next »

[Guest]

...loading shoutbox...

[soulfull25]

edit:

[[NETIZEN]]

Please dont post links such as these.
We consider them spam.

We have a spam forum and a link forum so please post the link there.

[soulfull25]

Sorry.  This wasn't meant to be spam.

[Fetal Position]

"We" don't consider it spam. "We" don't care if you place the link here.

Should the word be used so broadly, I will assume my place among the "we" yet voice my opinion against "those" who haven't asked "us" what "we" think.

[Starkindler]

The way this appears to me is someone trying to sell a product.  We have had a few plants on this site before (including one lobbying for Ashley Simpson).  His name and the fact that this was his first post make me think that he was placed here for no other reason but to advertise a new CD.  Just my view on this.

[[NETIZEN]]

I am an EX-Admin and I know the rules of the board and how we handle things. Post such as these that advertise other sites or other wise tell people to come to another site we generally don't allow we either delete them and move them. We refers to those who run the site or help run the site. Which now not being an admin anymore and with Matt the owner of the board getting on less and less and also never posting, being that I know the rules and guidelines I speak for him. Sorry Fetal your opinion means nothing in this matter.

[Fetal Position]

Always the shining example of Christendom. My apologies, I didn't know you represented the current administration of this site, or the majority of the members of the board. You have however shown me you effortlessly represent that sizable populace of disgruntled hypocritical Christians who seem to think they represent God himself. Give it up.

There's a reason your inability to lead/administrate correctly contributed to the dissolution of the office of secondary administration staff. This is called ignorance (in its many variations). Ignorance of the most basic of facts presented to you. Much like now. For one, your demeanor is very rude as I have not willfully wronged you, but merely stated the obvious. As I will do now.

1.) You are no longer an admin.

-There must be a sound reason for this, whether through your fault or the fault of others, the fact still remains - you are no longer a member of the administrative staff. Therefore you have as much bearing on what does and doesn't happen on this site, as an ex security guard asserting himself at a McDonald's fast food restaurant.

2.) You cannot still associate yourself as active with the current administrative staff.

-Being that there is now only one administrator and no other sub categories, you hold the same office as my neighbor's pregnant cat.

3.) You have retained your membership status on this site which may indicate the position you lost was taken on good terms, but you are still only a member of this message board. You retain Primary Member Status.

-Members here are believed to hold equal inalienable rights among their peers. One is voicing one's own opinion - limited only to the R.A.T. you as a member had to agree to when you came here.

4.) In posting "we" you gave no premise that you were not speaking of the JCYouth community at large, but of yourself and the former members of administration.

-Therefore you left the interpretation of your statement broad and ever reaching. I chose the most logical route and inferred that you spoke of "we" as a community. Naturally I wouldn't allow you to make such a blanket statement concerning a generalization I was involved in, concerning something I am not against (though you voiced my opinion for me as being against). If you refer to C.P.G you'll see I am in agreement with "To swallow and follow, whether old doctrine or new propaganda, is a weakness still dominating the human mind.". Being so I voiced my opinion as it mattered to me and to those to take a similar yet reserved stance on the subject.

5.) Every voice/opinion matters to the community here.
-A quote:

JCYouth.com is an online place for Christian youth to interact, have fun, and just hang out!

Interaction is key, thus "communal" communication is essential. Therefore, every voice matters (has a bearing on the social structure of the site).

6.) You are not the mouthpiece of "God".
-As most administrators (or ex-) acquire a taste for "I am God over thee" on these boards (as I have seen you do in your posts). Unless you are "God" himself, do not assume to know what he/she/it wants to say. To end all doubt:

Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.

[/i]


Coming upon the end of my argument, I must summarize my general mood and distaste for your rude behavior with a nudge from reason.

"Next time, think before you speak."

[[NETIZEN]]

You assume I am a christian is showing your ignorance you automaticly assume I am a christian, wrong buddy.

The reason I am not an admin anymore is because we shut down the site and when we re-opened all status or members and staff was removed besides matt because this site may shut down again on top of that if there was staff to work on the site 24/7 he wouldn't have anything to do when he gets board.

Also on this board we do not play god, being an admin or mod. of the board gives us authority also, normally on JCY we address problems in private rather then out loud. We run JCY like a house, elder members who know the rules although dont hold status still get respect authority from members rather they are christian or not. Member such as Shansu, Nell, Wilder, Zero, and many other although not staff if they see a problem or something such as this post they can address the problem and then tell Matt or another staff member.

Also I'd like to make a note that only 40%-50% of the member on this site are christian or a close religion to it.

[ditto]"Next time, think before you speak."[/ditto]

[Wilder]

What happened to lurking before posting on forums?




I'm throwing my hat in with Dave on this one; the fact is Admin or not he and Nell essentially run this site due to the lack of presence of Matt, who still uses them as Admins. While we do not have official admins to prevent infighting from destroying the boards, it is generally accepted here, as in almost all other forums, that there is an unstated but recognized hierarchy. Dave is the top. You may have had a point as to your own opinion not being expressed by Dave's declaration, even if it was an oversensitive one at that. You lost the moral highground, and any semibalance of knowing what the fuck you are talking about here:

There's a reason your inability to lead/administrate correctly contributed to the dissolution of the office of secondary administration staff. This is called ignorance (in its many variations). Ignorance of the most basic of facts presented to you. Much like now. For one, your demeanor is very rude as I have not willfully wronged you, but merely stated the obvious

Not that it really matters in this situation, but why so much hostility towards someone telling off a spammer in incredibly polite terms?

[Mattyboy]

...with Matt the owner of the board getting on less and less and also never posting, being that I know the rules and guidelines I speak for him.

Nothing much to say, except that I have not authorized anyone to speak for me. What Dave says is what Dave says. And being an ex-admin he may know what he is talking about. But, I have not appointed anyone to stand in my place. Though the fact that he has taken a stand as an admin, shows ambition, and good leadership qualities, indeed. Thought slightly arrogant? But generally, someone who has been around here for a long time knows how things have gone, and can make a pretty good judgement.

Moving this along to support and feedback...

Matt has spoken.
and sighed.

[[NETIZEN]]

jeez took you long enough to post...

you havent posted since you re-opened...

good to see you still know how to post ;]

[Nell]

MATT TALKS!

Ha, it's about time you talk matt....

[Fetal Position]

Addressing things in order (as I had hoped you would do for me):

I did not assume anything. I showed you what assume was earlier didn't I? No I rather inferred you were. To infer is "to form an opinion that something is probably true because of information that you have". And what I've read in your previous posts, I gathered you were - at the very least a backsliding one. Since you have shown me that what I have inferred is incorrect, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. On to weeping and gnashing of teeth eh?  :wink:

And, well, all else is futile to speak with you about because I see you don't offer much of a good conversation in that area. You're content to commit the capital "sin" in an argument and attack the conclusion instead of any premise. In effect, it can be shown to be as effective as arguing with one's own sibling concerning who sits in the front of mom and dad's car. How do I come upon this conclusion? Simply because what I stated was not refuted but merely side-stepped with intent just to "show me wrong". You didn't address my speaking of policy, of staff association, of independent importance to any degree of satisfication; quite frankly you didn't really give me much of anything to chew on. You may have slightly mentioned it, but only once did you get a cognitive thought from me.  I hope I haven't displayed too much distaste for you - for it wasn't my intent. Now I think I will address some issues for wilder in this next bit. (A post script of lines eight and nine)

Wilder, I wasn't expecting you to side with those promoting stupid (archival meaning, not generic) social stratification. This is one of those points at the heart of my issue with this whole subject. Being one to dissect a statement philosophically, LLD's original statement sparked a comment in my mind. Firstly it was the stupid social stratification, and then the assumptive thought on behalf of the members (I don't see it as spam / see the disagreement issue? yes another full page post in itself), and then the statement that made me say what I was thinking more openly. Review LLD's post following mine and tell me if there wasn't anything hiding between the lines there? (Yet I know it was not Just to repay evil with evil). My post following that just outlined why his opinion was as useless as mine on the subject. What I said after soulfull apologized was meant to urge the new member to interact, showing an altered side to the statement.

Concerning moral high ground, I think you would agree with me that in true meditation and discussion of things concerning awareness (cognitive conclusion), it is best to leave morality on the side. Morality is subjective to culture, experience, and progressive thought. If you have a problem with what I stated as it applies to "morality", or just have a problem with it at all, you should present it to me as a discussion and not a poster child of what you have to be annoyed with me about. As I said before, it would not matter to me if you did the latter, for you merely accepted my statement as something that was untrue, but failed to take it further. Remember with me, every statement is a product of thought. I don't just jump and throw something down in the heat of the moment. Now there is a reason why I said ignorance, why I pointed out what I pointed out, and why I continue to think what I think. Though I would like to think this is an example of what I stated in the Amazon logging debate - a moment of honest expression, I think you are deeper than this, and I will "assume" and take it for surface value and stand by hoping for you to show me I am in error. In agreement with "conflict" showing true colors.

[[NETIZEN]]

I don't have time to throw sand with you, end of discussion.

[Fetal Position]

In effect you just stuck your tongue out at me, and sat down in it.

[[NETIZEN]]

No I walked away from you because I have a job, school and social life and don't feel like wasting my time argueing with someone that I don't even know in person, specially over something so childish.

[Wilder]

This is long. I appologize.

Wilder, I wasn't expecting you to side with those promoting stupid (archival meaning, not generic) social stratification.

Your statement "There's a reason your inability to lead/administrate correctly contributed to the dissolution of the office of secondary administration staff" kind of set me off a bit.

As for social stratification, that's an entirely different issue. Having to separate quite a bit of chaff from the wheat online, I generally wait for people to prove themselves worthy of respect, and am a firm supporter of those who have done so. So to a degree, I do support stupid social stratification - those who have given so much time to these boards and proved themselves worthy of respect deserve some implicit powers, in my mind. Of course, factoring into this was your somewhat ambiguous standing in my mind at the time of posting.

and then the assumptive thought on behalf of the members

It's an incredibly fine distinction, but in his OP Dave was using "we" to mean the heart of JC Youth - a core community that he is a big part of. Still, from your perspective (which is easy to take) it is understandable to see "we" as being the entirety of JC Youth, which would have been an overstepping of his bounds.

Concerning moral high ground, I think you would agree with me that in true meditation and discussion of things concerning awareness (cognitive conclusion), it is best to leave morality on the side. Morality is subjective to culture, experience, and progressive thought.

This was one of the key points that led me to Satanism, and I am intimately acquainted with it.

If you have a problem with what I stated as it applies to "morality", or just have a problem with it at all, you should present it to me as a discussion and not a poster child of what you have to be annoyed with me about.

Touché. In line with your advice:

Up until that statement, you had an argument that could have garnered you support. While you were not included in Dave's "we", it was easy to falsely infer that, and Dave's response to your own certainly gave you a solid foothold for what was an uphill battle. By throwing out that assertion, however, you stepped far outside the boundaries of civility, and presented a very flawed argument - two serious hindrances on your appearance that you did not need.

Online, presentation is everything.

Remember with me, every statement is a product of thought. I don't just jump and throw something down in the heat of the moment.

This brings up two points:

1) At the time of my post, it was unclear as to whether you were genuinely that meticulous with the implications of your post or yet another pseudo-intellectual with unjustified arrogance.

2) While it's certainly not a flaw to have such control over nuances of language, most people do not engage text on a forum full of children with the same scrutiny that they would apply to other mediums. While I've started to look deeper into your posts because you've proven that there really is something there rather than false pretense wrapping a bubble of hot air, others have not. I'm not saying you should stop posting so carefully, just be aware that most often only the tip of your icebergs will be examined (though somehow I get the feeling you are painfully aware of this).

Now there is a reason why I said ignorance, why I pointed out what I pointed out, and why I continue to think what I think.

Speaking of which, what brings you to the conclusion that it was Dave's "inability to lead/administrate correctly [that] contributed to the dissolution of the office of secondary administration staff"?

Though I would like to think this is an example of what I stated in the Amazon logging debate - a moment of honest expression, I think you are deeper than this, and I will "assume" and take it for surface value and stand by hoping for you to show me I am in error. In agreement with "conflict" showing true colors.

As in most of my posts, what I state is what I mean, though it is easy to follow a false trail - I don't focus on potential implications nearly as much as you do. Your interpretation of my "moral high ground" point - a moral objection rather than a statement of "tactics", for lack of a better term - is a perfect example.


Am I the only person who you talk to online that undergoes a distinct but entirely unintentional change in syntax around you?

[Fetal Position]

Yes, following your post, this is my reply to some things you have stated.

"This was one of the key points that led me to Satanism, and I am intimately acquainted with it."

Yes, also one of my few "Satanist" beliefs.

"Up until that statement, you had an argument that could have garnered you support. While you were not included in Dave's "we", it was easy to falsely infer that, and Dave's response to your own certainly gave you a solid foothold for what was an uphill battle. By throwing out that assertion, however, you stepped far outside the boundaries of civility, and presented a very flawed argument - two serious hindrances on your appearance that you did not need. "

Pardon, need a bit more elaboration there.

"This brings up two points:

1) At the time of my post, it was unclear as to whether you were genuinely that meticulous with the implications of your post or yet another pseudo-intellectual with unjustified arrogance.

2) While it's certainly not a flaw to have such control over nuances of language, most people do not engage text on a forum full of children with the same scrutiny that they would apply to other mediums. While I've started to look deeper into your posts because you've proven that there really is something there rather than false pretense wrapping a bubble of hot air, others have not. I'm not saying you should stop posting so carefully, just be aware that most often only the tip of your icebergs will be examined (though somehow I get the feeling you are painfully aware of this). "

On the first, I understand this to an extent - I mean I sort of tried to make it a point though not through words. And as you've stated in your second point, this works with some like yourself. I don't mean to come off as some pseudo-intellectual because that wouldn't be intellectually honest - in the end it would not be just. What I give, I give. People have always interpreted it in ways that allow them to feel comfortable in their environment, and being as such I don't usually take too much mind to it. In this case it's a bit of a concern but nothing to lose sleep over.

Moving on slightly to the second, I've struggled somewhat with the formula for my social interaction here. I don't want to appear (as you said paraphrased) "full of hot air", nor do I wish to say something that is easily absorbed and easily overlooked, as my purpose here will hopefully be validated here in time. Changing thought, I am aware that most people will only consider the "tip(s) of the iceberg(s)". These people I don't have use for here, but the ones that take a second glance and seek the path further than the gate... these people I require. Cultivating awareness is often a "painful" task, but it most often brings forth productive gains in the intellect of one's peers. I consider one of my purposes to be a teacher, though not self proclaimed, I wish to breed awareness with example to bear orphans of truth for anyone who is willing - to adopt. My main concern in this is the education of those who I may influence. It follows along the words of Herman Shu. "Teach a child as a child, and you will have a child."

"Speaking of which, what brings you to the conclusion that it was Dave's "inability to lead/administrate correctly [that] contributed to the dissolution of the office of secondary administration staff"?"

This I based on a few simple points of objection. For one I see being a part of an institution's administration as a grand responsibility in the eyes of my worldview. It is, to be the right arm or a continuation of the office and chair of the main administrator itself (considering it isn't a dictatorship). I have concluded (correctly or incorrectly) that most cases of failure are due to lack of action. I have seen this lack of action add to many problems here, most of which are caused by laziness or lack of motivation (in which there is lack of participation). In LLD's case, I could see abuse of power as being a contributor to problems to this site. But what do I know? Need more? Just say so. I know I didn't specifically speak on the dissolution of the office... etc., but I think you can get my general idea from what I have said. Or summed up in words not my own, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

"Am I the only person who you talk to online that undergoes a distinct but entirely unintentional change in syntax around you?"

No, my mother does the same. Ha-ha.

[Wilder]

Hmm. Thought I replied to this before. Apparently I didn't. My bad.


In hyper-condensed form:

You had a point. But then you kind of crossed some lines and made some assertions that weren't true. Those made you look bad.

[Fetal Position]

I see. We're still here are we? You might have to help me with this, because this is how it looks to me.

Being the Logical Positivist I tend to be when stating an argument, I made sure what I said followed along the guidelines of the great "verifiers" of argument. I presented a valid argument and even outlined my premesis for such an argument. Since these have not really been disproved, I thought the argument to be sound. Yet, I have winced ever so slightly as the great sin of reason bears it's ugly head... ...the Is/Ought fallacy.

I may just be overlooking something, in which case I hope you can show me. I'd like to put this thing to rest. Which premise of the ones I listed is false?