New Light on Beards

[Pudgy]

…

[BTK59]

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is because, apart from Alphonse, who does seem to like you, you give nothing of yourself.

Unfortunately, this observation is inaccurate. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who appreciate his rhetoric here. If only one person acknowledges it, it simply means that others take offense at being grouped together, and have people believe he has multiple accounts. Isn't that what JWinsider inferred in another post? 

There's a phobia here, if it's not you people posting, the other one must be the same one with many accounts, even though the same can be said of you people here. What do you people call that, "sock puppet." 

Would it be fair for him to be unfairly accused of something that's only in the minds of people here?
What else have you accused him of, using AI? Everyone should have the right to express themselves without repercussions. You people are the poster child for that. So, allow the poor soul to contribute. 

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Unfortunately, this observation is inaccurate. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who appreciate his rhetoric here. 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

So, allow the poor soul to contribute. 

Okay. We’ll allow the poor soul to continue.

Besides, you wouldn’t be able to stop him any more than you could stop onset of the Great Day.

[Srecko Sostar]

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Okay. We’ll allow the poor soul to continue.

Besides, you wouldn’t be able to stop him any more than you could stop onset of the Great Day.

Allow me to clarify unequivocally: this is not a rebuke, but rather an observation. Should anyone perceive it as a rebuke, it is solely because they are excessively sensitive to personal matters.

I appreciate the symbolic gesture, but it would be even more valuable if you refrained from deleting individuals solely based on your emotional reactions. I understand that moderators have certain privileges, such as being able to mark someone and then, just like that, they disappear. But think about it: is it fair to delete someone just because they happened to prove the regulars wrong and showed that they don't know what they're talking about? Are you guys bored in the closed club where it's currently quiet? Instead of hearing crickets, does it appeal to everyone to increase the traffic here to hear the powerful roar of a lion, devouring the souls of the innocent? Seems your monikers continue unimpeded, while you blame others for having to create a different account just to return. How is that fair play?
I comprehend the tolerance of abuse and foul language exhibited by the individuals endorsed by this group.

Additionally, I have observed a tendency to selectively enforce the bylaws. I believe there was an issue concerning the number of downvotes. Could you please explain that? If people are not permitted to express their dissatisfaction with an unappealing post simply due to ignorance, what purpose does the downvote function serve? I came across a post that raised an invalid concern about the inability of a poster that creates a topic to lock it, especially if they believe it will attract unnecessary negative comments. The rules seem not to favor the poster in this situation. Can you explain the reasoning behind this?

It is important to include a clear disclaimer regarding bylaws on your website. It is crucial to recognize that only moderators have the authority to lock a topic, not the individuals who initiate the discussion. It appears that this website is attempting to suppress individuals by altering its bylaws simply because they dislike being confronted with evidence from scripture and common sense. While it is within your rights to manage your site as you see fit, it is important to be consistent in your decisions and refrain from blaming others for creating new accounts when faced with your regulations of deletion. There is no justification for criticizing individuals for a situation that your own decisions have created.

If you want to address issues like "rebuke," "superiority," and "unreasonable language," "harsh behavior," it's best to start with yourselves before addressing others. Am I going to be removed for sharing my views on this website? I hope not.

[Pudgy]

Fair is a place where you eat corn dogs and ride a ferris wheel.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Can you explain the reasoning behind this?

Nah, I can’t understand how any of it works, either.

[Srecko Sostar]

 

 

[Pudgy]

We are all guests here.

If you were a guest in my house, and acted belligerent, snotty, insulting, unpleasant, argumentative or snide …. or for any reason whatsoever, real or imaginary, I did not consider you presence welcome, you would find yourself out on the street zip quick.

Complaining that I am not “fair” would have no audience or consideration. Complaining that my motives are “because I did not LIKE you” would be correct. 

The owners and moderators here have every right to run the show any way they see fit.

I used to have my rants deleted regularly … and I took no offense or umbrage … because it’s THEIR forum.

They do not represent themselves as Agents of God.

 

[BTK59]

Apostates always highlight trivial matters. It's interesting to see if witnesses accept the exaggeration. I often ponder why many in the Catholic faith prioritize being clean-shaven over traditional practices. What was once respectable in the past is now deemed acceptable in the present.

A: First of all, there is at present no law in canonical discipline which forbids beards, so our reader can be tranquil as to the legitimacy of the practice. With respect to local laws there are some religious orders which recommend that its members either shave or, on the contrary, have a beard.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beards-and-priests-4752

[BTK59]

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nah, I can’t understand how any of it works, either.

Buuaacck buck buck suawaaack, cluck, cluck.