Oh, I'm sorry Anthony's gone. I was looking forward to some interaction with another 'non-fundy'.

You seem to be extraordinarly sensitive to CS Lewis, RSM. I've never heard of someone being banned for using a quote as his/her sig.

What offence has Mr Lewis committed? Have you read his Narnia books?

(you won't ban me for mentioning his name, I hope!!!)

Marti

Marti, I am not surprised at your question. I had hoped we could work something out because Anthony demonstrated talent that could have been very useful on these forums. Let me clarify that he was not banned so much for using a quote from C. S. Lewis as for his attitude toward the situation. As indicated in my last post, his attitude was such that discussion was impossible.

Your question deserves a fuller response. Normally, when I disagree with a person's online behaviour I address the issue via private message (pm) and the individual either:

a) provides an explanation for the behaviour so that an agreement can be reached, or

b ) complies with my suggestion for change.

In my experience, this is normal procedures followed by most forums administrators. Members can also address concerns to administrators via pm; some concerns may be too personal to post in public. In this case, I considered the issue to be impersonal enough, and of interest to enough people, to post it on the public forums. However, it was very important to me that he not miss the post so I also informed him of this post via pm. This made for private and public conversation of the matter.

Some of the private conversation is not repeatable by my standards. His last post had to be deleted to retain the quality of these forums. My post of June 22, part of which I will repeat here, reflects this:



Anthony's offenses were disrespect for human dignity and disregard for the sensitives of others. He was told that if he posted or pmed me one more time with his old signature he would be banned. He did both. I considered the post indecent (disrespectful, insensitive, etc.) so I deleted it. I also kept my word and banned him. The pm was equally indecent.

I think this was fair because at first he had the opportunity to discuss the issues. In the end he still had the opportunity to change his signature--even if only temporarily till we had time to reach a compromise. I thought he might value membership enough to do that but apparently not.

If this procedure seems unfair perhaps we need to discuss it. I want my members to feel secure enough to speak freely within the bounds of respectful and polite conversation. Obviously, religious belief has no special status here; it stands on the same level as any other opinion held by humans and must be defended by the same kind of logical defense if the believer expects to be taken seriously.

Re "What offense has Mr. Lewis committed?" see my new thread.