Mods, I consider the openining of a new thread in my avatar name a violation of 2+2 posting policy.

I didn't name this thread so how can you name it and stick my avatar name on it as the author?

This is a form of plagiarism.

Please delete this thread immediately.

No, it's the mod.

He let Round Guy make several "turd" posts at me and get away with it.

Great, now I can give the reply I really wanted to give to this.

I dispute your humility. I'm humble enough to accept that I don't have all the answers. I find the certainty that there's a god (whichever religion) and that the god in question has a 'relationship' with you, and cares about you specifically, to be incredibly arrogant and egocentric.

You presume to lecture us from your position of certainty which is also arrogant. Religion disguises egotism and arrogance and an unreasonable, irrational certainty in a thin veneer of humility.

"we're not perfect, we're just better than you"

So all your god's past crimes are forgotten and irrelevant, is that how you justify worshiping such an awful creature to yourself?

gtfo of this thread.

I'm having 2+2 review it for plagiarism.

LOL, '6. Otherwise arbitarily re-defines the meaning of words to suit her line of thought'.

*takes a drink*

I don't have one for issuing crazy orders without any authority whatsoever.

Another use of arbitary redefinition. *takes a drink*

They also think they can set up new threads in your avatar name and name the thread from their own atheistic viewpoint.

2+2 really isn't a player's site anymore. They have let atheism over run certain subforums and steer those forums just because there is a high number of atheists on here.

Atheists have been attacking theists on here verbally with impunity for years.

They should rename themselves "Atheist 2+2 Forums".

It might get deleted, so you might as well answer. Or is the thread being split the excuse you're going to use to dodge this time? You got more moves than Justin Beiber.

Plus, that really wasn't a very humble tone of voice, I don't respond well to being spoken to like that.

Explain to me how your certainty isn't arrogant.

I didn't even read your post.

I want this thread deleted.

I object to mods starting new threads in my name that I didn't name.

That is plagiarism not modding.

*takes a drink*

Damn, up to 3 already. Like I said, the Splendour drinking game is tough on the liver. Technically redefining both 'plagirism' and 'modding' is two Splendourisms but there are limits to what I can reasonably drink.

Which parts of the T&C do YOU think apply?

In contrast, that is, to the parts of the T&C that actually apply, which you must have read, right? (hint: on a privately owned forum, where the owner is not you, the owner can do all sorts of things which you have already accepted, at your own risk)

I'm not reading any posts.

I've reported it.

Any more tantrums or is the drama ove?

I'd say the drama is on your part.

I have a right not to have threads opened under my avatar name.

Especially when the thread title isn't representative of my thoughts.

This forum is concerned with representing atheists imo.

There is not enough impartiality to debate here.

There is not enough openness to learn here either.

Most people on here are evil because they twist God's words and attribute the devil's doings to God then say "Take me serious".

What? Take an abomination seriously? Stop all spiritual growth and forfeit my eternal life to spare you a little drama?

I'd rather take a bullet to the head.


Oh btw, this forum was not originally opened for debate purposes only even though a philosophy student like OrP prefers to run it like it was.

Read the sticky. It was never debate dedicated so just because a high number of people want to debate doesn't mean the minority has to serve their purpose.

Claiming not to be reading any posts and then responding to posts...this is similar enough to claiming to be leaving a thread and then not doing so. *takes a drink*

More gratuitious generalisations about atheists, that's a drink.

We're on 5 so far.

I'm undecided if hysterical ranting is a Splendourism or not, but I think we can safely add '11. Displays of deeply rooted persecution complex' to the list.

On the contrary, that's what Atheists do best.

What I'm not prepared to do, is accept your regurgitated Dogma as fact without question, I simply don't have the facility to suspend reason like that.

This is very true, but there was an expectation to have debates in debate threads and no debating in nondebate threads. I don't remember where this came from, but in the edit Original Position said it was off topic - moving off topic posts is ok, isn't it?

The RGT Rules state this:

You made a post which was inflammatory (comparing atheists to a "bunch of donkeys") and would obviously lead to a discussion off the main topic of the thread it was in ("Help me understand atheism"). As a moderator of this forum, it is my job to decide whether such posts should be deleted as stated above ("Posts will be deleted at Mod discretion"). By the time I read it there was already 23 responses, so I didn't think deletion was a viable option. In such cases, rather than deleting all the responses, my practice has been to create a new thread dedicated to the topic instead of deleting the entire discussion (which would be overly controlling in my opinion--obviously people want to discuss it). It is indeed within my power as a mod to create a new thread using one of your posts as the OP if I deem it appropriate. Thus, I will not be deleting this thread.

However, titling it as I did, "A Thread Not Worth Reading--Really," was inappropriately negative. When I move off-topic posts to a new thread I will typically try to title the new thread according to the topic of the discussion. Since this thread doesn't really have a clear topic, I instead used a title that inappropriately reflected my own view of the subject matter. Thus, I will change the title to the more neutral, "Some more moved posts."

As always, you are free to bring this up with the site administrators or start an ATF thread if you disagree with my decision.

It's clear that you didn't start this thread as the first post tells us that.

It's not plagiarism as any quote from you is clearly credited to you and not passed off as OrP's original thoughts.

You can choose to just stop posting if you don't like the rules here or the dictionaries we use.

You need to be concerned with yourself and not others. I think a very fitting story for the situation is Matthew 20:1-16

Down with the fascist plagiarizing mods.

@Splendour,

I agree with OrP and support his actions completely. If you have a problem with the way this forum is modded you can take it up with ATF. But a reminder to you and everyone else (which is why I am making this post publicly) that this forum is modded very fairly for 2+2 standards and the last person to take his issue to ATF was Rizeagainst and he is now banished from RGT (and was perma banned for a while). So I would be very careful in picking your battles.

I'm with that guy. (But if we get in trouble, ban him please ).

I took something to ATF as well. OrP allowed this from deaders

"This is not the happy clappy christianity forum to discuss how jesus bummed you in a dream last night."

Maybe it's me but that seems very inappropriate for a Religion board.

I'm curious, how many issues have you taken to the mods/ATF?

You don't open a thread in a poster's name and take their post out of context.

For one thing I didn't choose to manage the new thread and secondly it is a form of plagiarism as it changes the context that the ideas were originally presented in without the author's permission.

I don't care if I get banned for stating this. I will not have my personal prerogatives or the flow of my ideas disrupted by someone else.


What is Plagiarism?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
•to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
•to use (another's production) without crediting the source
•to commit literary theft
•to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).

All of the following are considered plagiarism:
•turning in someone else's work as your own
•copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
•failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
•giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
•changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
•copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.


http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_artic...lagiarism.html