Where is velvet clown?

Actually Clown...I think you're wrong.. By your reaction to religion, you have gone just as bad in the opposite direction by not respecting anyone else's beliefts or their rights to their own beliefs.  Thats prejudice....

Religion is not the disease... its people's misuse of it that causes the problems.  Same can be said for politics and social status... You attacked someone based soley on an assumption of their beliefs... that makes you just as wrong in my book.

Throwing a temper tantrum and then blaming it on religion... thats just too common these days, isn't it?

Just remember, tolerance is 90% of the game...

Dead Jester wrote: Well I got Zero Tolerance when it comes to Religion. I won´t debate this issue cos then I have to leave this place once again.

Who are you kidding... you've never left this place.....

Threefates. My post isnt about whether there should be rules it is about interpretation.It is about degrees of offence and measuring them.
Telling me that profanity is not allowed is not an explicit enough guideline for me to follow.The only way to procede is if the "rules" are applied rigidly and consistently, do we want that?

Maybe I am just arguing semantics and Maani means obscene language, when he says profane.Having been brought up a good Catholic boy I was always led to believe that a profanity was "an insult to God" and an obscenity  "an insult to accepted standards of sexual decency."

As I do not believe you can insult God, am I not allowed to take offence at some petty mystical beliefs.If I genuinely believed that Phil Collins was god (I dont) and announced that that was my personal belief system, I wouldn't be accorded the same respect or discretion than if I worshipped God. Lets face it, in England if we had a popularity poll based on attendances Genesis would probably beat God hands down!

And then we have the other minor point.If God exists and He created the Universe and all its unfathomable complexity, all the Physics that combine to make galaxies and planets and people and Prog forums, why on earth would such a sophisticated entity worry about what some no-mark from Bolton had to say about him. Would the whole Universe collapse back on itself. I dont think so.

All:

First, welcome back to Velvetclown aka Dead Jester.  It is obvious to me that he is who he says he is because you can't "fake" that hard-bitten, cynical, sardonic attitude...

That said, Reed Lover, if you had read my original announcement re "civility," you would know that I was equating "profanity" with "bad language," not with its spirituo-religious meaning.  In this regard, my own personal beliefs do not enter into it.  it would not matter if I were a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Jainist or an atheist, as the forum administrator I would uphold the very few simple rules that have been instituted on the site by the admin group - and approved by the webmasters - the first one of which is "no profanity" (i.e., blatantly foul language).

As for moving threads, I reiterate that this was done because apparently very few of you understand where to start various threads, and you simply start all of them in "main discussions" even if they don't belong there.  While I accept the "mea culpa" of having procrastinated for too long in undertaking that "household chore," it needed to be done.

In this regard, the Mariah Carey thread is not the only one that has been moved.  Yet no one else who started a moved thread has reacted the way VC did.  Indeed, I have heard not one word from anyone else who started a thread that has been moved, much less the kind of overreaction displayed by VC.

With all due respect, and at the risk of sounding "snide," if it is too much to ask that members abide by the two (now three) rules of the site, then perhaps they should leave and find "greener" ("bluer?" ) pastures.

Peace.

Reed Lover wrote: Threefates. My post isnt about whether there should be rules it is about interpretation.It is about degrees of offence and measuring them.

Thats just semantics, isn't it. No matter how explicit or detailed a rule is... someone will always translate it they way they want to... Fact of life... but I bet you knew exactly what the rule was saying....

threefates wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Threefates. My post isnt about whether there should be rules it is about interpretation.It is about degrees of offence and measuring them. Thats just semantics, isn't it. No matter how explicit or detailed a rule is... someone will always translate it they way they want to... Fact of life... but I bet you knew exactly what the rule was saying....

Not the point.

"Do not run in the corridor" is a clear rule.

"If you are moving quickly down the corridor a teacher may deem it necessary for you to slow down" is not a clear rule.