Hi, I'm Mick

[Mick]

For what it's worth, Mick, I thought the ban was ridiculous.

Thanks. You should tell them that, if you haven't already.

Does anyone have an understanding concerning the specifics of my ban--why they did it? Prima facie, it looks like I just offended the sensibilities of favoured members.

[JimC]

They are a bit thin skinned over there, I gather...

We're happy to have anyone, even people who are trapped in a delusional state...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The Bible doesn't say this or that. The Bible is a collection of ancient documents. Which ancient document within the Bible are you referring?

Well I've read all of it twice and large parts of it many more times. But nowhere within it is there a prohibition on sex with children. Quite an omission, don't you think? Unless, as I suspect from your last post, you don't hold it to be the pure and unalloyed received word of god that many of your doctrine profess?

So, if it is nothing more than a collection of ancient tales, I must ask why you claim to be a catholic? And, more to the point, how you decide which parts, among those ancient tales, have relevance to you?


(Please understand that I am quite happy to discontinue the cross-examination if you prefer. It is just that, announcing yourself in your introductory post as a catholic, I supposed that you were here to debate religious topics. If I was wrong about that, please feel free to discuss beer, cheese, tits and wanking with the rest of us. (And guns, there are a few that like talking about guns here too - but they have their own little corner which I rarely visit. ))

[Xamonas Chegwé]

PS. I rarely visit RatSkep - but I am sorry you got banned from there. They seem to have quite a habit for doing that. Please make yourself at home here. And don't forget that the chance of not being banned here is directly proportional to the size of the cheese offering made to our Gestapo-like staff. Feel free to leave such gifts with me for... assessment and distribution.

[HomerJay]

You were unlucky there Mick, the bullying thread was just full of cack and wailing but it was a chance for people to write wrongs, Revenge of the Nerds V (This time it's really, really personal).

But hackenslash had to go, unless a sacrifice could be made and you were kebab.

Take a breath and ask yourself WWJD? What Would Justin Do?

Be a Belieber and have a wank.

[Beatsong]

Does anyone have an understanding concerning the specifics of my ban--why they did it? Prima facie, it looks like I just offended the sensibilities of favoured members.

"Trolling".

Apparently pretty much all you posted recently was motivated by nothing more than a desire to inflame people. They know that because they have a nanobot implanted in your brain.

Little tip: Next time you want to inflame people, kerosine and a cigarette lighter works well.

[Mick]

How would they know my intent? Heck, they couldn't even properly convey my ideas, let alone my intent. Baffling.

In a forum designed for "open" dialogue, they need to allow for dissenting opinion, especially the opinions that offends the popular sensibility. Otherwise, it is just backslapping and trivial disagreement.

They should modify the FUA to include this:

If hackenslash or a popular member creates an ultimatum, we will ban you and call you a troll.

[Mick]

You were unlucky there Mick, the bullying thread was just full of cack and wailing but it was a chance for people to write wrongs, Revenge of the Nerds V (This time it's really, really personal).

But hackenslash had to go, unless a sacrifice could be made and you were kebab.

Take a breath and ask yourself WWJD? What Would Justin Do?

Be a Belieber and have a wank.

Revenge of the Nerds. Wow. I lol'ed.

[JimC]

Mick wrote:

If hackenslash or a popular member creates an ultimatum, we will ban you and call you a troll.

Are you implying that "hackenslash" and "popular member" are mutually exclusive entities?



PS - when I was growing up in Oz (as a very non-religious protestant), "Mick" was the somewhat derogatory term used for catholics. For example, my Dad (not a religious man), when confronted by mormons at the front door, would say "No thanks, we're all Micks here..."

And now, for my sins, I teach maths at a catholic boy's school (they enjoy having a token atheist...)

[Mick]

The Bible doesn't say this or that. The Bible is a collection of ancient documents. Which ancient document within the Bible are you referring?

Well I've read all of it twice and large parts of it many more times. But nowhere within it is there a prohibition on sex with children. Quite an omission, don't you think? Unless, as I suspect from your last post, you don't hold it to be the pure and unalloyed received word of god that many of your doctrine profess?

So, if it is nothing more than a collection of ancient tales, I must ask why you claim to be a catholic? And, more to the point, how you decide which parts, among those ancient tales, have relevance to you?


(Please understand that I am quite happy to discontinue the cross-examination if you prefer. It is just that, announcing yourself in your introductory post as a catholic, I supposed that you were here to debate religious topics. If I was wrong about that, please feel free to discuss beer, cheese, tits and wanking with the rest of us. (And guns, there are a few that like talking about guns here too - but they have their own little corner which I rarely visit. ))

In those times, it was a norm to marry kids we nowadays view as children, at least when broadly construed. I heard Mary was likely between 12-15 when she married Joseph. That's just now things were back then, I guess. This was true of the Greeks and Romans, too.

If the idea is that the omission suggests its permissibility, at least if we are talking about prepubescent children, then that's rather absurd.

[Mick]

Mick wrote:

If hackenslash or a popular member creates an ultimatum, we will ban you and call you a troll.

Are you implying that "hackenslash" and "popular member" are mutually exclusive entities?



PS - when I was growing up in Oz (as a very non-religious protestant), "Mick" was the somewhat derogatory term used for catholics. For example, my Dad (not a religious man), when confronted by mormons at the front door, would say "No thanks, we're all Micks here..."

And now, for my sins, I teach maths at a catholic boy's school (they enjoy having a token atheist...)

Point granted:

If hackenslash or another popular member...blah, blah, blah.



Hey: is there an appeal for this shit, or am I properly fucked?

[JimC]

Don't ask me, I am only a humble Rationalia moderator, not one of the lords of the universe over at Ratskep...

[Scott1328]

If you have been subject to moderation you can formally appeal that action and the Moderation Team is obligated to respond to all such appeals. To make a formal appeal you can:
• Send a PM to a member of the Moderation Team to state you wish to make a formal appeal. Preferably, in the first instance, a PM would be sent to the moderator who issued the action and then if the member isn't happy with the outcome they may choose to PM a Global Moderator and/or the Senior Moderator;
• Start a ‘Formal Appeal’ thread in the Feedback Forum.
Members who have been suspended or banned can appeal moderation actions by emailing info@rationalskepticism.org.

Send an email requesting a formal appeal. There is no doubt that there is some controversy surrounding your banning.

I personally don't think you are a troll.

[Tero]

Hi Mick.

I just come here to play with the gifs. This one is bunny.


This one is sofa

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Hi Mick.

I just come here to play with the gifs. This one is bunny.


This one is sofa

We also have one of a bloke climbing a ladder, being stung by a wasp, his face turning purple, and him falling off the ladder. That doesn't have a lot of use - but there are times when it really is the ONLY way to express ones feeling.