Why are my threads on XYZ being deleted?

[cybercoma]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in the Internet, especially when it's subtle. That should be obvious.

[waldo]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in the Internet, especially when it's subtle. That should be obvious.

apparently, some around here interpret overt trolling as a kind of... sarcasm!

[bleeding heart]

Missing the point entirely

Nope. You were the subject of your post, and so the various Voltaire-like attributes you name are, grammatically, to be applied to the subject.

.....which applies to all members, no matter how brilliant and smugly superior they assume to be.

It is arguably implicit that you were applying to all members; and inarguably explicit that you were referring to your own superior qualities of wit and so on...which evidently fly over the heads of the inferior moderators, a point also implied.

[bush_cheney2004]

And so...the usual juvenile antics begin...unabated even in this thread about the very nature of such topics and posts. Typical....

[bleeding heart]

And so...the usual juvenile antics begin...unabated even in this thread about the very nature of such topics and posts. Typical....

Too good. The "juvenile antics" began with a poster observing that his "spankings" resulted from his under-appreciated qualities.

Edited November 7, 2013 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

One political forum I saw lately announced that trolling is allowed. Actually, it makes sense. How can trolling be definitely defined, anyway? By whom?

In my view, some of the folks who responded with ridicules in that recent thread I posted in Religion were trolling. In their view, it's me who's trolling!

Here's the definition of a troll:

a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response ...

[The_Squid]

One political forum I saw lately announced that trolling is allowed. Actually, it makes sense. How can trolling be definitely defined, anyway? By whom?

In my view, some of the folks who responded with ridicules in that recent thread I posted in Religion were trolling. In their view, it's me who's trolling!

Here's the definition of a troll:

I didn't say you were trolling, in this case... I said you were posting spam.

Trolling/spamming, etc. are defined by the moderators. Obviously, it's somewhat subjective, otherwise we wouldn't have threadds like this one.

[cybercoma]

apparently, some around here interpret overt trolling as a kind of... sarcasm!

Sorry. I should have said "sarcasm" (with parentheses).

[betsy]

SPAM - Spam is most often considered to be electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/spam.html

Boy oh boy......what irony.

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

SPAM - Spam is most often considered to be electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/spam.html

Boy oh boy......what irony.

There is forum spam as well.... Usually advertisements for junk.... Yours was religious spam... A bit different than the usual spam, but spam nonetheless.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, posting religion topics in a designated forum area is not spam. That's like saying the posting of hockey team preferences in the Travel, Leisure, and Sports forum area is "spam". It is clear what attempts to censor posts or topics about religion are all about.

[betsy]

FORUM SPAM - Forum spam consists of posts on Internet forums that contain unrelated advertisements, links to malicious websites, and abusive or otherwise unwanted information.....

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4AURU_enCA498CA498#q=forum+spam+definition

My topic can't be described to be "unrelated" since it's been posted in the appropriate section. Some, if not most, of the responses were abusive and had given irrelevant information. Their posts are therefore spams. And they're junk!

How ironic indeed.

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Certainly this forum does not permit topics that have no intention of starting a discussion.

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted."

Hence my questioning of the thread.

[betsy]

Certainly this forum does not permit topics that have no intention of starting a discussion.

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted."

Hence my questioning of the thread.

This is the last time I'm going to waste my time on you.

For the record, what moron will waste time writing such a lengthy OP, complete with all resources given for reference (including NASA's).....and you say there's no attempt to stimulate discussion?

And what do you mean by, "Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted."

Here's my OP again.

The title should've read NASA's TETRAD and The COMING FOUR BLOOD MOONS.

About a month or so ago, John Hagee was talking about the coming four blood moons when I stumbled onto that channel. He was already in the middle of it, but I was intrigued by what he was actually explaining. I got glued to the tv.

He was connecting NASA's predictions of coming solar and lunar eclipses (a group of 4) in 2014-2015, with the blood moons of the past.

http://eclipse.gsfc..../OH/OH2014.html

It's not about the man who's delivering the message.

It's about the message.

He reiterated several times that he's not making the prophesy. What he's doing is simply using the scientific predictions of NASA and connecting them with the history of Israel, and he's basing this on biblical verses ( Genesis, Joel, Ezekiel, and Luke).

The last 3 times the blood moons - those sets of 4 - appeared were in 1492, 1948 and 1967. NASA kept a record of those.....however, Hagee checked out those dates and those dates were significant in Israel's history.

In 1492 the Edict of Expulsion was decreed in Spain. (The discovery of America is somehow related with this.)

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2iLcOlf67

In 1948, Israel was granted his statehood. Jews came home.

In 1967, that was the miracle 6-day war. Jerusalem was reunited with Israel.

For the complete video of the John Hagee presentation/sermon: "The Four Blood Moons"

AT another forum, I was given additional information about this. One of the information is a quite something - it's more in-depth and it included charts and videos.

At the very bottom of the page is a fascinating 6-part video : 2015 Blood Red Moon.

They have a Jewish Minister from El Shaddai going in-depth with his explanation about Hebrew Feasts and Hebrew interpretations, and showing how the Biblical verses tied in....a lot of the confusing verses start to make sense. A must-see!!!

I just feel that I have to share this with you, guys....the 6-part videos are only approx. 10 minutes each at the most.

http://www.jesusonmymind.com/services

God bless you all.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23105-the-coming-four-blood-moons/page-1

See? He didn't even read the OP! And if he did, it shows he can't understand.

One or two sentences??? He can't count as well!

Bye Squid...you're not worth it.

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[Smallc]

I think if my thread was locked...this one could definitely do with being locked.

[Spiderfish]

I didn't say you were trolling, in this case... I said you were posting spam.

Trolling/spamming, etc. are defined by the moderators. Obviously, it's somewhat subjective, otherwise we wouldn't have threadds like this one.

If the topic doesn't impress you, why don't you just give it a pass? Why do you feel your subjective input is required? I don't get why you would make it your business other than maybe you feel it is your obligation to prevent other members from being exposed to the topic. If you don't have anything to contribute, maybe it would be to everyone's benefit for you to just move on to another topic.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Moonlight Graham]

I agree with Betsy in that it would be nice if we got more new active members on MLW. They don't seem to pop up very often anymore. Though the ones that do are usually accused of being someone who has previously banned.

[betsy]

I agree with Betsy in that it would be nice if we got more new active members on MLW. They don't seem to pop up very often anymore. Though the ones that do are usually accused of being someone who has previously banned.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the biggest reasons or problematic issues why there are hardly any new members that remain active and stay on....is due to the attitude shown by the veteran member above.

I don't mean to single him out since there are others who ridiculed, personally attacked the poster and trashed that thread.

Some members (as shown by Squid) seem to think that everyone who posts a topic is trying to engage them.

That my topics are personal invitations to them.

Frankly speaking, I don't want them.

But I cannot pick and choose who should respond to my thread. I'm always hoping that someone other than these same old bunch who've I've engaged for the thousandth time would come out to respond!

There is one who came out - Gullyformyle - who I find quite interesting, and I don't think we've ever encountered each other in any discussion. I would've loved to engage him (I was tempted by his topic).....but the clime in this forum is like an icy cold water that stamps out my inclination and enthusiasm. I hope to encounter him someday in another venue.

You've seen the Religion section in the forum I frequent now, Moonlight? Compare the DIVERSITY of opinion(s) and beliefs in that section. The civility is top-notch in that forum. Sure it has its moment - but the moderation is really excellent, and everyone can see that it's fairly done.

RELIGION section is highly protected in that forum - senseless bashing of religion/believers (like the ones we normally see here) goes in another separate section, or are given infractions for posting abusive and senseless materials . AND SINCE WARNINGS/INFRACTIONS/SUSPENSIONS ARE DONE TRANSPARENTLY, we all know.

Thus posters from diversed religious beliefs don't feel intimidated, and can freely express themselves.

Religion is one of the most controversial issues - and it always will be. It's one of those topics that will attract attention since most heated discussions are likely to occur often about religion.

The evidence is in the viewer count!

It's normal to see a new hot topic garner more than 2,000 views in just a few days! Whether they actually read the whole discussion or not is another thing - but definitely, the topic(s) brings in traffic!

Therefore, it's a smart thing to do to protect the section from getting trashed.

I had a very heated argument with another guy from another religion (Muslim-based, can't recall it right now but it's growing in popularity)....and we ended up exchanging friendly pm with each other. He's not quite so active these days, but we've kept in touched.

Btw, I posted that latest thread (Four Blood Moons) to see if there's any positive changes in this forum.

The responses it got is a clear answer.

Other than me, how many posters from another belief ever posted actively in Religion on this site?

Did we ever see a real engaged discussion between two posters of different religion? Ever?

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Since I'm on a roll, here's another suggestion to fellow-posters: Let's not be too anal about topics being created that had been posted before.

Some of us feel that just because we've already read that viewpoint in several threads, that therefore it shouldn't be brought up again. What about the newbies? Or the guests that just recently stumbled upon this site?

If some veteran posters here wouldn't even read the OPENING POSTS of newly-posted topics, why should we expect newbies or new guests to go search back and dig up dead-and-buried topics from the archives and read through all those pages???

Besides, you see a topic that says it's been created in 1875, and 250 pages later....you jump in. It's like being in a time warp.

With a fresh topic (even if it's a rehash from older threads) who knows, maybe....and usually that's the case ....that there'll be some new perspectives. You just never know. Somebody just might register as a member so to post a reply to that.

Fresh is always better.

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Don't get me wrong....having an archive is great. It's the history of a site, and good for researches.

Some forums don't throw anything out! Which is awesome.

One forum even has a section called, "The Basement," and this section has multiple sub-sections. Some sub-sectionss are funny, actually....

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[waldo]

Btw, I posted that latest thread (Four Blood Moons) to see if there's any positive changes in this forum.

The responses it got is a clear answer.

apparently, "backed by NASA (eclipse predictions)" & "proven by god"... doesn't quite pass the no-scrutiny point for some members with, uhhh..... ingrained negativity! I note you didn't comment on Kimmy Sunrise within that thread - is there a problem? In any case, don't let these heathens shake your personal faith... soldier on!

[betsy]

I note you didn't comment on Kimmy Sunrise within that thread - is there a problem?

I've had several encounters with Kimmy in the past....I'm just being charitable, I guess.

Being magnanimous, is a better word. I can afford to be that.

Anyway, I've already voiced out the negatives. Enough of that already.

Let's now focus instead on how to make this site more appealing to viewers and guests that they'd want to sign up and participate actively and regularly.

Edited November 8, 2013 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

And in case you are unaware, there's a difference between not posting here any more and not having an account here.

No, there's no difference.

Yes, there is a difference.

It's hard to believe this isn't even the first time someone has complained that they don't want to post here anymore but can't stop because their account is active.

It's hard to believe that you think you know my reasons for wanting my account deleted. Fact is, you don't have a clue; yet you can't resist the urge to insult even when you are totally clueless.

[BubberMiley]

It's hard to believe that you think you know my reasons for wanting my account deleted. Fact is, you don't have a clue; yet you can't resist the urge to insult even when you are totally clueless.

I apologize. I wasn't trying to insult you. I don't think I know your reasons at all. My point was I don't understand why anyone would not just stop posting if they didn't want to post anymore.

In any case, since it appears your request will be granted, I guess that's it. Good luck to you.

[The_Squid]

I apologize. I wasn't trying to insult you. I don't think I know your reasons at all. My point was I don't understand why anyone would not just stop posting if they didn't want to post anymore.

In any case, since it appears your request will be granted, I guess that's it. Good luck to you.

Funny that someone would say that... not explain why.... then be upset that someone doesn't know why!

Yes, there is a difference.

It's hard to believe that you think you know my reasons for wanting my account deleted. Fact is, you don't have a clue; yet you can't resist the urge to insult even when you are totally clueless.

Why not just explain your reasoning, or don't mention anything at all.