[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie

Sorry there's bad blood between you and Janeway. She and I don't have any problems and I'm an agnostic. Of course I'm not sure if she's aware of that. Somehow I don't think that in and of itself will matter to her as she seems, to me, to be a level headed and easy going person.

What I don't understand is what personal info is problematic to you? I didn't have to give any more there than I had to here. I don't have a 'side' here. Just sayin' and askin', my friend.

It's not the personal information that is the problem. The problem is trust. I wouldn't trust Janeway with my personal information.

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

You do realize you can open a free web based e-mail account for the sole purpose of internet use? Just make it up

I do realize that but you can't change your IP. Also why should I bother when this forum is just fine?

Originally Posted by chator

I don't like censored boards, personally. That's the problem I have with Administrators. Having my threads eliminated is frustrating!

It's nice having a neutral board like this one. Censorship in the wrong hands is a scary thing.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

I don't trust people on other boards with my personal information.

EDIT: For those of you viewing this via the The Star Trekkers Fourm. Janeway the creator of The Star Trekkers Forum seems to think I'm the Antichrist because of my personal views on religion. Janeway takes my comments, questions and concerns personally. If I can't have a rational debate with someone I can't trust that same someone with my personal information.

May I offer an unbiased observation:

Your commentary has not been influenced by rationality.
You haven't been aggressive.
Yet you haven't been objective either.

You clearly don't like religion
You clearly telegraphy it to others.

I don't mind.
But others may be more sensitive when you say their God murders.
I learned this lesson myself that no matter how objective you are certain statements just will not go over well in civilized discussions.

You might want to consider talking with individuals in PM on certain views rather than broadcasting it if you think it won't be received well and if they don't want to PM then you know they are just drama queens and you move on.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

I don't trust people on other boards with my personal information.

EDIT: For those of you viewing this via the The Star Trekkers Fourm. Janeway the creator of The Star Trekkers Forum seems to think I'm the Antichrist because of my personal views on religion. Janeway takes my comments, questions and concerns personally. If I can't have a rational debate with someone I can't trust that same someone with my personal information.

I wouldn't join a board administrated by someone who calls me anti-christian either, but perhaps Janeway apologizes and you two can sort it out.

Originally Posted by Saquist

May I offer an unbiased observation:

May I laugh off my a*s, Mr.Objective?

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by horatio

May I laugh off my a*s, Mr.Objective?

Be my guest, far be it from me to deprive you of a gratuitous cheap laugh at my expense.

[MagaditH]

[janeway72]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

It's a matter of trust not paranoia. If I was paranoid I wouldn't be on this fourm.

So because I think your viewpoints on religion are a bit extreme, I am now what exactly?

A psycho?
A thief?
An internet stalker?

Anyone else felt that I have over stepped the mark. I said you were anti Christian. I did not say you were the anti-Christ. You think I'm suffering from a delusion. Looks like we are equal.

First of all, I have no idea what to do with an IP address other than ban that IP address from the forum and I have no intention of doing that except for the spammers or if someone was being racist or bullying.

Second of all, no one else seems to have had any problems with me stalking them or harassing them in anyway AFAIK. Anyone?

[kevin]

Well, I don't leave it because the lights are still on and it's not been shut.

That too basic?

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by Saquist

May I offer an unbiased observation:

Your commentary has not been influenced by rationality.
You haven't been aggressive.
Yet you haven't been objective either.

How so?

Originally Posted by Saquist

You clearly don't like religion
You clearly telegraphy it to others.

I'm not a big fan.

Originally Posted by Saquist

I don't mind.
But others may be more sensitive when you say their God murders.

Taken out of context that statement may seem harsh. The argument was that violence should be censored in media. I stated that once you start censoring one thing someone is going to find a reason to censor something else. I stated that there is a lot of violence in the Bible. Jayway stated that violence is always portrayed as a negative thing in the Bible and I stated not if God is committing the violence specifically murder in this case. God commits global genocide in the story of Noah's Ark does he not?

Originally Posted by Saquist

I learned this lesson myself that no matter how objective you are certain statements just will not go over well in civilized discussions.

You might want to consider talking with individuals in PM on certain views rather than broadcasting it if you think it won't be received well and if they don't want to PM then you know they are just drama queens and you move on.

So what you are saying is matters of religion should be discussed out of public view?

[janeway72]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

Taken out of context that statement may seem harsh. The argument was that violence should be censored in media. I stated that once you start censoring one thing someone is going to find a reason to censor something else. I stated that there is a lot of violence in the Bible. Jayway stated that violence is always portrayed as a negative thing in the Bible and I stated not if God is committing the violence specifically murder in this case. God commits global genocide in the story of Noah's Ark does he not?

Noah's Ark is a story that most Christians accept is metaphorical... just like Adam and Eve. Many early civilisations have flood stories.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

Taken out of context that statement may seem harsh. The argument was that violence should be censored in media. I stated that once you start censoring one thing someone is going to find a reason to censor something else. I stated that there is a lot of violence in the Bible. Jayway stated that violence is always portrayed as a negative thing in the Bible and I stated not if God is committing the violence specifically murder in this case. God commits global genocide in the story of Noah's Ark does he not?

Good point and if I may add something, one could easily label the Songs of Songs pornographic.
I am already looking forward to the violence- and sex-free versions of the Bible and Shakespeare. The Ministry of Truth will rid the world from this filth which poisons our children. Oh how I love the Big Brother.