Rocky

ok, i get it... you guys can continue to pile it on and I can't say anything about it... i get it. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Well, BRAGGING to me about that isn't going to do you any good. :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Really? I'm neither a "member" nor have any such association. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

It was like 3.2 beer... watered down... :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

And in case no one has noticed, this has turned into a public ganging up on me. Not by Pawtucket, in this case. and btw, Simon -- next time, please wear your tie to church! :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

considering your demands that I stop telling the truth to be inviting me to tell you my concerns is completely disingenuous. There is no other fair way to describe it than that your two ganged up on me privately to tell me to stop. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

And "airing this out privately" meant having a private topic with Pawtucket bringing his very articulate friend Pamsandiego in to try to convince me that what was going on wasn't what was going on. Ganging up on me privately is a more fair description of your attempt. And let's be candid (read HONEST): high maintenance means I refuse to be intimidated, at the same time as I don't get the same favored treatment given to QQ and Zixar. I'm done with this too, for now. But telling me that I am not being honest is far from the truth. I'm the one that's out in the open about this... and I did not ask anyone here to advocate for me. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

At the time I posted the thread at question, I did NOT have access to any political forum here. At the time I posted THIS thread, I did not have access to any political forum here. THIS is the FIRST place I have read you stating what you have practiced: that you refuse to tolerate complaints... at least from me. Fair or not, that's the way it's going to be. At least NOW you have stated the rules. However, since it applies only to me, it is still ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. I will check the profile, but if I have access to a political forum here, it is because someone with administrator rights changed it within the last hour. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Roy, Your kindness is so refreshing. Thank you. Of course, I also do not always agree with you. But I think your kindness is very valuable. As to my discussions, I also put my views out there and don't care if someone disagrees... As to being open minded, well I consider opposing view points. I don't always change my mind, but I consider them. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Mr. Strange, Your perspective on this makes absolutely no sense and misses the issues and the point. There is nothing "sneaky" about posting a legitimate topic for discussion where it's available for me to do so. There is EVERYTHING - ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS about what happened to my discussion. I'm not going to rehash any more of the detail of the history than I have, but Wacky and Excie have simply and in nonconfrontational ways stated what the real issue is. Banning me from political forums here because of someone else's refusal to follow rules, and the forum owner refusing to enforce compliance does not justify limiting me from talking about legitimate issues for discussion. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

So Tom, are you privy to stated rules that everyone is is not? whether Pawtucket's actions or intents are evil is not relevant. In the realm of deciding on things like this (judicial type actions), Pawtucket's actions are correctly labeled ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. That is because the actions are independent from the stated rules and done for reasons contrary to fairness. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Now the most telling thing here is that Zixar acknowledged "reporting" my thread. I have consistently stated my take on why I have been banned. The rationale I was given stemmed from my reporting posts that were "not attacks". Here we have an admission that one of those who gets favored treatment from Pawtucket does what Pawtucket told me pi$$ed him off, even though what I had done did not violate the forum rules in any way, so how will this be handled by Pawtucket? Well, I have my hunch, but will refrain for now from saying what that hunch is. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Does that mean everything teachers teach is correct? Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

THIS IS THE OPEN FORUM. COWARDICE IS COWARDICE AND CONTINUES HERE. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Well, Zixar, You said you reported my post. Why was that? Did I attack you? This is the OPEN forum. Cowardice is cowardice and it continues here. --------- Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

thanks, but I've been silenced for other people refusing to comply with the rules. I have been banned from both politics threads, specifically for other people refusing to comply with the rules. Apparently so that I can be attacked with impunity. Cowardice, simply cowardice. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Apparently it's not women that are being silenced in this church. I started a thread on Arizona's Barry Goldwater, and now it's gone... who did I harass? who did I attack? I'm puzzled. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

No problem... I've encountered the kind of attorney that belongs in that bus at the bottom of the ocean. I assure you, I understand. :)--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Of course no one thought it would be a walk in the park. But really, film critics together with used car salesmen? Perhaps some film critics pander to the movie makers with empty flattery, but thoughtful, intelligent criticism is nowhere near that category. And the guy doing the item for the Arizona Republic obviously has been to church, Sunday School, and knows the story. He also has some of the educational background to be able to relate the movie to what I am interested in knowing about it. As to why you want to see the movie, I think that's wonderful. And nothing I have to say should be taken as attempting to discourage you from that experience. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

btw, my next career might start with law school. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

LOL Fog, that's really funny! And btw, I think your question is a valid question. And as I am not as dogmatically against the same sex marriage concept, I don't have an answer for you. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Mark, You just summed up the rational (rationalization) for trying to get an amendment passed to prohibit same sex marriage. Now, as much as the concept is currently distasteful for me to even consider (the concept of same-sex marriage), I don't believe that concept is as inherently dangerous or even evil as the religious right (wrong) would have us believe. And I do believe that there are some very eloquent and persuasive people and arguments being posed to support expanding our society's recognition of this situation as reasonable rights. It's as divisive as the notion of abolition of slavery and granting women the right to vote. But it's going to happen and even amending the Constitution isn't going to solve anything. It's just a natural progression, as many other things, of educating everybody. And by education, I mean, that everyone is given (generally speaking) the opportunity to get a basic public education and many more are going to college now than in generations past. Pluralism of thought, coupled with egalitarian education, makes it inevitable. Rather than summoning the religious fervor to further divide the country, people will do well to prepare themselves for acceptance. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articl...-review24.html# The Passion of the Christ Bill Muller The Arizona Republic Feb. 24, 2004 12:00 AM Maybe it's better if we just learn about Jesus in Sunday school. Left in the hands of Mel Gibson and his The Passion of the Christ, the basic message of Christianity - love your brother - is obscured under torrents of blood to the point of benumbing the audience. From the time Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is captured to the time he is crucified, this film is one long, savage beat-down. Given the movie's relentlessly graphic violence, it's a tribute to director Gibson's clout that he avoided an NC-17 rating (The Passion is rated R for graphic violence). The basic lesson is that Hollywood is here to entertain, not educate. If you want to learn about Christ, your local pastor or priest probably is a better bet. As a teaching tool for children, The Passion - in Latin and Aramaic with subtitles - is virtually useless. It's not only that kids shouldn't see this movie. Many adults shouldn't see it, unless they feel like spending a lot of time with their hands over their eyes. While it's not unreasonable to include a certain amount of blood and violence in the Passion story, Gibson goes overboard, including a gruesome and prolonged flogging scene, as well as a repetitive sequence in which Christ is battered to the ground while dragging the cross, then slowly climbs to his feet. If you can see past the violence, there are some inspired moments, including an eerie opening involving Jesus being tempted by Satan, and a scene in which Jesus's mother recalls him tripping as a child, juxtaposed with his struggles to reach Calvary. The suffering of Judas - who betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver - is well-handled, as are the disciple Peter's denials of Christ while Jesus is being hauled away to the Romans. While Jesus' mother, Mary, is not given many lines, Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern makes good use of her eyes and facial expressions to convey emotion. As a conversion tool, The Passion of the Christ is lacking. Many of the faithful who fill theaters this week will walk away glowing, considering this represents one of the most prominent dramatizations of Christianity's most important event. For non-believers or fence sitters, The Passion could seem cryptic and unnecessarily visceral. Those who haven't been to Bible study recently will probably miss some of the more subtle points, though all the basic milestones are there. As for worries of anti-Semitism, those who go into the film looking for bias will probably find it, but there's nothing obvious. While the Jewish high priests come off as fairly bloodthirsty, the Romans don't fare well, either. Governor Pontius Pilate's conscience-stricken waffling seems a bit far-fetched, given his bloodstained historical legacy. While Gibson clearly has credibility problems, mostly tied to his adherence to ultra-conservative Catholic views and his Holocaust-denying dad, it's his preoccupation with violence that does him in here. Think about Gibson's movies for second. Just the body count from the Lethal Weapon films would fill a small cemetery, not to mention all the heads that went a flyin' in Braveheart. Hard to catch the hidden meanings when you're wading through blood and guts. Luckily for Gibson, with The Passion already sold out to church congregations nationwide, he's preaching to the choir. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Wacky, I "feel" for ya! (not completely flippant answer) I do appreciate your feedback. I also wonder whether there is some unwritten expectation that all Christians would want to see this movie? AND... I also do experience emotions and whether I was numb during or at anytime after my stint in the twi army, I don't know. but I am not numb now. Part of my problem is that I can experience too much empathy. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

What time is it when you need to see a dentist? 2:30 (Tooth-hurty) nyuk snicker har har har Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.