Featured Inquiring minds want to know...

I'm actually curious now what the steps are when banning a long-standing member. I can understand banning the trolls we've dealt with lately (you know who I mean...with their never-ending True or False questions).

But with a member in long-standing, is the process different? Do the mods/admins follow some type of order where the poster is approached first about their actions and given the opportunity to change their ways? Or do we just ban first and ask questions later?

I'm genuinely curious...

 

In the case of The Bib (I've never conversed with him about it) it appears he was banned first and then approached to rectify the situation AFTER a certain amount of public outcry on this board.

 

They are given warnings and assessed points against them. After multiple warnings they will ban them. Sometimes it is for short periods like a couple of weeks. Other times it is more long term.

 

IMO, it was going to be a 'dead horse' until Squire foolishly resurrected the issue.

 

Maybe, from what I have seen it does not look like archangel was going to let it go. Of course now the wagons are circled.

 

Wait a minute fellows, according to the rule "People using multiple accounts may be banned." It says may be banned. Not will definitely be banned, but possibly be banned. Now carry on with the fight.:laugh:

 

The above is a shameful paragraph.

I have probably not heard of some Christain men you respect. But for to spout off that they are the spawn of hell should raise some righteous indignation.

Yes, Dr. Mohler is held in high esteem. And some nobodies deserve the same Christian courtesy of not regarding them to be be under the curse of Galatians 1:8,9. Whether you are famiiar with him or not, don't think it is okay for someone to drag his name in the mud.

 

No one will be critical of what you believe if you discuss them openly. They might interact with them.

I do have a hard time with the attitude about Al Mohler who is a leading spokesman who never backs down from the ungodly media.

Listen to him on sermonaudio, or youtube:thumbs:

 

I have no idea what you are talking about and how it relates to my words that you quoted.

 

Regardless Squire, you've made one unwise move after another concerning the matter. From the very gitgo when Willis first referred to robt. k. fall as 'Squire' you should have had enough discernment about you to know right then and there that you were BUSTED. But you didn't. You fibbed instead. You could have hunkered down, not said a word, let robt. k. fall just fade away into the past never to be heard from again and that would've been the end of it forevermore. But you didn't do that. You took sides with DHK and actually agged the contention on further through robt. k. fall. And I could go on, but all this ultimately shakes my confidence in the 'authorities' on this board. It's crystal clear to everyone that we have no safeguard with you. DHK can be just as bellicose as he wants and run roughshod over your forum and post whatever he wants with impunity, because you'll do nothing to stop it, no, you'll actually side with him.

 

Imagine if I had said :

As for the matter of David Innes; though some here hold him in high esteem --most do not. For all the direct influence he has had on my life and Christain walk, he might as well be on the moon. I really don't care if some have said he is outside the othodox Christian faith. If you are upset with that,if your feelings are hurt when I say that; too bad.

 

The keys words, which you ignored, were in my title :"Imagine if I had said..."

You and DHK are on the same wavelength. Both of you do not care if a godly servant of the Lord is called a reprobate --someone outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy. And that position by both of you is absolutely disgraceful. If it was not a matter of being so disgraceful --it would be laughable among the leadership of the SBC.

David Innes, who I had never heard of before, might just as well be called the tasteless names DHK( and you who have given tacit support)attached to Dr. A.M. In addition,to claim ignorance of who A.M. is, and his reputation,is absurd in the extreme.

 

You must misunderstand the meaning of the word criticism. For you to say that DHK has merely critized Dr.A.M and a whole swath of people with his outrageous ephithets (which I will not repeat) is the understatement of the century.

It reminds me of those who classify the NIV as a "perversion","not the Word of God" , "full of evil" etc. Are those just criticisms? Of course not, be honest.

 

What have they said though about David Innes and Dr Mohler that has you up in arms here?