Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Owlswing]

I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.

You obviously did; otherwise the post would not have been removed and you would not have been suspended.

If you could not see that your suggestion that Trent needed medical attention for a disease (his homosexuality) would offend him you are even less intelligent than even the low value (where religion is part of the discussion) that I gave you credit for.

[Owlswing]

I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said.  There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister.  I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.

Whatever the intent it was vile but Hope excuses it by claiming divine guidance; unforunately Hope seems have no concept of just how vile some Christian values and opinons are to non-Christians.

[Brownie]

There is a thread in the Moderation Section, started by NS, entitled:
   
1H - what type of board do we want

You might find Hope's post, 29, interesting, Owlswing.

[Owlswing]

There is a thread in the Moderation Section, started by NS, entitled:
   
1H - what type of board do we want

You might find Hope's post, 29, interesting, Owlswing.

Read TV's #40 on the same thread - which I found equally interesting.

I am sorry, Brownie, I really am, but your view of the attitudes and posts of our two arch Christian Fundamentalists is vastly different to mine.

And, incidentally, OMW is, in part, at the very least, the reason for my antipathy toward those two people. He used virtually any post that I made in reply to them as a springboard for a series of unpleasnat insults.

Upon friendly (PM - off-board) advice from some posters sympathetic to my situation in this regard I took to ignoring anything that he posted. This worked, for me, for a while, but I would be addressed in posts from OMW telling me that I had to respond as "he knew that really I wanted to" - and if I weakened and responded in kind, he instantly complained to the Mods!

I feel that Sassy and Hope are living breathing demonstrators of all that I find unplesant and unacceptable in the Christian religion - they find my religion totally unacceptable and without merit and are not backward about coming forward to say so. They can describe my beliefs as rubbish, nonsense, etc, etc, but God (theirs, not mine) help anyone who dares to say the same about theirs.

Sassy has frequesntly posted that I know nothing about either the Bible or Christianity despite my having been brought up in the High Anglican Congregation for the first fifteen yerars of my life; for "brought up in" read "indoctrinated with".

Let us, you and I, agree to differ on this subject, please.

One last point - I think that I have discovered exactly who Sassy really is - everthing she posts is directly or indirectly quotes from the bible and she is never ever wrong on anything - there is only one person who can fit these two criteria - God himself - All Hail Sassy!



Brownie

Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you, and all those that you hold dear, always.


Owlswing

)O(

[Brownie]

Very nice post (((Owlswing))), I'm happy to agree to differ about anything but I have to say I fail to see what Sassy has to do with any of this, or OMW who I had virtually forgotten (no offence to him), and who has left this forum anyway.  I've never got into PMs about any posters and neither would I.  I can only speak as I find and cannot see any comparison at all between Hope and Sassy, they are like chalk and cheese. 

You must feel as though you have been talking to a brick wall  , sorry, but all I did was suggest you look at one of Hope's posts which I felt explained things better than anything else he had said.  It obviously didn't strike you the same way, fair enough.  I also read the post you mentioned (from TV), and have read all the posts on that thread.  Am pleased to note that Trent is not at all wound up, bless him.  He probably has more sense than any of us.

[Sassy]

Dear Hope,

It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?

Gonnagle.

WHERE DID SHAKER GET A POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED?
WHY CAN'T SHAKER FIND THE FULL POST NOW?

EITHER THE FULL POST IS SHOWN AND SHAKER EXPLAINS WHERE HE GOT HIS QUOTES FROM OR HE DROPS THE MATTER.

Hope has the right to defend himself. So where did you get those quotes from Shaker?
You surely did not think that someone won't pull you on using quotes from a post apparently removed.

WAITING... Don't tell you saved a copy as you would have printed the whole thing not just part to use to condemn Hope in your mind...

[Sassy]

For what reason did you reserve the right to suggest that perhaps Trentvoyager ought to see a doctor, Hope?

Had you and Trent been discussing the state of Trent's health or was it for some other reason?

Come on! explain where you got the quotes for a 'suggested deleted) post and why haven't you posted the whole thing?
Bring it along....

[Sassy]

At this juncture I'd like to point out that 'thou shalt not bear false witness' is the ninth commandment. I think I have that right, and to add that sinners who do so are estranged from God. Just like murderers and paedophiles, according to some around here.

As a moderator, you also have the responsibility to show us the post for which you are now using the 9th commandment.
So either show us original post or don't make any statements as even your post could look a false testament against your neighbour.

How do you make yourself and anyone who  bears false witness for lack of evidence make yourself  the same as murders, paedophiles?  Christ died for all no difference but tell me how you believe the sin makes a difference.

If you are going to stir the pot make sure your own hands are clean.

As a moderator you have the responsibility to bring forth the post and tell us how Shaker got hold of quotes from a deleted post.
If it isn't deleted why have you not posted it?

Hope is not answerable to anyone including Shaker, if they cannot produce the whole of the post. Or explain how someone got hold of quotes from a deleted post.

Whole posts or NOTHING you can say will convict. Hearsay and production of quotes which cannot verified as coming from Hope with the whole post is nothing but hearsay...

[Sassy]

Gonners, on a number of threads - some about homosexual relationships, some about other actions and behaviours, I have referred to Jesus' statement that "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick.  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5)  Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason.  If, as I believe this was, the post under discussion was in terms of the gospel passage above, then it clearly has no more specific relevance to being gay than it would to being fraudulent.
Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue?  Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.

Hope till they explain how Shaker got quotes from a 'deleted' post or show us the full deleted post, there is nothing for you to answer. Given moderators have joined this thread and spoke openly and accusatory then do not answer them any longer till the whole posts are posted for us to see. So far there is nothing but quotes from a post which can in itself be taken out of context if whole posts not present.  You have nothing to answer to, because they have not brought anything but hearsay because original post deleted. Shaker does not give access to the post itself on forum. So he could have made up what he wrote.
No evidence to say he didn't without actual posts...

[Sassy]

Hope, please stop. Just stop. You discredit this forum, your faith and yourself in persisting with your lies.

No you and Shaker discredit the forum and yourselves until you bring the full actual posts with references.

How can shaker take excerpts from a deleted post?
Furthermore, the quotes show that they were not taken from an original post from the board could not go to them.
Why haven't you posted the posts.

No actual posts then no right of accusation or personal destruction of the person in question.
You may not know the law but having started a law degree course, and studied law for other purposes.
I know there has been NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. Just accusations which cannot be backed up by source of the things written.
Either you and Shaker bring the whole evidence or no evidence exists. Shaker could have made it up.
If you have deleted the whole posts you cannot back up Shaker or even call Hope any of those things above.

[Shaker]

WHERE DID SHAKER GET A POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED?
WHY CAN'T SHAKER FIND THE FULL POST NOW?

EITHER THE FULL POST IS SHOWN AND SHAKER EXPLAINS WHERE HE GOT HIS QUOTES FROM OR HE DROPS THE MATTER.

Hope has the right to defend himself. So where did you get those quotes from Shaker?
You surely did not think that someone won't pull you on using quotes from a post apparently removed.

WAITING... Don't tell you saved a copy as you would have printed the whole thing not just part to use to condemn Hope in your mind...

I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.

If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.

I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.

Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.

[Bubbles]

I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.

If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.

I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.

Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.

Was it Trent who objected?

Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.

Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.

I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.

Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.

[Bubbles]

Can people stop attacking Hope, please?

The discussion has gone beyond discussing views.

[Shaker]

Was it Trent who objected?

Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.

Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.

I assume that a collective decision on the part of The Management was taken that Hope's post broke the house rules and that a suspension was called for.

I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.

Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.

I'm not objecting solely on behalf on Trent - I'm quite capable of objecting in my own name since I find homophobia repugnant and lying about it afterwards contemptible.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

I didn't 'get' it, I remembered the gist of Hope's post from April 1st - that's only a couple of weeks ago or so. Having mental capacities above those of the average aubergine I'm quite capable of processing and retaining information. Hope's post (originally on the NHS chaplaincy thread) was removed because it contained an offensive personal remark directed against another member of the forum which was primarily the thing that led to Hope's suspension, so it was removed to the Mod Room, although when this discussion arose yesterday Gordon helpfully reposted the actual thing on the present thread (in #112). Although removed from general view, I remembered the salient part which I had earlier paraphrased in #42 to the best of my memory, which you can check against Hope's original in #112.

If you had read the thread, post by post and in order instead of as usual rushing in gob first and capitals a-flying, you would know all this.

I know you're desperate to see underhand methods and dark secrets of skullduggery at work, which says much about you, but it was simply a reasonably good memory on my part, nothing more. Shaker has made up nothing - Hope was insinuating as much while the post remained hidden, but that was only before he was royally tucked up when Gordon reinstated said post.

Feel free to take all this up with Gordon if you wish. I'm sure he can always do with a good laugh.

Without the evidence of the post and without you having proof your memory correct then we have to drop the whole thing because Hope already explained he had not meant what you and others accused him of doing. We have to give him the benefit of the doubt when the rest of the post not available.

[Sassy]

Was it Trent who objected?

Because if it wasn't then you are all being offended on his behalf.

Trent has already said he didn't wish the post to be removed or for hope to be suspended.

I'd suggest objecting on Trents behalf on this occaision is misguided.

Trent is more than capable of standing up for himself, although some support is probably welcome.

I believe that Trent's wishes  should have been heeded.

[Sassy]

Dear Shaker,

As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.

Gonnagle.

Seconded...

[Shaker]

Without the evidence of the post

Now provided in #112.

and without you having proof your memory correct

Now provided in #112, as checked against #42.

then we have to drop the whole thing

Oh no we bloody well don't.

because Hope already explained he had not meant what you and others accused him of doing.

After-the-fact rationalisation once he'd been caught out. Pretty sure he didn't expect Gordon to repost the offending text, but he did.

We have to give him the benefit of the doubt when the rest of the post not available.

You might; I don't.

[Shaker]

Dear Shaker,

As Rose suggests, I think the point has been made.

Gonnagle.

Not yet

[wigginhall]

I had to laugh this morning, when I saw that Sassy had already done 8 posts, before I'd even brushed my teeth, complaining about something or other about Shaker and deleted posts.   

Ah well, so it goes.

[Shaker]

All part of the magic roundabout ride that is R & E, wiggy Happy Saturday to you and yours.

[Rhiannon]

Sass' God saw the laughing and the teeth brushing, Wiggs. You want to be careful.

[Bubbles]

I've stuck this here because Gordon has locked the other thread (temp) and it fits here as well as anywhere. 

So it's right to call my mother a child abuser because she brought me up in a religion?

No it isn't, but it is ok to say that someone thinks that bringing  children up strictly religious,  is damaging to their future happiness and life.


Like it's acceptable to say that personally someone thinks Paganism is a deception of the devil and its followers are mislead.

Or that Christians are misguided and follow corrupted books and we should all read the Koran.

Or that Atheists are missing a spiritual ingredient that enables them to comprehend God.

They can all be very offensive.

I think it's when it gets personal it's an issue.

For example if Hope instead of putting

"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right.  You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do."

Put instead.....

"Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right.  You have the right to decide that homosexuals need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps they do."

Perhaps the second one would have been better and although it still says the same as the first, its more general and allows a wider range of discussion.

The problem with not allowing more general comments is it will restrict our posts to much.

Perhaps comments should be encouraged into general comments rather than personal ones.

[wigginhall]

Sass' God saw the laughing and the teeth brushing, Wiggs. You want to be careful.

You are right, my toast looked a bit burned this morning, do you think this is a foretaste of Hades?