The Stu Story

[weishaupt1776]

[b]This is continued from another thread: http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2652&page=3

Originally Posted by wisper

Stu,.. Anyone.. Why does this post say deleted? Since it doesn't show editing by Stu, does it mean the moderator was involved?

Originally Posted by RickA

Folks, Stu's posts were never treated in this manner before, why now? I know a few folks don't like what he posts, I'm one, but is it now being said that we can't simply ignore what we do not like to read, to the point of editing everything and leaving just the name of the poster? The affore mentioned isn't right folks.

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

I am not going to pull any punches here, so be ready.

If you do a search on all posts started by Stu, you will see that the large majority of them were started to question/slam/insult those that believe in the Bible.

When Stu was questioned about this, he never answered, to my knowledge, at least he didn't give a position.

When one questions, it helps , just as in a court setting to know where one gets the authority to question the one being questioned.

Stu never gave that authority.

This morning, Stu came on, after being dealt with in a straightforward manner behind the scenes (via PM) and showed that he had no intent other than to disrupt and basically show his true nature, which is/was vindictive.

As soon as a thread was locked, he reposted the same thread: "I'll have my way or kick and scream about it."

This board is pro communication, but anti-antagonization.

Stu asked for what he got, which ended in his being banned. Stu refused to deal in a professional manner, and he insisted on acting in a provoking manner.

If you don't agree with the decision that was made, you don't understand.

The former owner, whom I have the utmost respect for, insisted on this board not being censored in any way. Even then, he had his limits, banning Skeptic.

There are lines to be drawn.

When a child kicks and screams in a public meeting, there comes a time when the child needs to be attended to, or the distraction renders the meeting useless.

If you want a board where disruptions are the norm, visit quatloos, or http://www.anti-state.com/

This board is about learning and TWO WAY communication, and I, for one don't think that's censorship when someone, after being asked MANY times, refuses to act with honor.

I know for a fact that the current administration gave him 10x the rope needed to hang himself.

For that, I give them a big thumbs up.

Henry Franklin

P.S. Richard Allen,

While you may not mind reading the insults/questions of Stu, there are new members, who want to find the truth without wading through the sewage.

P.S.S.

Keep in mind that I am speaking for Me, and not necessarily the Administration, who may correct or put me in my place.

Originally Posted by Livefire

I for one completely agree with the banning of Boynton Stu, it was overdue I think. Not because of his viewpoint of a Creator less universe, but because it seemed his only intent was to gender strife on the forum. Several others have points of view that counter many of us here who view things from a "Christian" perspective, nonetheless they eloquently express those views for the purpose of discussion and have other interests on the forum. Stu on the otherhand seemed single-minded in his posts to start an argument and use manipulative responses to provoke people to anger without adding anything of real value. If one but look, you will find his postings pretty much restricted to the religious forum.

The only thing I could possibly fault the mods and admin on is that they probably should've just outright banned Stu WITHOUT deletion of his posts. That did send a message of sorts to the members of the board who hold different religious/cosmological points of view. I took the deletion of those posts as warning not to rock the religious boat even tho I am a believer in Jesus Christ. I say let his posts stand and bear witness to all that Boynton Stu was nothing but an a$$ who had more in common with the quatloosers of this world than the sovereigns! I want the record to show THAT is why he was banned and not because of a difference in viewpoint.

Jason, Henry, and Weis.....you guys have yer hands full!

Now back to the Spiritual Man Study!

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

Members,

Today I took it up myself to suspend Stu. Although there were requests by other members of this forum for the same, the ultimate authority for the decision was mine.

Without making a big of deal out of this matter I shall state the following for the record that I have no hard feelings against Stu, nor do I take a pro-Christian stance on these forums. If information is presented properly in harmony with the Terms of Use and is within the spirit or the intention of what this site has been set out to accomplish, then I have no issue either way. However, when it comes to theology such is always a sensitive subject and for all intents and purposes the position of the Administration is Constitutional in nature, thus promoting free thought and free speech with only a few exceptions.

If anyone can present a case in opposition to my decision to suspend Stu, I shall take it under serious consideration. Although, I do not see how a solid argument can be presented, for if one looks at the track history of and pertaining to his posts the context is quite clear.

The forums here are out of balance in my opinion with not enough focus on law and too much time and attention spent on Stu's posts or theological inquiry which have resulted in debate dealing with matters of Christian theology.

It should be further known that I had personally communicated to Stu that if he presented his information in a different capacity other than shock and awe i.e. inquiry or statements with say "points and authorities" in support, whereupon if he was attacked I would stand up for him. Such never happened.

If anyone feels that I have overlooked something please be sure to let me know.

Thanks,

Jason

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

Regarding the deletion of posts: That was my fault and I should not have done it. I was awoken this morning quite early, early for me at least, having just a few hours sleep to attend to this Stu situation. I belive I delted 2 of Stu's posts however, Bowman may have deleted something else that I had not read. However, if someone posts something clearly spiteful, ill spirited or intolerant whether directed at a member, culture, class, race or this site, be i known that I will surely smite thee!

Originally Posted by RickA

I wasn't aware that so many felt this way, I remember reading of a few, but not to this degree.

Henry Franklin. I can see your point about new people having to weed through those kinds of posts to get what they are looking for. It would make it rather difficult. Oh, I've been to Quatloos, don't care for that way.

Originally Posted by PJT04

ARE YOU SERIOUS? WHAT EXCEPTIONS ARE THOSE?

I CAN'T BELIEVE A FORUM LIKE THIS THAT PROMOTES INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND SOVEREINGTY IS BANNING SOMEONE WHO QUESTIONS THE CHRISTIAN ESTABLISHMENT. ISN'T THIS SITE ALSO ABOUT QUESTIONING THE BANKING AND LEGAL SYSTEM? THE TAX SYSTEM?

I BELIEVE STU NEEDS TO STAY. IF HE'S BANNED THEN WE'RE ALL BEING HYPOCRITICAL HERE.

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

PJTO4,

Sir, you clearly have misunderstood me. I am NOT pro-Christian, nor pro-any theology whatsoever. I am non-theological and thus take no position on one theology versus another. However, I do maintain opinions regarding Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and the like but care not to share my opinions on this Legal / Political forum. My opinion is that this is not the proper venue for the discussion of such really. Although, if people have a solid argument in utter opposition to Christianity or to any other theology they are welcome to post such but not in the nature of a tactical data grenade simply lobbed over for the purpose of getting the respective Christian or other members of a different theological background in an uproar. I fully support discussion and debate about such topics; in fact I find it to be quite important, but again, it is my humble opinion that members of this forum seem to be distracted or have been distracted in part by Stu's continuous posting of non-legal material which did nothing more than stir up the Christians and further, was not presented in an intellectual fashion. If it was, I assure you, he'd still be around and I would defend his efforts even if I did not agree with him just as I would with any other member.

Jason

P.S. To clairfy as if I had failed to do so, the EXCEPTIONS are: intolerance of the following: race, creed, culture, class, ethnicity, origin, gender, or theology and political beliefs in addition to blatent postings aimed to disrupt the peace and dignity of this forum or disrepect the respective membership or our administration. This is not unreasonable now is it?

[weishaupt1776]

And more discussion:

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

Jason Whitney posted (bold emphasis mine):



And PJT04 replied:


Certainly one's spiritual path is a very personal and sensitive subject. I've taken a few jabs here myself as a result of exposing my own spiritual beliefs and experiences, but I've continued to express myself in spite of occasional hurt feelings.

I do harp on certain points because I believe with all my heart that religious persecution always arises out of the fundamental belief that one's own religion is the ONLY true path and that all others are doomed, or damned, etc. As soon as one allows oneself to subscribe to such a belief, one's attitude towards others often takes a serious (even if subconscious) shift ... which can then (and often has throughout history) lead to the abuse, rejection, and even murder of those who do not share one's own religious beliefs.

This is an issue that was deeply important to many of the Founding Fathers of this nation who rejected organized religion in favor of Deism - the belief in a creative intelligence responsible for the design of the Universe, rather than any so-called "revealed" religion that is based upon any supposedly holy writ (like the Bible or the Quran or the Book of Mormon) that was supposed to have been inspired by god.

I question the wisdom and the example of banning someone just because his questions and opinions might stir up religious ire. We all have a choice as to whether or not we will take offense at something. You cannot make someone love you... nor can you make someone hate you. We are each in control of our own emotions (and is that not part of being "sovereign?), and we each make choices concerning how to react to someone else's comments or questions. We can debate, we can ignore, we can agree, we can scoff, we can insult, we can add our point of view... or we can just plain reject someone simply for having a different style of debate and a different belief system.

What would Buddah do? What would Mohammed do? What would Jesus do?

What happened to Jesus' teaching: "Turn the Other Cheek"?

*

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

I missed that. Where was that stated as being the cause? Or even the only cause?

Please do tell.

Henry Franklin

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

Heidi,

As a matter of spirituality I agree to an extent. However, unlike the aforementioned spiritual leaders, this forum is NOT about turning the other cheek, at least I don't envision such. Others may not either. I for one would hope that more people stop turning the other cheek and learn how to aggressively litigate using the court system as a vehicle to facilitate change in addition to utilizing the political process even with all its problems, too many to mention.

Stu as I have continuously stated was welcome to post commentary in opposition to Christianity or any Theology as long as it was intellectual or heck, Scientific. Theology by and large as you well know does not mix with the Sceinfific method and thus, is discounted by theologians but may give rise to debate.

You see, if someone was to post even in the legal forms the way that Stu had it would not cut it. Saying such things as you patriots are a bunch of nut-jobs or conspiracy flat-earther fanatics such as the typical commentary spewed forth by a great many over on the Quatloos forums who pass through here on occasion. One liner commentary of that nature does nothing to further education but gives rise to digital warfare and these forums may allow for intellectually grounded dueling of sort but outright warfare, this is another story.

Your thoughts?

Jason

Jason Whitney posted:

... unlike the aforementioned spiritual leaders, this forum is NOT about turning the other cheek, at least I don't envision such.

I absolutely agree Jason. My comment about Jesus' teaching: "turn the other cheek" was my attempt to point out that those Christians who so vehemently turned against stU were thereby not living up to the teachings of their own chosen "lord and savior"... particularly "Mr. Incredible" who routinely shot back one-line insult salvos himself, but has never been called on it. I think, if you want to be even-handed, he should have been censored then too.

if people have a solid argument in utter opposition to Christianity or to any other theology they are welcome to post such but not in the nature of a tactical data grenade simply lobbed over for the purpose of getting the respective Christian or other members of a different theological background in an uproar.

That's an interesting point, because it is just the sort of data that stU habitually posted - info about the intelligence of great apes, or about the age of the cosmos, or the age of the Earth, or the illogic of certain religious dogma, or scientific data contradicting the Bible scripture - that would result in angry jibes rather than intelligent debate simply because certain religious dogma simply does not stand up under rational discussion. Scripture was then quoted which basically states that anyone being rational or prudent would find certain scriptures to be foolishness (I agree, BTW ) and was therefore an unbeliever (obviously...) and was therefore unsaved (i.e. headed straight for hell, damnation and the lake of fire... which is obviously where my agreement stops!). The following link takes one to a well-written treatise on this scriptural "catch-22":
http://www.deism.com/thinksam2.htm

DISSECTING CHRISTIANITY'S MIND-SNARING SYSTEM
by Stephen Van Eck

An excerpt (bold emphasis mine):
...When propagating a religion where proof is not available, one that contains logical absurdities, it is essential that the logical processes of the mind be short-circuited. Paul attempted this with his facile quips, "The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God." (I Cor. 3:19), and "The foolishness of God is wiser than men." (I Cor. 1:25). This summarily rejects all logical quandaries as if they're of no consequence, and saves the trouble of having to explain them away. We are merely to trust that, as I Cor. 2:14 informs us, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." In other words, you're incapable of understanding the "truth" of their doctrines because you're working with a sinful, carnal mind, rather than a spiritual one. Once you give up and give in, then you'll understand. This inverts the process of knowing from "see it to believe it" to "believe it, then you'll see it." But should one expect to gain real knowledge subsequently, Paul crushes that by informing us "his ways [are] past finding out!" (Romans 11:33) So don't even try--just comply.

This might be followed up with the familiar saying of Jesus to Thomas "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Doubting Thomas is such a useful negative role model that if he hadn't existed, it would have been smart to invent him. And perhaps they did. The Synoptic Gospels don't report this episode, only John does. Mark (16:14) implies that Thomas had been present with the others, but John (20:19, 24) says he was not.

Romans 8:6-8 further articulates Paul's strong bias against the sense one was born with. It claims that the carnal is inherently anti-God, which is strange since one would assume God made it that way. It also states that those "in the flesh cannot please God" and "to be carnally-minded is death." You can't get any more emphatic than that.

For anyone not gulled by this tactic and who persists in defiance, a proselytizer might invoke II Thess. 2:10-12, in which Paul claims that "God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." This section is often used to suggest that textual problems could look cut and dried to you, but only because God made it look that way as punishment for your willful refusal to believe. Certainly it would be within God's power to so confound your mind. (Skeptics should correlate this dastardly measure with Hebrews 6:18, which states that it is impossible for God to lie.) Anyone in this position is clearly at the brink of doom, and had better relent now!

Another coercive tactic of proselytizers is invoking the "unforgivable sin" of Mark 3:28-29. Jesus was vague about this, but to later exegetes it meant resisting the work of the Holy Spirit in his efforts to save your soul. This, of course, is manifested by the proselytizers trying to convert you, so to oppose them is neatly construed as opposing the Holy Spirit, and becomes, by extension, unforgivable.

Backing up all these tactics, of course, is the Ultimate Stick: the threat of Hell Fire. Countless millions have gone along with Christianity merely as a form of "fire insurance." Better safe than sorry, which may be intellectual cowardice, but what a safe, and what a sorry.

Once sucked into the parallel universe of Christianity, the adherent is too intimidated by the existing framework of threats and rationalizations to attempt escape. Even thinking along alternative lines will induce severe feelings of guilt. And should one run the risk of losing faith by examining its true foundations, he is certain to be chilled by the dictum, in Hebrews 6:4-6, that "It is impossible for those who were once enlightened...if they fall away, to renew them again..." Those who originated a religion based on deception and delusion clearly knew that if the conditioning broke down or wore off, it could not work again. But that's when the true enlightenment occurs.

The conversation techniques of Christianity are crafted with a powerful psychological insinuation. Once roped in, people tend to stay in, since every passageway out has been systematically sealed.

Jason, continued: I fully support discussion and debate about such topics; in fact I find it to be quite important, but again, it is my humble opinion that members of this forum seem to be distracted or have been distracted in part by Stu's continuous posting of non-legal material which did nothing more than stir up the Christians and further, was not presented in an intellectual fashion.

Wasn't stU's "non-legal material" posted in the forum section entitled "Religion"? And although indeed confrontational and/or provocative, it was much more grounded in scientific thought and logical inquiry than many of Mr Incredible's one line slams at stU. I thought stU often engaged in a form of logical cross-examination that, although blunt, was often a good example of adversarial argument. His posts attracted other intelligent contributors like Wisper and PJT04 and Kry... people whose comments I found extremely interesting and edifying. StU posted an equally challenging indictment of Islam ("...a loving religion?"), which was responded to by Iscovedel and then by yours truly, dealing with very important issues of human rights (particularly those of women).

Jason, I respect your directive that one-line slams and resorting to argument from intimidation (personal invective) not be tolerated. I also respectfully submit that some of those who disagreed with stU actually directed that very sort of response at him... which was their choice to do and was therefore their responsibility. I would not blame stU for the sort of uproarious responses that the Christians often made. That's like saying, "your behavior made me lose control"... oh balderdash!!! They could have chosen to follow their own leader and "turn the other cheek" ... or better yet, chosen to engage in a logical and reasoned discussion... or if unable to do either of those two constructive things, they could have chosen simply to ignore stU's post(s) altogether... right?

*

[Livefire]

I gotta laugh!!!!

BS was an intellectual cretin. If one looks at his early posts, they were nothing but cut and pastes from other sites and wasnt giving proper credit by linking. Heidi thats called plagarism and it gets you tossed out on yer dupa in the academic community. In your vernacular it gets you a lawsuit courtesy the RIAA goons! As far as I'm concerned, the monkey Stu was referring to already has more on the ball than he ever will! So much for the scientific "truth" of evolution. Henry Franklin and myself systematically destroyed his postings time and time again on this forum. Jason is so right...the religion part of this forum is to bring us to a deeper understanding of the foundation of law and liberty, thereby allowing us to live life more abundant and free. Stu wasnt about any of that.....he was trolling around for an argument and getting his kicks when people would get upset at him.

THAT is why he was shown the door.......nothing to do with personal convictions. BTW....the former admin showed the boy great latitude and turned the cheek many times. I wanted to repsond very harshly at times to his posts, but held back, at least as much as is possible with me! Anyways, Im sure he'll find a wonderful, loving home over at quatloos!

[weishaupt1776]

Heidi, Stu was banned from the yahoo group Lawwork (Clyde Hyde-deceased) AND Marc steven's Board.
Both guys I believe are Mormons , but were vehement in their mission statements on their boards NOT to bring up ANY religious topics.
Being a member of both boards, I witnessed Stu's banning twice.
If one was a member, they wouldn't be able to tell that these guys were mormons, 'christians', or moslem for that matter

Stu, however posted anyway and kept on, despite many prohibitions by the owners.

Clyde had challenged stu to provide the basis of what he was talking about and he failed, thus getting himself banned

So, in summary, Stu was not banned here or in the previous board due any evidence of intellectual prowess which overwhelmed our senses(which Stu like to think it is, but is sincerely deluded on that point).

Stu was banned here and on other boards for not following the terms of use which resulted in him being annoying and disruptive(behavior evidenced on other boards)

[David Merrill]

BoyntonStu reminds (reminded) me of me on Quatloos. But in that forum the mission statement is to debunk fraud. However, in my mind the Quatlosers are perpetuating fraud and maintaining a protectionism for the status quo. I prod them into exposing that profile.

In a way BoyntonStu reminded me of me on ecclesia.org too. However under the clearly religious heading "God's Word" many readers there consider it a Christian forum. A place only to air Christian doctrine. Therefore they felt justified in aggressively insulting me instead of the points I was making; and get kicked off the forum.

BoyntonStu seemed to simply stir up fights for no other reason than he enjoyed doing so. Better he get booted before he starts getting people so riled Admin must start correcting angry posts.

Speaking for myself, BoyntonStu was easy enough to ignore. But speaking by the evidence, a lot of people got upset enough they could not restrain from posting responses. Like the insultinator (plagierizing Heidi's term) over on Quatloos. If they ever get control of their blurts, they will be useless. Any reader with a few marbles rolling around up there can see through the facade. Even the motif is around admiralty and especially piracy - trial by fire without peaceable remedy; attorneys and attorn etc...

http://www.quatloos.com/TaxForums/index.php


Regards,

David Merrill.

I certainly do respect the rules concerning providing links whenever we quote someone else's writ.

I think we've "killed the messenger" in stU's case, though, because he often posted very interesting information, but some folks were rubbed the wrong way and couldn't just ignore stU if he said something they found too distressing. Others became insulting too... but I must defer to the decisions of the moderators here because I realize there must be respectful parameters for all rational discussions. Thank you for elucidating your reasons for us.

*

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

BoyntonStu seemed to simply stir up fights for no other reason than he enjoyed doing so. Better he get booted before he starts getting people so riled Admin must start correcting angry posts.

Speaking for myself, BoyntonStu was easy enough to ignore. But speaking by the evidence, a lot of people got upset enough they could not restrain from posting responses.

That's it, David. I was able to ignore his garbage no problem without getting drawn in. People felt compelled to feed the troll, so the troll grew.
After i saw that Stu had no real intentions of being objective, I just viewed him as a fly.

I had to step in and question him and take action, because it seemed that no matter what he posted, people felt compelled to reply, thus distracting them from research on remedies out of the Matrix.

...research on remedies out of the Matrix.

I respectfully submit that religion throughout the ages has been inextricably wound up with "the Matrix", and that "revealed" religions themselves have been matrixes as well. When some of us question the beliefs and practices inherent in these religions, we are seeking to inspire people to consider the effects of such thought patterns (memes) on our lives and on the lives of others.

*

[weishaupt1776]

Yup, religion is pretty bad