Vuk, the way I read your quoted post, you called Muhammed an animal in an insulting way. You used the word "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That particular post cannot be interpreted in any other way. You have to admit that.
I do? Who said that I meant it in an insulting way? I already said that I didn't. I remember someone calling Jesus Christ a pig, a over-praised proposter, and other things. Mods never commented on them...maybe because the mods share their views...
Whatever the case, nothing that I could have said (no matter in which context you choose to take it) was in anyway any worse than the things that other members of the board said about Christianity.
I think you are well aware about what Muhammed means to muslims. Like you, I don't like political correctness and everyone has the right to express his opinion, even if it's completely wrong, stupid, idiocy, totally misplaced, insulting, etc etc. It's called freedom of speech.
Ahh...yes I do. 
I am also sure that the members of this board know what Christ means to Christians. The first time I say something untrue about muhamed, I will forgive a comment that they said about Christ. Yes, I have insulted Muhamed. I called him a jigalo, a pervert, etc. But everything I said about him was true. I was not just mindlessly insulting him. I was presenting fact with poetic expression.
But, and here it comes:
There is no freedom of speech here.
Dhepee explained it much better than I will ever be able to do so right
HERE
You're darn right. There is no Freedom of speech, but there should be an equality of speech. (You know, the old "what's good for the goose is good for the gander") If one party can say anything they want (inside nearly boundless limits) about Christianity, they (or another party) should be able to say anything they want (within the same limits) about any other religion.
A little while ago (50 or so years back), you could do nearly anything you wanted to a black, but if you messed with a wighty, you got it. Now you can say anything you want about whites, but you get it if you say anything about blacks. Being a mix of both, I get it both from the old prejduces from 50 years ago and from modern ones. That is why it is important that everyone be treated equally (which isn't to say that they can't be treated differently. I am not saying that guys and girls should be forced to wear the same types of clothes!). You shouldn't treat discussion of one religion differently than another. If facts, and truth, and rational discussion are allowed, then it should be applied to all religions. Certainly, people shouldn't be able to mindlessly insult one religion!
So, there's only the Org rules that can be applied here.
You signed up and thus you are supposed to know the rules of the Org, but here's a reminder:
Originally Posted by DA RULES
Examples of objectionable messages include (but are not limited to):
...
Let's take this one step at a time.
Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory,
nope inaccurate,
certainly not abusive,
nope vulgar,
not unless islam is vulgar. What are you trying to say? ;) hateful,
more like truthfull facts cannot be hatefull, only opinions harassing,
nope, i was asked obscene, profane, sexually oriented,My sources certainly were, but they were direct from the koran. if their holy book is in violation of Guild rules, you should say directly that one cannot post passages from X rated "holy books" ;) threatening,
Heavens! I should hope not! invasive of a person's privacy,
nope or otherwise in violation of any law
nope. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged.
nope The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate.
k, this is the closest to a rule that you could say I eer broke. I did make a few comments that, thought true, were of an intense nature Please respect etiquette at all times.
Sorry, never learned my etiquette when I was young, surely one can't be punished for that? ;)
You called the most important figure of Islam an animal, using "animal" in a pejorative meaning. That's a fact. No more, no less.
That is your opinion. Whether you are correct or not, you cannot prove ones intent. ;) muhamed is the most important figure? Then where does poor little allah boy come in? Poor little boy, guess you forgot him. ;)
Which is in some countries a violation of the law. It's also defamatory (=harmful), abusive (=expressing offensive reproach), vulgar (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste), somewhat hateful and harassing (=annoying persistently, challenging aggressively).
In countries where woman are killed if they are raped by filthy animal men (there is that animal again ;)) they are put to death. I hope that that is not the type of country that the Org is going to base its policy on.
It is obvious that your post violated the rules and the warning was just imho.
If you assume meaning (which a mod should not be doing), I violated A rule, and he can give me a warning if he wants, but removing my access is completely an abuse of his power.
Oh, and you shouldn't complain about regular members giving their opinion on the issue. By making a thread in the Watchtower, you made this discussion public. If you wanted to have a discussion only with the Admins, you should have used the
PM function instead of the Watchtower.
I already explained why I didn't settle it by PM. I couldn't.
A Petition To Reverse Abuse
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Re: A Petition To Reverse Abuse
WEE! This sounds fun!!
(Pannonian)
(Pannonian)
Bookmarks