it's own private interpretation just the same.

The difference is that Catholics must check their brains in at the door.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


There you go again with the insults, Faith. Let me speak for myself in this regard. I have travels paths in the Protestant domains. I have done my own interpretations. I have done my own research and discoveries relating to "religion". My brain looks like a run down engine, but still racing strongly. I've seen the interpretations. But, it isn't about "checking our brains"; it's about believing in what we can no longer refute. For me, it is Catholicism. I may never be in communion with the Church the rest of my life, but I will continue to have a faith that is Catholic. Such an irony to my life.

Every Catholic in this forum has demonstrated a high degree of understanding and faith, so those who seem less educated are perhaps even luckier. All they have is their faith, there unequivocal faith.

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Alas, Queen Susan has spoken of banning once again. "Off with their heads," she shouts, "To the gallows ye insubordinate wretches" she shrieks. Ahhh, Susan, Bloody Mary would have a friend in you!

As you have demonstrated just above, (not to mention your first comment about Catholics on this thread) you are not only beligerant, rude and sarcastic, Faith, but you are a complete and total control FREAK! Go ahead and ban me, get your "little" keys to your "little" kingdom and lock the "little" door behind me. I could not give a rip- roaring, rat's rearend less!!!

David, thanks for the thread, and no, I didn't know that Kevin came down with such a spurious view on the omniscience of God. I'll read it when I get a chance. I have to disagree with you, though, concerning Max. You are at least as well versed in scripture as he. I also think you were a little hard on James, and maybe took something he said too personally. Lighten up, guy, you're only gonna be around for a couple of months, might as well leave with as many people praying for you as possible, right! And you can be sure, that your Catholic friends (all differences aside) here on this forum will most certainly pray for your safety while you are serving our country in the service!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Gail--

Surely you recognize that you are highly over-done.

I mean--what the heck??

The only one rude here is you. You lie and paint me out to be something I am not. I simply pointed out that character defamation is against the rules.

An honest person will know that I did not threaten to ban you. I was using your words right back at you.

End the show already.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


"Kevin? Scriptural? Gail, perhaps you did not know Kevin denys God knows all things. How is that for scriptural?"

Now why are you quoting me as saying something that I "never" said David??? I have not done any such thing and I challenge you to post my words where I made this statement. If you cannot, then you are a liar and I would like an apology.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.


You begun the show, Faith, with these simple words,

"Yes Gail...the Catholic would know--"

Tell me please, were you actually commending my knowledge as a Catholic, or were you being flippant?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Gail,

I do not have a "spurious view on the omniscience of God" as you allege.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.


Gail--

I was laughing at the irony of your statemnet given the fact that the Catholic forum banned me for the very reason you claim that David banned james.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


In reviewing the posts that James made, I did not see what caused him to get banned. Was his post deleted by the moderator that he supposedly broke the forum rules??? Was he warned by the moderator first, or was he just summarily banned for his first offense??? I am trying to understand here...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

I missed what happened, Kevin. But David can run his board however he wants to.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.

No, Faith. There are rules, moral codes, and Christian ideologies. Plecebo worlds tend to suffer severe consequences.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Okay, Kevin, I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't read the thread to which David referred me.

Faith, are you going to answer the question I posed to you? I'll ask it again, were you actually referring to me as a Catholic-in-the know, or were you being facitious?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Faith,

Yes, I understand that however, I do not see in James posts what caused him to get banned unless a post was deleted by the moderator. If this is the case, then James should have been warned and if he did not change his ways, then he should have been banned. How many warnings did it take for Jeannie or others who have broken the forum rules to be banned??? I don't see where James was warned before he was banned unless of course I missed the moderator's warning.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.


Does being called a "Jerk" constitute a warning? I'm just asking. Oh, I promised not to get into this again! I'll butt out.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Gail,

I am sorry that I did not read your words correctly and assumed that you thought I had a "spurious view of the omniscience of God" before you even read the thread. I mistakenly thought that you had read the thread when you made the post however, after further review I was wrong and you merely quoted David's words. Please accept my apology.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.


Oh! I won't butt out.

The solution to all of this is very simple. And here it is:

James did apologize before his boat was cut loose. So, David has proven his point in doing the cutting. Now, David should just forgive James for any slip of the pen. Then, we can all live in a world of forgiveness toward each other. Heck! I'll apologize for being me--a pain.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Amen Rod!!!

God says in Luke 6:37, "Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.


Hey rod..,

Has anyone ever offered that to me? I mean on the Catholic forum?

I was banned by a hot-headed Ed because I posted a post from jake's board. I wasn't even agreeing with the post. I was actually astonished at what it said., though it has completely slipped my mind by now. All I did was ask if it was even true? I guess the article hit a nerve and I got blamed for the content as though I agreed with it or something.

Still--it wasn't against any forum rules to pose a question like I did. But Ed just doesn't like me. It was definately personal...

He could never argue my points--ever. But you don't just ban someone because you can't convince them to abandon their faith and become a Catholic. That is what he did.

So what makes David such a bad guy? He usually allows anything to be posted.

James must have done something wrong--though I did not see it for myself.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Yes, Kevin. If we believe, we must also act upon our beliefs.

Uh, thanks again, Emily. I must learn to shush sooner.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Faith, I thought that you were banned from the Catholic forum for plagiarism, for not citing your sources when quoting Dave Hunt. That was my understanding from what Ed said.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

Oh brother Emily--

Not even close!!

How could you feel good about making that up just because you know that I quote Dave Hunt without mentioning him every time--for reasons I explained to you via e-mail.

I am surprised at your disingenuous remark here.

Wow!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Faith, I did not make that up. That was my understanding for the reasoning of your banning from the Catholic forum. In my post above I was not saying whether that was right or wrong. Just that it's what I thought Ed banned you for.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

Faith-

I once tried to tackle with Ed over allowing or disallowing poor grammar on the forum. Ed ignored me. I left the forum. He may have made some generalized comments, but it was obvious to me that walking lightly in those parts is the thing to do.

I make very few posts over there. Hmm...I rarely make a ruccus in other people's homes. I guess this place feels like home, at times. Why? Freedom to say what is nagging at the back of our minds and finding some sort of resolve.

I wouldn't expect any apologies from over there, Faith. The conditions haven't exactly changed on either side.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.


Faith, I am still trying to ascertain your characterization of my being a "Catholic in the know," or whatever it was you said.

Was that sarcasm or were you just simply characterizing me personally?

Just a simple answer to a simple question would suffice.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Gail.,

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never called you a Catholic in the know!

Maybe you are refering to the comment I made about the irony of your remark about why james was banned?

I said that the Catholic would know--meaning about such a strategy as you described--since it is practiced on the Catholic forum all the time. I should know, as that is why I was banned.

Is this the remark that has your feathers all ruffled up?

Yes Gail...the Catholic would know-- Isn't that--after all, why I was banned from ther Catholic forum?

Though I highly doubt that james stumped David.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Emily,

I don't know how to explain why you would have that impression--other than to assume you are making it up because you think it sounds right- -even if it is subconscious.

That is not even close to the truth as to what happened. I told you what happened.

Ed never discussed such a thing with me., nor was I ever accused.

What a flat-out fabrication. Ed never expressed such a thing to you or to me or to anyone.

I am shocked with you my dear.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), August 30, 2004.


"I said that the Catholic would know--meaning about such a strategy as you described--since it is practiced on the Catholic forum all the time. I should know, as that is why I was banned."

So because I am Catholic I would be privy to the conspiracies that are hatched at the Catholic forum to exclude those really good "Protestant apologists" like yourself . . . ? Oh my gosh, you are full of yourself woman!

You really have no idea of how you come across, do you, Faith? You have no idea how insulting you are at every turn. Do you ever read what you say with honesty? Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror, and say, "Lord what have I become?" Are those closest to you in your family drawn to the Lord because of the love you exhibit or do they recoil in horror?

Gail

P.S. Why don't you just leave Emily alone. She has been NOTHING BUT SWEET TO YOU time after time, and exhibits more Christian charity than all of us put together on this forum. There is truly no one safe from your venom, is there? NO ONE!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Faith, I did not mean to fabricate anything. This was truly my understanding of the situation. If I am wrong, I'm sorry. I remember something about that. However I searched all over the "Rules" thread and could not find where/when you were originally banned. So I don't know exactly what the situation was. Do you know the thread in which Ed specifically banned you?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

Emily, you have nothing to apologize for. Your memory serves you correctly. The plagiarism issue was the final straw for good ole' Faith but is just one of many reasons she finally got the axe.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.

Then she came over here and started doing the same thing (plagiarism that is) until the Moderator, in his wisdom, put an end to it.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.

Emily--

I told you what happened.

He deleted every and anything I ever posted. He never banned me with anything official..

He wiped me completely off your board. It was personal.

Jesus said I would be hated for His namesake, though --so I consider it an honor : )

You, dear lady, do not remember what you claim. Because it never happened any other way than what I said.

Why do you insinuate that I am lying?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Do you deny that you got in trouble for plagiarism on this forum too?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.

I do recall that incident. I'd have to agree that plagiarism was the last straw. Perhaps that was the logical approach to take in banning you, Faith. It couldn't be done for any other reasons--conflicting doctrines. Elpidio hasn't gotten axed; he can still post. If I goof up and not wear my seat belts in that forum, I too will have my car searched and escorted to the jusgado.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


I got in trouble Gail?

I don't think so.

I explained why I don't like to put Dave Hunt out there, so that the convesation becomes about him--rather than what the topic really is about.

It still has nothing to do with why Ed banned me.

Ed banned me because I speak the truth. He would actually delete Scripture verses because they supported me.

You can't make a lie true gail--the truth always shines through.

You and Emily only know I post Dave Hunt because I have said that I do and have recommended his book.

If I were Catholic, I'd be threatened by him as well--so I understand the attacks--but I don't have to allow them.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


rod--you are lying too.

It never happened on the Catholic site.

Nice try though....maybe if you say it enough, you can fool yourself., but you can't make a lie be the truth. This issue never came up on the Catholic site. It's a sore spot between Emily and Gail and myself because they hate Dave Hunt. I don't blame them--he really puts to rest that religion or any chance that it is the true faith that Jesus instituted.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Hmm?

I lie and that's the truth.....I never lie....I never tell the truth and that's the truth...I'm lying and that's the truth....It is true that I don't lie.....

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


So did you get in trouble here on this forum for plagiarism OR NOT?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.

Gail., as moderator., how would I have gotten in trouble? Did David fire me? No.

This is a nice attempt to change the focus and real issue--but it won't work.

Emily made a false statement about what happened on the Catholic forum and she needs to admit it.

I was asked to leave because--like you said: When there is no reasonable response--what choice did they have?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Did you get reprimanded BY David for quoting text without citing a source, OR NOT?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.

Just answer the question, Faith. I may sit, stand, kneel, slouch, or slump, but I don't lie. I do remember that incident, as well.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


No Gail..

I did not. I think I made that clear...I got repremanded by you. Though you are in no position.

If I remember the situation correctly--I had posted a link to His Book in a previous thread--and had simply not felt compelled to do it every time I posted. I explained that to you.

David simply volunteered to repost the link for me--If I wanted him to. But I said that I would do it. I think it ended up though--that I did not. Can't really remember. It was a while ago.

It certainly is completely irrelevant--and you can drop it already.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Faith, you were asked to stop plagiaring by David on this forum. And it is completely relevant as it a shows that you followed the same pattern of deception that you used on the other forum. And it is most certainly the straw that broke the camel's back -- YOUR DECEIT!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.

No Gail--

David never asked me such a thing., as I was not actually plagiarizing. I had posted links to Dave Hunt's book in another thread. All David did was ask if he could repost the link for me in the thread you were complaining about.

You asked a question and I answered you. David never accused me of plagiarizing and he never then asked me to stop.

As I already pointed out--that situation has nothing to do with what happened on the Catholic forum...you are the deceitful one.

Even though I told David that I didn't want to moderate here anymore-- I can still delete your posts. Character assasination--lying about another poster, is not allowed.

Faith--who thinks you are a fraud! No good Christian would go to such lengths in a lie.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


David?

"Even though I told David that I didn't want to moderate here anymore-- I can still delete your posts. Character assasination-- lying about another poster, is not allowed. "

This situation must be remedied immediately. The facts are avaible by doing a thurough search of the threads involved.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


Go ahead and get your little keys out, Faith, it won't change the facts.

BTW, I have personal knowledge concerning the events that transpired between you, David and the plagiarism thing because of private e- mails between David and myself. Shall I post those in rebuttal to your claims? Naw, that would bring me down to your level. And besides I wouldn't do that to David.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


Listen Gail. I can do the same.

From: David Ortiz [ Add to Address Book | Block Address | Report as Spam ] To: Subject: Re: About Gail..

Hi Faith, I just read your first email. What if we put the link in the original post? Think that will make her stop? ----- Original Message ----- From: faith01 To: cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: About Gail..

David..,

Gail's only mission in posting a link to the original post I posted was to thwart a good conversation I had going with Elpidio. She has done this before. She is trying to discredit me--which is unfair, since in most cases it is simply that she missed where the original post is coming from.

Her Catholic mission should not be allowed to interupt what I was doing with Elpidio. I was leading him to biblical truth and her post simply derailed the conversation so that now we will talk about the author and how Faith cut and pasted--rather than the important issue-- which is why I always hesitate to provide the author in the first place. Inevidably--the conversation turns to attacking the credibility of the author or of me., and she'll accuse me of plagerism or something.

I have had this argument with her before--she must spend alot of time trying to find where I get some of my information--with the only intention of derailing--rather than contributing something of value.

I explained *why* I deleted her post in the section where you can explain why you are doing it. I told her that I had provided the link before and that I would appreciate it if she would allow Elpidio and I to continue without her non-sense. But she still came back and reposted it anyway--which shows she has a lack of respect.

I hope you understand me.

********************************************

As I said., he offered to repost the link for me. He just wanted to stop your complaints.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


And I would add Gail.., that David may well have said he repremanded me to you.., but that was not at all what he did. I could provide further email--but won't--for the same reason you implied. It wouldn't be fair to David. The one short response I posted of his-- simply confirms what I said--and which you accuse me of lying about.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.

Oh, so now David lied to me. Wow, nuttin' but a bunch of liars here, right, Faith?

You are a plagiarist, by legal definition, that makes YOU the LIAR!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


The legal definition of plagiarizing is that you pass-off someone else's work as your own--you steal it--for personal gain or profit.

If I was writing a book in my name--and I used Dave Hunt's work and didn't credit him., I would be legally liable and could be charged with plagiarizing.

But this whole thing has nothing to do with any of this. My being banned from the Catholic site had nothing to do with plagarizing. So you are lying. You have dug up the past to try and make your case. And it is wrong for you to do this. One thing--which you misrepresent- -has nothing to do with the other.

Don't presume to come here--lie., throw a hissy over something you started and then act like a poor victim.

-- ('faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


"Gail, Ok, I've told her to put the link /or author from now on. Has she kept emailing you? BTW, she posted the off-topic comments on another thread. d.o."

I have only emailed you once about that Gail. And that is what I said

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.


Ok! I will lie this time. I have received no emails from anyone in this forum. Therefore, I cannot devuldge any information because no one has ever emailed me ever! :) I'm sticking with that lie and plead the 5th, if anyone asks!

My lips are sealed, sorry.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


Now rod..

That is not true.

I am sure I emailed you at least a few times : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


I've read my emails I've sent to Faith01 and I don't see anywhere where I "scolded" her for plagiarizing. I just told her it would be wise to put a link to her article or give credit to the author so it would stop things like this.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

Thanks David..,

You confirmed what I remember.

-- ("faith@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


"I just told her it would be wise to put a link to her article or give credit to the author so it would stop things like this."

David, stop things like what?

*****

Oh Faith, this is not a hissy fit, this is just the sport of watching you run around like a dog-chasing-its-tail!

BTW, the definition of "Plagiarism" per Daniel Webster is this: To take and pass off as one's own the ideas, writings, etc. of another.

That makes you my dear Faith, a first-class PLAGIARIST!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


To stop these threads about this subject.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

David, since you are here, perhaps you can clear this up for us once and for all.

Is it okay to plagiarize the work of another on this forum, or not?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


No Gail, it's not ok.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

And Gail--that is not what I do.., so go blast someone else on some other forum who might enjoy your sort of sport.

I never pass Dave Hunt's work off as my own--you don't even know my real name. And this is not a place where we are looking for credit-- or that we are being published.

Get real.

Not to mention the fact that I do credit Dave Hunt--though admittedly- -I do it subtly...to avoid arguing about the author, rather than His material. You know I do Gail--otherwise, how did you ever connect the dots to begin with? Certainly not because you are so well read. You simply had to go on what I had already done--which was to recommend his books over and over again.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


That's exactly what you did, Faith, and that is exactly what finally got you kicked off the other thread.

You see, Faith, most people, at least those with a conscience, are loathe to do what you did over-and-over-and-over again. Most people feel that to cut and paste someone else's work product, and then put their name or pseudo-name upon it is a deceptive and dishonest practice.

But you Faith definitely are not like most people, at least the one's on this forum. You abide by no one's rules but YOUR own, according to what YOUR Bible tells YOU, all the while thumping YOURself on YOUR back with YOUR Bible! YOU are YOUR own god!!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


Ok, everyone, this is getting out of hand.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

I agree David.

Gail is blatantly lying here.

She is so wrong about why I was banned from the Catholic board--and she should not be allowed to accuse someone of something like this-- without proof.

She is out of hand.

She's mad because she was caught also lying about having proof that you repremanded me. Lol!!

I would delete her attacks and lies--but that's your call.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Oh excuse me, you were moderated by the moderator. Is that a better term to describe how David advised you not to continue your plagiarisms? David has said that plagiarism is against the forum rules, so okay, he "moderated" you, Faith.

Your behavior is atrocious!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


Like I said Gail--I didn't plagiarize and David never accused me of it.

You ought to know when to give it a rest. You look foolish.

The real topic of this whole discussion was--Is the catholic forum capable of the forgiveness that rod demands here?

Answer--nope.

Reason: They are not the true church of Jesus Christ.

And you Gail--are a vendictive, hostile, liar...Not very Christian of you--in my book.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Faith, my "forgiveness" issues dealt with both sides of the problem, not only the Catholic Forum. I just want to keep an accurate view of things.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


You started it, Faith, with your sarcasm, as always. Why don't you try, just once, keeping your smug little LOL's, and your smug little chuckles to yourself.

You are a plagiarist according to Daniel Webster's book, not mine, so your argument is with him, not me!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 31, 2004.


Wrong Gail..

You are the one who started it

...and you are the liar.

You made a false claim...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


I think we are throwing around the "lier" word with a bit too much abandon. (very inflamitory) Its become very popular of late but probably not too productive,

I think we have a massive misundrstanding going on here, but one that can be worked out among ourselves. Some of whats at stake here is "forum ancient" history.

Thats the great thing about arguing among friends. After a bit, we can all sitdown to a communal meal of crow. Yum!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 31, 2004.


If my memory fails me, I thought faith was banned for posting under a different name, not for plagiarizing.

But David@excite also did it and John Gecik, but they were never banned.

The Christian Yahwist.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


No Elpidio..

I have told everyone "why" I was banned.

After I was banned--I snuck on in other names.

I mean--how silly. We all post anonymously. Is it against the rules to have more than one handle? I don't think so.

The reason I was exposed for using a different handle--goes back to the fact that I am banned., no matter what name I use.

Why doesn't anyone believe me about the *why* that I was banned? I ought to know.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 01, 2004.


This settles it , then, faith.

The Christian Yahwist

PS: By the way, the White woman looked 38 . You are 47, isn't it?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


No Elpidio--I am not 47 and I am not fat.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 01, 2004.

If we're banned from this forum, are we allowed to post under a different handle? Serious question.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 02, 2004.

I believe that I have conversed with the same person using multiple handles. I can't prove it, of course. But, It does seem plausible.

I once asked a similar question. We can't use, but only one handle.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Only if you go undetected., I would think.

A moderator can see your IP address simply by going into the Administrator's page and looking at it.

But if we aren't looking--then they can get away with it for a time.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


Based on the little I've seen of James' character here. My guess is that he wouldn't do something like that.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 02, 2004.

My guess is that 1) a person is undetected, 2) a person is allowed multiple handles, 3)a person knows how to hide his ISP, 4) a person has the power to override the rules of the forum.....hm?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


I would like to change my handle. What would I have to do? Uh, without getting banned, that is. Apply for a forum visa or something?

I'd like to post without having people know about my doctrines or theologies.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


I never called you fat, faith. My wife is over 200 and I don't call her fat either. She had our son. You know the rest.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Elpidio..

You asked if I weighed between 175 and 190 pounds? That's fat for a woman of--what did you ask? 5'7"? Sorry. I never said you called me fat.

I do not fit your dream.....that's my point. I've had five children and you would never know it by looking at me.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


I never said the woman I saw was you either,faith.

I said that I remember seeing a woman. Then after that I heard a voice of a female saying that I could post. That you were not going to get on the way. I never saw who was talking. This happened like I said Tuesday before 8 am. Yours was one of 4 dreams i had that morning. I was trying to make sense of why I saw that woman. That is why I asked.

In the dreams I had about the Pope and the President or the people who died between July 6-August 13 I say what I saw and heard.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


This is what you said Elpidio:

PS: Yesterday morning before 8 am I had a dream (second of 4 I had) where vaguely I remeber hearing you say that you had given up on this issue. That you were going to let me post.

Are you a White woman, medium sized (170-195 lbs)? That's a woman I saw before I heard your voice. She was wearing a white blouse/dress all the way to her ankles. I din't hear her speak, but that's what I vaguely remember.

I get the impression that you think this woman is me. I also noted that you never claimed it was anything more than a dream. But surely you are implying that I was at least the voice you heard. Then you say you saw a woman--and you ask if I look like that? So you were obviously thinking it was me. I am sorry to ruin it for you...but I never wanted to ban you--and I look nothing like this woman you saw.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ