Gransnet guidelines

Of course not! Obviously somebody got nervous with it being "Sunday the 13th" and complained.
If you can PM a copy, probably not, I'll compare it with my previous bouts with GN

Did you mean a thread , Alexa?
(Posts are quite frequently deleted).
If you are thinking of the same thread I am it was getting very abusive and to those who do have a Christian faith, some posts were decidedly blasphemous.

I agree MawB. I reported a post the other day as some of the language being used by one poster was offensive and as a Christian I found it blasphemous

Discussion is good, and when it's about religion and faith it can encourage us to re evaluate what we believe in, or not; it can strengthen our faith and commitment.

To resort to insulting others for their faith or lack of it
and what they believe in, closes the door on informative and intellectual debate.

It's a pity that an entire thread is deleted but IMO it was a good thing this one was.

If it was the thread I remember, the original poster was getting quite unnecessarily aggressive against religion, particularly Christianity. He/she was also abusive toward posters who were not appreciative of his/her circular obsession with a highly abstract and theoretical conundrum re the implications of the doctrines of free will and predestination on the choice of belief and disbelief, and the poster's rage at the unfairness of a deity said to punish those fated by His own decree to choose disbelief. I left the thread early on, when it was clearly becoming less an intellectual discussion and more a series of harangues.

Probably better deleted before it all came to blows. If you want intellectual discussion, why not start another? There are plenty of people on Gransnet who could discuss theology with sense and sensitivity. You are still likely to get posts from extreme atheists and extreme fanatics, though, as well as reasoned discourse.

I think it is a shame when threads become unpleasant. I avoided the thread in question because I guessed how it would end.

How many threads start as an interesting discussion and degenerate into name calling which stops people posting and ends up with just the same few people agreeing with each other.

I didn't see the thread in question so cannot comment but I do think it can be somewhat arbitrary.

One of my posts was deleted recently, strange because it was early on in a long thread so clearly no one had thought it a problem and many had discussed it. I asked why and didn't get a reply. I do think that we should be told, if we ask, what is wrong not just that something is being deleted. I don't think that they should be deleted just because one person doesn't like them.

I asked why and didn't get a reply. I do think that we should be told, if we ask, what is wrong
Nonnie; Although I've been a regular deletee in the past, I've always received a reply to my emails asking "Why; what particular guideline?" Each time I also ask why the reason for deletion cannot be published instead of the less than useful "deleted",so that interested parties can learn from others' "mistakes." No luck
Just to lighten up a bit; there was a "league" table of deletions established by members; think I was " top" for a brief time with 3 in a day, until somebody trumped that with 5 in a week, but it became too complicated.!

It's all arbitrary. It depends on who is on duty. At weekends there tends to be more caution, possibly because it's junior staff on duty. As for the reasons they are deep,dark and possibly unclear even to the people doing the deletion. (I expect this thread to go soon-thread about a thread!!)

(I expect this thread to go soon-thread about a thread!!)
No way! One thread doesn't exist, "deleted"!, so that guideline is irrelevant! Your fears are unfounded - trust me! Cheers.

It's happened before Rufus

Alexa, consider how many posts were directed at the member and not what the member was suggesting- Deletion was inevitable-

Quite a few of those type posts (mentioned above) were hypocritical, of course, they contained playground name calling- Funny how that works- How one preaches to another that they are being rude and yet are the first in line to type something totally against their personal sermons ..

Rufus2 Mon 14-Oct-19 13:13:27 in that case should I complain about sexism if you are indeed male and get responses when I, female, didn't? Sorry HQ, a joke.

Thank you Carriegransnet for your prompt reply. I forget exactly which thread it was . I fanct it was one that feqatured Gnostic and me agreeing with each other pretty well while most others more or less didn't.

What makes a sermon different from a post on any discussion website is that the sermon has a captive audience and no discussion is expected. That's obviously not the case with gransnet where discussions are lively, free, and wide ranging.
There is no right not to be offended by others' opinions and beliefs. Except apparently on Gransnet.
However I am not the website owner or even a moderator so if I want to continue here I do so by invitation only and I bow to that.

Your point about

Rosecarmel:

"Alexa, consider how many posts were directed at the member and not what the member was suggesting- Deletion was inevitable-"
.
I agree personal attacks should be beyond the pale . I did not see any of those and if I had I'd have objected then and there.

MawB suggested some posts of that deleted thread were close to blasphemous. Since blasphemy is subject to specific faith prescriptions gransnet contributors should not own the right not to be offended.

Some posters are allowed to say what they like.

IMO it should be possible to have a reasonable discussion about in this case religion, without resorting to language that those of a particular faith find offensive.

For any poster to refer to the God that others believe in as a 'male appendage of a god' (you can I'm sure work out which word was used) is grossly offensive and that is just one example.

I don't agree that any poster on that particular thread did "own the right not to be offended" Alexa any more than a poster owns the right to insult others for their faith and to insult the faith they believe in.

I totally disagreed with Gnostic's posts and managed to express my disagreement without giving offence to what s/he believed. It's a pity s/he was unable to do the same.

Please read en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Prick was the word. God has been called many a worse name!

I think Gnostic, if it was Gnostic, referred to the demiurge god as a prick. Gnostics hold the immanent god in high esteem.

I reported a thread (probably the one that was deleted) because the OP posted that a person should shove something up their ***** (not bottom). I found it offensive, rude and totally unacceptable considering the person concerned had done nothing other than state their point of view. I felt an abusive element had entered the thread and I reported it to GN saying they should read it and decide themselves what they thought. They obviously had more reports than mine and decided to delete it. I have no objection to people say they don’t believe in God I have no particular objection to them telling me I am stupid to believe but I do object to God that I believe in being called such names. Sorry if you don’t agree.

Sometimes I feel that some GNers have led very sheltered lives. I really don't understand the inability to use simple terms of abuse or slang. OK you might not say it but surely anyone can type them? As for people calling your God names if someone said they were a Satanist would you expect to accord them the same respect?

Doodle I reported the very same thread for exactly the reason you gave.It was offensive and totally uncalled for.The poster showed no respect and no tolerance and though I believe God could see where he /she was coming from I certainly could not .

In a word trisher yes. I would not agree with their beliefs but I would not resort to calling them names or deriding them because of their beliefs.