My oh My

[whatsthaword]

Let me see here.

A person posts a mesage to WinAce saying that he thinks God "could" heal him, and says he will pray for WinAce

He posts another message addressing "negativity".

Then the person is attacked and called names (inbred, etc) because he is obviously the most cruel person you have ever seen.

Well, instead of laying down and just letting you all have your way and shut him up, he continues with his posts (which may or may not have been advisable).

So then he continues to be assaulted with cruel/hurtful words (and he is the ONLY person being cruel)

He still doesnt back down, and you have him kicked off.

First he isnt the only person at fault. You could have stopped replying to his posts at any time.
Second, he started posts and said positive things that had nothing to do with what he was accused of (ex. exercise and fitness)
Third, I looked around and could not find an example where he called anyone a name, said a hateful word, or blatenly disrespected anyone the way you all did him.
But you taught him a lesson huh? "If we dont like what you are saying, and you dont shut up, we will beat you up, and kick you out."

 

[miesl]

Why are you continuing to post?

You aren't adding any value to the board by rehashing locked arguements. You aren't adding value to the boards by contributing meaningful content. You aren't using the boards to vent/get support/anything in relation to CF.

It appears to me that you are just trying to create drama. If you hadn't already noticed, we do a perfectly fine job of that by ourselves.

 

[JazzysMom]

LOL That is one thing we dont need support in that is true!

 

[Lilith]

Ah, here we go again...now we have his friends talking for him (if it isn't ccflewallen himself).

Look, if you can't understand why your 'friend' was kicked off, then it would do no good explaining it to you. As far as your comment:

"You could have stopped replying to his posts at any time."

You're right. We could have. He could have, too.

That's all I've got to say.

 

[whatsthaword]

UHHHHHHH, i know why you kicked him off, i just told you. And from what I read, you all attacked him, not vice versa. Please explain if I am wrong

 

[whatsthaword]

Ok, i am done already. I agree he should have stopped posting instead of waiting for you to understand. There was no way he was ever going to get anywhere.

 

[julie]

You are right, he never was going to get anywhere with us. Burn a bridge once and you may never get to cross it again. I think the final straw for many people, at least for me, was when he posted what he did to Win. Sure, maybe it was the only rude thing that he did post-subject to interpretation.... But that was quite enough.

And let me assure you, it wasn't just that which got him kicked off this forum. His refusal to quit stirring up issues was a huge part of it. And then there were the few inappropriate posts he made. This IS NOT a religious forum and many of us are-gasp-religious. But we leave it off of this board out of the voiced requests and RESPECT for others. Your friend just didn't get it, and now you don't get it either.

 

[anonymous]

"gasp" religious? So it is understood that in this room, if you bring up God, many of you gasp, and then do what you have to do to shut that person up? Thats what I think, because I really didnt see anything all that terribly bad ccflewallen wrote, just the way you interpreted it right? I mean really, you guys reall jumped him good for something you took maybe the wrong way.

By the way, for many people, their CF has a lot to do with their faith in God. Just not very many here for some reason. Just so u know

 

[miesl]

I'm sorry, but there is no way to misinterpret what he wrote in a few cases. He backpedalled with 'Oh I didn't mean it THAT way' (not a direct quote, my interpretation).

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have no problem with people being religious and talking about it on the forums.

Didn't hear me?

<b>I have no problem with people being religious and talking about it on the forums.</b>

I DO have a problem with people who are religious trying to stuff it down the throats of others. That's just not cool, folks. I'm not trying to stuff MY views down your throat. I expect that same courtesy from others.

There are a LOT of people on this board who ARE religious - and some were just as appalled as I was.

 

[Allie]

It's not that God was brought up, but that it was <i>Implied</i> that believeing in God will keep you healthy and alive. Believe me, that's not true. That was the epicenter of irritation for most.

I'm not even among those who want to force him to leave, I just want him to learn his lesson about restraint of pen and tounge...especially when referring to a gel well wish for an athiest. Tact, my dear.

 

[anonymous]

Well, if you wanted to look at the other way he could have <i>implied</i> that God "could" help him. I dont know what made me think that, maybe it was what he said.

 

[Mockingbird]

To whatsthaword, it wasn't the posters that kicked Ccflewallen off. The site admisitrators did that, which is their decision and not really our place to question it.

I agree that his first post (The one to Win Ace about God) was misinterpreted, and ccflewallen caught a lot more flack than he deserved. When he first came, I myself misjudged him in the same way and it took me a while to realize he isn't really like that. I wish I was here so I could have said something, but I guess it wouldn't have mattered anyway. He said something about atheists nat being able to understand and he was right (No, I'm not down-talking atheism, and neither was he. A CFer does not know what it is like to be a non-CFer and vice-versa. It's that kind of thing) Anyway, I know it doesn't really mean anything now, but Chris wasn't completely misunderstood.

Anyway, if he really is kicked off forever, there are other CF support boards out there, and I hope he finds one he likes.

 

[anonymous]

This all reminds me of the almost Orwellian absurdity at the heart of political correctness: ?We should tolerate everyone ? except the intolerant.? Decoded, of course, ?the intolerant? usually means ?those with whom we disagree or who ?tolerate? different things than we do.?

Back in college, there was an event called ?Feminist Fortnight.? The radical feminists on campus celebrated it by singling out and ?encircling? (their term) hapless frat boys, pelting them with insults (and even fruit), and trying ultimately to goad them into behaving like the brutes the feminists claimed they were in the first place. Granted, I?m not much for frat boys, and there was validity at the heart of campus feminism in those days. But there are two points here relevant to the recent threads. First, the Fortnight activists were urging forth the evil in order to establish its existence, which might be politically expedient if you?re Lenin but was underhanded and downright cruel in human terms. Second, the activists, who were all about ?tolerance? when it came to them, succeeded only in creating a different ?Other,? an easily targeted ?out-group? ? one that was too inarticulate (or too unwary) to respond ? upon which to prey and aginst which to define themselves. The result was like any other example of moral ?piling on? ? except, of course, that it included the cry ?Potential rapist!?

Sound like anything here?

I realize politics can be nasty and that there?s a good reason not to talk about them or about religion at the dinner table. I?ll admit also that the recent inciting comment was in rather poor taste, given the context. Still, it?s interesting that the person to whom it was directed (who seems more than capable of resisting pious evangelization and who writes colorfully but always civilly about religion) seemed to take far less offense to the remark than did the many others who rushed forward, torches ablaze. Maybe, as Cepaciagal suggested, religion is too touchy a subject for this board, but I hope not. For one thing, it makes for interesting debate. For another, religion (or whatever philosophy replaces it, atheism included) is integral to a person?s approach to existential mind-blowers like CF, as someone just pointed out. Yes, it?s bound to spark some intensely worded posts, and people are entitled to react just as intensely to some of these. But as one who recently had a fatwa issued against me for ?negativity,? I hope the response to contrary points of view isn?t ?encirclement? ? or, worse, silencing-by-banishment. That would be an Orwellian turn for the worse.

Just the thoughts of a humble agnostic.

Q

 

[anonymous]

(Might be a little easier to read with the punctuation. Think I caught it all.)

This all reminds me of the almost Orwellian absurdity at the heart of political correctness: "We should tolerate everyone -- except the intolerant." Decoded, of course, "the intolerant" usually means "those with whom we disagree or who 'tolerate' different things than we do."

Back in college, there was an event called "Feminist Fortnight." The radical feminists on campus celebrated it by singling out and "encircling" (their term) hapless frat boys, pelting them with insults (and even fruit), and trying ultimately to goad them into behaving like the brutes the feminists claimed they were to begin with. Granted, I?m not much for frat boys, and there was validity at the heart of campus-feminism in those days. But there are two points here relevant to the recent threads. First, the Fortnight activists were urging forth the evil in order to establish its existence, which might be politically expedient if you?re Lenin but was underhanded and downright cruel in human terms. Second, the activists, who were all about "tolerance" when it came to them, were succeeding only in creating a different "Other," an easily targeted "out-group" -- one that was too inarticulate (or too unwary) to respond -- upon which to prey. The result was like any other example of moral "piling on" ? except, of course, that it included the cry "Potential rapist!"

Sound like anything here?

I realize politics can be nasty and that there?s a good reason not to talk about them or about religion at the dinner table. I?ll admit also that the recent inciting comment was in rather poor taste, given the context. Still, it?s interesting that the person to whom it was directed (who seems more than capable of resisting pious evangelization and who writes colorfully but always civilly about religion) seemed to take far less offense to the comment than did the many others who rushed forward, torches ablaze. Maybe, as Cepaciagal suggested, religion is too touchy a subject for this board, but I hope not. For one thing, it makes for interesting debate. For another, religion (or whatever philosophy replaces it, atheism included) is integral to a person?s approach to existential mind-blowers like CF. Yes, it?s bound to spark some intensely worded posts, and people are entitled to react negatively to some of these. But as one who recently had a fatwa issued against me for "negativity," I hope the response to contrary points of view isn?t "encirclement" -- or, worse, silencing-by-banishment. That would be an Orwellian turn for the worse.

Just my thoughts, etc., Q

Q

 

[anonymous]

Argh! Punctuation, schmunctution.

Q