By the way, I'm not sure Vestitor and orthohawk are actually talking about the same thing. If I'm right, it might be worth rereading before it becomes an argument. (And if I'm wrong, by all means forgive the intrusion and argue on.)

Vestitor:

orthohawk:

oh, yeah. "let's just sweep it under the rug and maybe it'll go away"

Yeah, that always works just fine.

Okay, let's go at it for hours on end then. So that everyone can feel bitter about it and hard done by. Is that better?

[/quote]no, oh master of the red herring. Let's get a forum wide call for evenhandedness going in dealing with these kinds of things. THAT is what's better.

orthohawk:Unfortunately the one person whose words on this subject I still have a copy of has requested me to keep our correspondence private, which I must abide by. As for the others, I had no idea when we were corresponding on this before, that I would need to be keep their messages as proof of this assertion.
....
I don't take honestly felt critique of my beliefs as an attack. But it's a differnt story altogether when my priest is called a "child molester" solely on the basis of his vocation, and when the central figure of my faith is maligned and called things that would make a sailor blush, sorry but that's where I start swinging. And this kind of crap (pardon my French) slung at THEIR favorite political figure, e.g., is saddled with the false label of "treasonous". Can we say "double standard"?

If someone violates the site's terms of service via private message, you should report the message. Obviously if you have promised to keep correspondence private, you should not post the text to public forums, but that shouldn't be seen as a restriction on reporting a message as a violation of terms of service. I am assuming we are talking about the same type of message (i.e. someone said "keep this message private but your priest is a [bad thing] and oh by the way *#@% you" )

Religion is a touchy subject but generally we try to moderate religion with a light hand. A statement like "If you don't believe in my religion you are going to hell" will generally be deemed ok, as is the opposing statement "all religion is hooey" or even "your religion is hooey" (depending on context and what else is in the message - "your religion is hooey because there is no deity" would be more ok than "your religion is hooey because its adherents believe in things that are nonsense"). However "The priests of religion X are child molesters" would generally not be deemed ok.

Regarding deletion of accounts, the average user does not usually have a full picture of what has gone on. Warnings are generally given privately. Some people delete their own account after receiving a private warning. Some people are given a private warning and continue to violate terms of service and then their account is deleted. It is rare that an account is deleted by an administrator with no warnings whatsoever, and this normally happens only in the case of repeated egregious breaches (note: what the person's debate partner sees as egregious might not be the same as what an admin sees as egregious, and the offending egregious message has usually been deleted by the time you notice that the offending user's account has been deleted, so the reason for the deletion is not always clear.)

And for the record: (a) We are adults and not children; therefore, we do not care who started it; (b) someone else violating the terms of service is not an excuse for you also to violate terms of service, and (c) it is very possible to defend your point of view against someone's attack while still remaining well within the site's terms of service, so "s/he said a bad thing and I had to defend myself" is not an excuse either [these statements are not directed at any one person but they reflect complaints that moderators get from people whose posts have been deleted, frequently from *both* sides of the debate]

Breto:@robb

Sadly, "Funky Buddha" is just the kind of thing that a person can expect in a land preaching freedom of speech and tolerance of religion. You have every right to be upset by this use of the Buddha, and they have every right to be dismissive of your concerns. Should they be? Of course not...but it is their right.

but it's also his right to not be told to "just suck it up" when confronting the powers that be when those same powers turn into Mr.Hyde when dealing with offenses against their own pet personages.

Breto:I am not Buddhist, and I claim no real knowledge of Buddhism. I am, for the record, Christian...Lutheran if I need to be specific. I have to see T-shirts and Facebook posts and whatever else about "Zombie Jesus" this and "Ninja Jesus" that basically every day, while hearing constantly about the terrible things being done by people claiming my religion as their own. We all have our crosses to bear, if you'll pardon the expression, and we can't really get rid of this sort of thing without getting rid of that freedom of expression America holds so dear. Everyone gets to speak their mind...even the stupid people. They have the right to say whatever they like, and we have the right not to listen.

I'm not asking for the anti-religious to be quashed here, per se. What i'm asking for is more even handedness in dealing with offensive speech; if poster X gets to bash me for my beliefs, I should be allowed to bash back without having to worry about my account being closed or even an admin climbing all over my behind for "being rude" or whatever. As I said, either everybody gets to or nobody gets to. We can't have it both ways.

but the main point of my original post is that people are being driven out of Lernu and away from Esperanto because of this double standard. I have corresponded with (and in one case spoken to) over a dozen people who have thrown up their hands in disgust over this, and how their concerns were (mis)handled by admin. How many more left without ever saying anything? and please note: sometimes it isn't even about religion. Leporinjo was basically driven out because of the attitude she was met with. Whether her feelings were "valid" or not is not the issue. She and her cohorts were being shunted aside and treated like annoying toddlers all because some few were too ignorant (or bigotted) to accept them and their concerns with the seriousness they deserved. Leporinjo would have been a great "movadisto" but the double standard she faced here put an end to that right quick. Is this where we've landed as a movement? Are we more of an exclusive club now? If so, then I truly hope Esperanto goes the way of the dodo bird.

erinja:

orthohawk:Unfortunately the one person whose words on this subject I still have a copy of has requested me to keep our correspondence private, which I must abide by. As for the others, I had no idea when we were corresponding on this before, that I would need to be keep their messages as proof of this assertion.
....
I don't take honestly felt critique of my beliefs as an attack. But it's a differnt story altogether when my priest is called a "child molester" solely on the basis of his vocation, and when the central figure of my faith is maligned and called things that would make a sailor blush, sorry but that's where I start swinging. And this kind of crap (pardon my French) slung at THEIR favorite political figure, e.g., is saddled with the false label of "treasonous". Can we say "double standard"?

If someone violates the site's terms of service via private message, you should report the message. Obviously if you have promised to keep correspondence private, you should not post the text to public forums, but that shouldn't be seen as a restriction on reporting a message as a violation of terms of service. I am assuming we are talking about the same type of message (i.e. someone said "keep this message private but your priest is a [bad thing] and oh by the way *#@% you" ).

and what about messages on the forum? same thing? I hope so, because reports will be coming.
W

It's astonishing and quite hilarious how many religionists, when prodded a little, think they are logicians. Then go into a tizzy of asking for 'proof' of this and that, and digging up all manner of names of popular arguments in old-fashioned logic.

If, for example, you're a catholic and some foolish arse says your priest is a paedophile, there's nowt to do about it. It's the Church's fault for ignoring it and letting it get too big to contain.

I hear a lot that Marx was responsible, directly or indirectly, for Stalin's gulag, or Pol Pot. I don;t cry to moderators about it, I just know that those saying it are dimwits with the reasoning capacity of a pencil.

Let it go.

Vestitor: ... in old-fashioned logic.

How does old fashioned logic differ from the forms with which you might be acquainted?

Vestitor:It's astonishing and quite hilarious how many religionists, when prodded a little, think they are logicians. Then go into a tizzy of asking for 'proof' of this and that, and digging up all manner of names of popular arguments in old-fashioned logic.

If, for example, you're a catholic and some foolish arse says your priest is a paedophile, there's nowt to do about it. It's the Church's fault for ignoring it and letting it get too big to contain.

I hear a lot that Marx was responsible, directly or indirectly, for Stalin's gulag, or Pol Pot. I don;t cry to moderators about it, I just know that those saying it are dimwits with the reasoning capacity of a pencil.

Let it go.

"none so blind as he who will not see" indeed.

orthohawk:and what about messages on the forum? same thing? I hope so, because reports will be coming.

Surely you have noticed the "report message" button on the forum. You may use it as you see fit.

Using the button does not guarantee that anything will happen to the message, an admin will take a look at it and act or not act as they see fit.

A lot of messages get reported simply for containing viewpoints that people disagree with. If we deleted every message that said "[insert any country's name here] is a totalitarian dictatorship", or "[leader of a certain country] is a dictator" then certain threads would be reduced by half (with different countries filling in the blank -- reported by different people depending on which country, of course).

Religion-related messages used to get reported a lot (we got a lot of accusations of being pro-religion and anti-atheist, and also of being pro-atheist and anti-religion) but now that particular crown has gone to messages on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That conflict reports up a storm when someone on the other side says something they disagree with.

erinja:

orthohawk:and what about messages on the forum? same thing? I hope so, because reports will be coming.

Surely you have noticed the "report message" button on the forum. You may use it as you see fit.

Using the button does not guarantee that anything will happen to the message, an admin will take a look at it and act or not act as they see fit.

Well, that has been the problem (or rather the LACK of any action has been the problem) in the past for at leaat a dozen people and God only knows how many others who just left without a word.

erinja:A lot of messages get reported simply for containing viewpoints that people disagree with. If we deleted every message that said "[insert any country's name here] is a totalitarian dictatorship", or "[leader of a certain country] is a dictator" then certain threads would be reduced by half (with different countries filling in the blank -- reported by different people depending on which country, of course).

I'm kind of surprised, given thine own complaint recently in a message to me about the Ukraine thread, that thee hasn't done just that.

erinja:Religion-related messages used to get reported a lot (we got a lot of accusations of being pro-religion and anti-atheist, and also of being pro-atheist and anti-religion) but now that particular crown has gone to messages on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That conflict reports up a storm when someone on the other side says something they disagree with.

As I said before, I don't give a fig whether you're pro-religion or pro-atheist. it's the disparity in treatment of both camps that is the problem. One camp is seemingly free to say all sorts of vile, disgusting (and in some cases libelous) things about the other camp, in some cases with post after post after post, but then someone from the other camp speaks up, well, then it's like a squadron of raptors has been let loose.