test

[Beastt]

Display Report Count

Private Sub btnChoice_Click()
..Dim One As Double
..Dim Two As Double
..Dim Z As Double

..Cls
..Randomize Timer
..For Z = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.1
....One = Sin(Z) * (Rnd * 1000) + (frmDemo.Width / 2)
....Two = Cos(Z) * (Rnd * 1000) + ((frmDemo.Height / 2) - 500)
......For W = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.05
........W1 = One + (Sin(W) * 100)
........Y1 = Two + (Cos(W) * 100)
..........PSet (W1, Y1), RGB(0, 255, 100)
......Next
..Next
End Sub​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Sub btnRigid_Click()
..Dim One As Double
..Dim Two As Double
..Dim Z As Double

..Cls
..For Z = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.1
....One = Sin(Z) * 1000 + (frmDemo.Width / 2)
....Two = Cos(Z) * 1000 + ((frmDemo.Height / 2) - 500)
......For W = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.05
........W1 = One + (Sin(W) * 100)
........Y1 = Two + (Cos(W) * 100)
..........PSet (W1, Y1), RGB(0, 255, 100)
....Next
..Next
End Sub​

 

[Beastt]

πορφυρος

 

[Beastt]

Observed Speciation

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

[Beastt]

Binary color mixing

 

[Beastt]

Testing completed for this post

 

[penNpaper]

• test
• test 2

 

[lyonguard]

just hoping i chose right colors

 

[lyonguard]

???

 

[KatsuKobra]

Testing

 

[Beastt]

I know you may not have the time or the interest but it is my hope that you are interested enough in your position as Administrator to assure that those working under your direction be familiar with the proper and correct interpretation and application of rules. I have presented a few examples here to attempt to illustrate my points.

First I ask that you do me the favor of paying special attention to the clarity of the wording in the following statutes which are taken right from the revised statutes for the state where I live and work.

13-1506. Burglary in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits burglary in the third degree by:

1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.

2. Making entry into any part of a motor vehicle by means of a manipulation key or master key, with the intent to commit any theft or felony in the motor vehicle.

B. Burglary in the third degree is a class 4 felony.

13-1507. Burglary in the second degree; classification

A. A person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.

B. Burglary in the second degree is a class 3 felony.

13-1802. Theft; classification

A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property

(Note: In the interest of space, I have limited the sections of this statute to only those pertinent to my question.)

13-1805. Shoplifting; detaining suspect; defense to wrongful detention; civil action by merchant; classification; public services in lieu of fines

A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:

1. Removing any of the goods from the immediate display or from any other place within the establishment without paying the purchase price; or

2. Charging the purchase price of the goods to a fictitious person or any person without that person's authority; or

3. Paying less than the purchase price of the goods by some trick or artifice such as altering, removing, substituting or otherwise disfiguring any label, price tag or marking; or

4. Transferring the goods from one container to another; or

5. Concealment.

(Note: In the interest of space I've included only Section A of the statute concerning shoplifting. This should be sufficient for the example I wish to offer.)

13-1902. Robbery; classification

A. A person commits robbery if in the course of taking any property of another from his person or immediate presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent resistance to such person taking or retaining property.

B. Robbery is a class 4 felony.

13-3606. Bigamy; classification; exception

A. A person having a spouse living who knowingly marries any other person is guilty of a class 5 felony.

B. Subsection A of this section does not extend to a person whose spouse by the former marriage has been absent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living, nor to any person whose former marriage has been pronounced void, annulled or dissolved by judgment of a competent court.

I would ask that you consider thinking about the following questions. I think the answers to these questions might shed some light on the rule interpretation problems I'm continually seeing on this forum. I know this is asking a lot but perhaps compared to asking someone to tolerate being told they have violated a rule when no such violation has taken place, it's really not all that much to ask.

1. You are following a suspect you know is married. He is in the company of a female subject you know to be other than his wife. You observe from a distance as the two obtain a marriage license and then travel to a wedding chapel. The male party changes into a tuxedo and the female exits a small side-room wearing a wedding gown. The two stroll up the aisle and stop before the minister. At this point in time, can you charge the man with bigamy?

2. If you decide you can't charge the man from question 1 with bigamy, then based on the information I've provided here, is there a statute which does apply to the situation?

3. You have a situation wherein an individual has reached into the open bed of a pickup and taken an electric drill which does not belong to him. Does this constitute 3rd degree burglary?

4. You are called to assess a situation wherein an individual has reached through the open passenger window of a parked car and removed an item of value from the glove compartment of the vehicle. Does this constitute 3rd degree burglary?

5. You are presented the following scenario to assess: A subject has entered a retail store and concealed a $10 item under his coat. A manager confronts the individual and requests that he open his coat. The subject agrees which reveals the concealed store merchandise. The subject promises the manager that if he won't prosecute, he will return within one hour with the money to pay for the item. The manager agrees. Two days later it becomes more than apparent to the manager that the individual who took the item has not only violated their agreement but is offering no indication of any intent to comply with his part of the agreement. The manager calls you to assess the situation. Can the subject be charged with shoplifting?

6. A man enters a store and walks directly to a display of watches. After looking at several, he picks up a watch from a display and shoves it into his coat pocket. During the booking procedure you learn that he has no money, credit cards or checks in his possession. Which of the above statutes best applies to his actions?

7. Consider the following situation; Subject A has loaned his portable stereo to Subject B. Two days later Subject B has still failed to return the stereo. Is Subject B guilty of theft?

8. A woman walks down the street with her purse under her arm. As she passes a man leaning against a light pole, he grabs the purse and pulls it away from her then flees. Based on the statutes provided here, what crime has he committed?

9. A woman in the parking lot of a store is loading groceries into her vehicle from a shopping cart. As she turns back to the cart, she notices a subject reaching for her purse which is still in the cart. She shouts at them to stop but they grab the purse anyway and run to a nearby vehicle which they enter and then drive away from the scene. What crime have they committed?

----

You, of course, have the option of simply blowing this PM off and not responding. But I hope your desire to perform the duties of the position of Administrator to the best of your ability will prompt you to look into the questions I have presented and perhaps attempt to answer them.

The point is that you will likely not answer them all correctly because we all have preconceptions as to what the title of each statute means and these preconceptions are often lacking a degree of accuracy. I think the same thing is happening when staff are misinterpreting, and therefore, misapplying the forum rules. This will continue to be a problem even if Erwin re-writes every single rule. They must still be accurately and carefully applied only within the scope defined within the wording or moderators will continue to misuse their authority, even without any intent to do so. And it will only follow that as they work their way up through the ranks of staff, they will take these incorrect interpretations with them and teach these inaccurate interpretations to those who come to work for staff in positions over which they hold authority. Somewhere along the way, it becomes necessary that the chain be broken. Now is as good a time as any.

If, when you have the time (and I realize that time is probably the one thing you have very little of at the moment), you can attempt to humor me by answering these questions and presenting me with your answers, I can then provide you with the correct answers (assuming yours are not correct), which will help to illustrate the necessity of interpreting any rule/statute only within the scope provided the rule within the wording with which it is defined.

Note that nowhere within Rule 2.6 do the words "pre-emptive" or "reminder" appear. And without defining such actions as prohibited, there can be no credible claim that the rule prohibits such action, even if you wish it did.

 

[Beastt]

Demolitions Expert
Core Column - WTC Collapse
Ossama?
WTC Complex

 

[Beastt]

Just so there is a record to show how little time it took...

---

I agree wholeheartedly. I, too believe that the scrutiny which the reports get does serve a good purpose, in that it keeps the mods fair, as I have been the subject of disdain from certain moderators in thepast because of "elitism". (Not referring to here in CF, yet, btw.)

In fact, it actually frees the mods to "rule" and "decide" without the clouding of judgment. It's good for THEM.

Actually, while several will think it's good for them, it's a terrible system for the whole of the forum. Some of us have been here through this kind of system before and it will never lead to anything but what it lead to before. For starters, the forum will become vehemently divided. You'll have a secret society of winking, hand-shaking members on one side who conspire against certain members, hammer them at every possible opportunity, and then run around claiming they've done nothing wrong while keeping all of their records tightly closed.

You'll find an upsurge of complaints about this forum on other online forums. I'm not sure if the special sections devoted to the problems here still exist on other forums, but if they don't, rest assured they will be reinstated. Some people just can't seem to grasp the fact that you can't own people and shouldn't ever attempt to own people. Everyone has an opinion and attempts to quash opinions are nothing but admissions to how much those opinions frighten a given few, and of the guilt of the censors. So there will be a sudden increase in the amount of conversation you'll see on other sites, about the rampant mis-management and corruption to be found on this site.

It's not good for this site but if taken in stride, the lesson is simple; if you promote systems of inequality, secret little groups and massive corruption, you harm everyone including yourself. Unfortunately, to those who crave power, no damage to this forum will be too much damage for them to endure. And once they've chased out all the non-believers, it will be time to start closing the jaws of the vice on believers as well (as happened before). Pretty soon you won't be allowed to call yourself a Christian unless you fit their chosen definition. Then the definition will change again and become ever-tighter, weeding out more and more "undesirables".

Debate will become a thing of the past. There will still be a debate section and discussion will be allowed. Just make sure you don't make any strong points in favor of any non-Christian stance or your posts will go away. If that doesn't hide the truth sufficiently, entire threads will be zapped into the cornfield as was occurring here only a few short months ago.

Now is the time to become somewhat scarce and sit back and watch while the violence and misconduct of the Dark Ages closes in once again over this forum and destroys all the good work people have done over the past few months.

The saddest part is that some people will still allow themselves to serve here simply for the what minor prestige they can find in having some small amount of power over an Internet forum. Small minds and large egos are never far apart. Want to delete this post? Take responsibility for your actions and recognize that what you are doing is book-burning, plain and simple. You'd be better off to resign your position and leave the filthy work to those less ethically bound but even as Stalin was able to find those who would toss infants in the air to catch them on bayonets, there will always be those who are willing to perform the despicable act of censoring the work of others. Which are you, the ethical or the despicable? Only your actions will tell.

The timer starts here: 11-09-2007 01:38 MST.

Let's see how long it takes for the new kings new guards to destroy the evidence.

 

[MQTA]

My site supporter status expired, so I guess I've moved on. Nice to see you still here but it doesn't look like there's much of a future ??

 

[Beastt]

(Nice when it's necessary to document your documentation to try to combat the book-burners.)

Apparently, one of the new rules which just looks a little too much like what it is to actually put in writing is that any criticism of the policies of the new owner is automatically "off topic". This accommodates easy removal of any such posts.

(We'll see how long this one lasts.)

As has been said many times, when you have to hide what you're doing, it's an open admission that you recognize that what you're doing is wrong.

(Posted Nov. 17, 2007 08:40AM)

 

[Beastt]

Do atheists not care about the inequality of rights here ? Or is it that they think they ahve no voice with admin?

Some of us do and we actually had them for about 4-months. It turned into a real problem for the moderators because things started to run so smoothly there wasn't much for them to do. People started having far more civil discussions. Reporting seemed to have dropped off. People weren't constantly angry for being persecuted by a system designed around and for the promotion of prejudice and bigotry. It was a total disaster.

Fortunately, we now have a totalitarian leader who has already managed to restore most of the missing hate and discontent around here, thereby making sure the moderators are always busy deleting anything their appointed administrators don't like, slapping people down for sharing opinions and making sure everyone is "right-thinking" by punishing "wrong-thinking". It's kind of an on-line version of the Crusades but without the ropes, stakes and bon-fires.

I've been to quite a few forums on many different topics and, as a rule, the "Christian" forums do tend to be run in this manner. There is a lot of talk about tolerance, forgiveness, caring, sharing and love. When you ask that these qualities become operating principles for the sight, the majority of the Christians respond in utter shock and disbelief. It happened for a time but drove out many of the Christians who insist on having a strangle-hold on every word posted. I suspect a substantial number of them have returned and even more will be coming back in the up-coming weeks now that Lee has passed out the swords again, roped us back into a battlefield and again demonstrated that today's Christianity is designed around the promotion of intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

As has been noted by some leaders, a certain amount of censorship and control over speech, and thusly, thought, is necessary for the forceful suppression of ideas concerning equality and sharing to make way for ideals concerning intolerance and elitism.

"Only the continuous and steady application of the methods for suppressing a doctrine, etc., makes it possible for a plan to succeed." -- Adolph Hitler​

Some silly folk have this idea that even unpopular ideas should be expressed. But then, you'll notice such people never had much success in controlling the whole world and killing millions of innocent people.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire​

I guess in the eyes of the self-righteous around here, that makes Voltaire a... (Oh give me a break! I can't even say "_____"? Okay, then. How about "fool"? Can I say "fool"?) and Hitler a glorious model.
(I bet when they figure out that the word "dork" actually refers to the male genitalia of a whale, that will go on the list too.) Some people and their silly fear of words! I'm sure Hitler would approve.

This post will probably join several others I've had deleted in the past 2-weeks for being "off topic". What that really means now is that it was on topic but a little too on topic, and on a topic the admins don't want anyone discussing.

(Posted Nov 18, 2007 12:50PM)
http://foru.ms/t6442650-dear-atheists.html&page=5#post40827351

 

[Beastt]

My site supporter status expired, so I guess I've moved on. Nice to see you still here but it doesn't look like there's much of a future ??

Like usual, the future around here is modeled in the past.

 

[MQTA]

Like usual, the future around here is modeled in the past.

How's it been? I see my last visit was 11/11

So, Happy New Year

THOSE WHO WILL BE REMOVED FOR BETRAYING THE TRUST OF THE MEMBERS

​

• 
  ​

what kinda list is that?