Banned from AMF, AGAIN! - Page 3

ManOfWord · #1 02-02-2010, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mrs

This is a pathetic attempt at righting a wrong.

You obviously seem to have a problem with the words 'I'm Sorry'.

I haven't been this disgusted in a long time.

I agree! What a sad state of affairs. But, I guess we should not be surprised. I'm not. This ilk always seems to "fire" first, then aim. NEVER apologizing or admitting even the possibility of fault. What POWER there must be felt in that "authority" to ban with the press of a single key. Here on AFF, it takes a consensus of Admins to perm ban someone or to simply ban someone unless an egregious offense has been committed. Some people just love power!

tbpew · #2 02-02-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I agree! What a sad state of affairs. But, I guess we should not be surprised. I'm not. This ilk always seems to "fire" first, then aim. NEVER apologizing or admitting even the possibility of fault. What POWER there must be felt in that "authority" to ban with the press of a single key. Here on AFF, it takes a consensus of Admins to perm ban someone or to simply ban someone unless an egregious offense has been committed. Some people just love power!

MoW,
when you use the word CONSENSUS, are you stating that a ban requires:

a. a majority
b. a notable/significant majority
c. a unified agreement shared by all admin

thanks in advance for your reply.

tbpew · #3 02-03-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

MoW,
when you use the word CONSENSUS, are you stating that a ban requires:

a. a majority
b. a notable/significant majority
c. a unified agreement shared by all admin

thanks in advance for your reply.

bump for MoW (or Tina)

RevDWW · #4 02-02-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio Pastor

You no longer are a liar.

Perhaps he was never a liar....just a prophet....

pelathais · #5 02-01-2010, 11:45 PM

Sorry Jason. All I can really do about those guys right now is to laugh at them - or maybe with them too. That is not a forum for discussion. Everybody knows that.

Jason B · #6 02-01-2010, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother David

Sorry Jason. All I can really do about those guys right now is to laugh at them - or maybe with them too. That is not a forum for discussion. Everybody knows that.

Well I read the rules before posting, they said the oneness of the Godhead is not debateable, and basically neither is Acts 2:38. Besides that everything else was left open.

pelathais · #7 02-02-2010, 12:21 AM

Jason, he plays this game all the time. He called you a "liar" on a technicality, the circumstances of which he knew full and well. He essentially ... uhm, "misrepresented the truth" here when he called you a liar.

I have never seen this man follow any practices of integrity in any of his forum postings. He will stalk people from one forum to another, pronounce some sort of harsh judgment against them and trust that no one else will ever find out about his games.

The other admins should carefully review having this particular party involved in any leadership position on their forums. He will plague your efforts will deceitful games and never be square with you. Just look at how he called Jason a "liar" because Jason was actually "locked out" until he responded to Private Messages that he could not even log in to read - and wasn't officially "banned" until he failed to log in.

Is this how you want your forum represented among Jesus name people?

Digging4Truth · #8 02-02-2010, 08:00 AM

Some subjects are not discussed in the negative in some places and you will call a quick end to your membership should you persist in such.

And you can forget a one on one debate.

tbpew · #9 02-02-2010, 08:57 AM

As a general life principle, I think ANY energy spent discussing preceived or actual inequities involving owners of any online forum related to non-paying visitor/members of someone else's forum, is nothing more than an attempt to fan the fires of human contention.

But since this thread has only two pages of posts and has a very clear set of actions and reactions that can be understood against a backdrop of limited/controlled access, it has helped me to be reminded of things and even gather some WISDOM.

I would like to PUBLICALLY thank Jason and Pel for their contribution to the discussion pertaining to yet another man-club; a human-owned, human-operated, human-support and advocacy group.

My conclusion (you can stop reading here and save yourself being exposed to such narrowness)

If we play online we MUST accept the inherent priviledge of ownership to do whatever they choose, whenever they choose.

We can endlessly engage discussion about human politic and maybe get 10-30pages in 24 hours. If some perceived victor lifts up the head of the baptist in smug pleasure knowing a strategy exploited the trap of an opponent's ego, YOU ARE FULLY ENGAGED in a carnally-minded virtual feeding frenzy ---having NOTHING to do with the Kingdom of God!

We should find a community where we have enough agreement to walk together and continue in that community until that agreement can no longer be found. There should not be any hard feelings when we walk away do to loss of the necessary sustaining agreement.

I guess the tricky part for spiritually-minded people is what to do when divergent dynamics are "in-play" at any one location.

n david · #10 02-02-2010, 09:10 AM

Both Jason and OP were wrong.

Jason posted a thread accusing another forum of doing something they didn't do, at that time. His public flogging warranted the ban, IMO.

OP was wrong for calling Jason a liar. That may be, but as a pastor some things are expected.

As for Troublemaker ... calling fellow ministers "like-minded cronies" is simply wrong.