So, let's see if I understand this:

The forum admin's prerogative is to decide what goes and what does not go on their forum. However, that right does not apply to anything religious; apparently, you feel that they, by some sort of divine power, should not be able to moderate or legislate anything religiously-oriented.

Huh? How does that one work? It's their forum, and they can do whatever they want. I believe you agreed to be bound to that clause when you joined.

There never was, nor is there now, any published rule regarding this. That is exactly why I posted this on this forum, it is only one of a very few that I have done so which is a secular forum. It is not simply a religious issue. If I have a signature that said that "I like Ike", I would still maintain a defense to their actions. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Because the ruling is question resides over a piece of religious material Seeker.

It is a religious issue, but its merely a religious issue based on a loose interpretation of rules. There is no stated rule in their rules to say you cant do that.

The stated rule is:

Get into Religion/Politics or controversial topics unless you are a "Selectee". Anyone with over 30 posts can request to be added to this group. Once you are a Selectee, you will be able to see a Controversial Discussions forum that nobody else can see. In this forum, it is okay to post about religion and politics (this includes Bible verses and the like).

There are no other rules that state that what is in the signature was incorrect, yet any rule can be interpreted the way an admin wants to interpret it. One might infer that having something in your signature that is "forum-wide" is a violation of the above mentioned rule because it defies the idea that religion stay withing its own restricted area.

compiledkernel,

It is understandable that you being a moderator, would have a different slant on this than I would. Whether you or anyone else agrees with me or not, a mod or admin is not an absolute ruler even on their own website. Had that website had a sign on their door, saying no Christians allowed, I would have never registered there in the first place...of course, I would never have done business with them either.

I'm not going to debate the legal ramifications of this, but no one can make a rule that is contrary to the laws of our country, and reasonably moderated discussion is permitted anywhere, on the net or otherwise. To interpret this as being a discussion of a controversial nature is equivalent to saying that if a person even mentions the word "God", that they are to be banned. Perhaps you agree with this, but then it should be apparent that I do not, and no amount of words is going to change that.

Not a slant Seeker, merely a possibility as to why it was interpreted the way it was. The rule very clearly states


In this forum, it is okay to post about religion and politics (this includes Bible verses and the like).

It seems that the administration is trying to keep that aspect internalized to that area alone. That something would fall outside of that capacity, it could be assumed this is a break of the policy.

Its not a matter of a slant for or against a Christian.

As far as your last assumption attends, you are drastically incorrect. While certain laws may apply in certain cases (Defamatory speech, libel, etc), banning someone from a forum because they say the word God, isnt illegal. It would be no more illegal for me to say I love Lucifer. I love Satan. I think that Baal is my God. Mephistopheles built my hotrod, yo. Or any other such statement. These of course sensibly offend you probably, but there is not rule that says I should be allowed or not allowed to post them. Its all really dependent on how many people become offended by it, or are harmed by it.

are you saying you wont do business with non-Christians?

compiledkernel,

It is not possible for you to totally understand the scope of this, because you aren't able to read the discussion that I had with that admin, because it was via PM. At no time, did he ever say that the verse was offensive to anyone, he simply said that it would not be allowed. At first, he made all kinds of apologies, but they held no water, because that was only lip service.

To compare this to inflamatory speech, or libel in no fashion equates, nor did he maintain that it did either. Even in their regular discussion forum, there is an abundance of discussions that are just as controversial, and potentially offensive discussions as there are in the debates forum. Up until that time, there had never been any form of moderation anywhere on the forum. Perhaps you might understand why I might have been particularly perturbed by this being the first. It was not caused by a list of complaints from the membership, it was caused by only two people, who did not find the verse offensive either. They simply wanted to provoke a situation, and they did.

In regards to your last comment, about whether I would do business with a nonChristian...I do that daily and without any qualms. But then most nonChristians do not make my faith an issue in the first place.

Not being privy to the discussions that were had creates a limited view that any one of us may have on the situation, that is correct.

I would wonder, if someone were to put in their signature "Bush Sucks, and for 5 Dollars he'll bend over too" , if theyd be banned for it, much in the same similar fashion that you put your item into your signature. That would be a litmus to the idea that discussions outside of the restricted forum (even in the form of a signature) defy the rule and cause a ban to occur if not removed.

Hrmmmm...*goes to register an account there and find out*.

seekermeister: The irony is that in response to being banned, you started a free advertising campaign for newegg. I had almost forgot about them completely, and then remembered they had good deals on a DVD burner I wanted.

Hey no foolin'. They have a whole slew of wireless networking cards too..

Thanks muchly

newegg might not know what automatix is, though.

compiledkernel,

If I weren't a Bush fan, I would find that humorous. Let me know what happens.

EDIT: Then again, it would have no bearing on how I felt. To compare an obviously offensive signature to mine doesn't mean anything.

As for you and the rest of the "wise" shoppers, do as you please. If a dollar mean more to you than the principle involved, who am I to complain. I never started this thread to tell anyone what they had to do.

Ok, thanks. I just ordered one of these..

Newegg.com - offspring KBGL1 Silver 104 Normal Keys USB Standard Blue luminescent Keyboard - Retail

I don't really need it, but it's very "Tron" looking

You just have to understand that what's offensive is arbitrary, and there is absolutely no place for religious stuff in a forum about computer parts.

Don't demand respect if you're not behaving with respect yourself.

My first instinct is to make a joke about the Heretics Fork: But I'll let that inference lie. Your statement makes me think that you must be no stranger to heated discussions regarding theism; particularly Christianity.
I look forward to reading more of your threads.

I think I'm starting to picture it: You, an established member, no stranger to heated discussions; They, a pair of [relative] newcomers who take umbrage at the attitude of your posts (an attitude which is becoming apparent in this thread*).** These poster then begin a campaign to somehow lessen you in the eyes of your peers. This campaign escalates.

It seems to have annoyed you. Perhaps some "Formal Complaints" against your antagonists' statements would have been appropriate at this point, then maybe it would be them posting here about the prejudices of NewEgg administration.


It's good that you adhered to your principles. I respect that.
I believe that this statement is triggering the debate that you later state that you do not wish to begin, because whie you may not think there are any offensive phrases in the Bible, a lot of people disagree.

So, shortly after you issued what could easily be taken as a direct threat (though indirectly issued) to the forum, you were banned. That seems very reasonable to me. I would hope that you weren't surprised when it happened.

From what I can infer, you were treated quite poorly by certain non-members of the forum and very fairly by the administration.
The forum administrator issued you a request to remove something from your signature block, you refused and got into an argument over it. If that were all, then your banishment was unfair, however, you proceeded to threaten the administrator with something that could at worst, have a financial impact on NewEgg.com and at best, cause a nuisance of people registering only to harass and flame the people who support the administrator's opinion.

I didn't reply with the intention of debating my statements either, but that doesn't make my statements any less susceptible to critique and discussion by the other members of this forum.

I don't find that even slightly offensive. Even in the context of the section of bible that contains it. I also like James 1:27
There are plenty of good quotes in the Bible, many of them even offer good advice. Isaiah 13:15-18*** is plenty quotable, but certainly not benign in any sense of the word.

* - I don't think attitude is a negative thing, simply another interesting facet of the varying posters on a message board.
** - Lynne Truss was right! The Colon family of punctuation is addictive. I hope I'm not completely abusing it.
*** - Random bible quote taken from The Skeptics Annotated Bible

Close enough.
Any annoyance was not due to those members actions, it was due only to the admin's actions. I can't remember if I stated it or not, but up until that time, this forum was TOTALLY unmoderated, and it would have done no good for me to lodge complaints against them, even if I had been inclined to do so.
Without question, if I had wanted to offend anyone, I could have chosen a verse that would have been far more effective in that manner.'
There was no surprise. I made it very clear from the outset what my thoughts were, and what I would do. The admin made a concerted effort to convince, coerce and even placate me, but it was all lip service. Had I actually done anything wrong, I would have commended him for his behavior, but I had not. The timing of my banning in regards to this communique with my friend may have been coincidental, because I had found that the admin had edited my signature to exclude the signaturebar himself, and I then replaced it. Either one or both were the deciding factor in his actions. Either way, it had less to do with me, than it did with the Biblical reference.
It was not a threat, it was a promise. The only thing that I have ever done is to request that people advise Newegg's public relations of their thoughts and feelings about this, I never told them what to say, nor what to do. I do not mind critique in the least. Your's is the first post on this thread that has discussed it intelligently.

Are you trying to tell me your on drugs? I dont care about the 'validity' of my "advice". Validity would suggest that I some how believe there is an ultimate equalizer to validate or reject any "thing". I believe, at best, its all relative. This in its self, is not an ultimatium either. Even my thoughts on relativity are still thoughts in a world that is... in some form or another.

Thank you for supporting my opionion with your ad hominem argument. Your continued insults and foolery only makes me sad that I have gotten sucked into it. It brings me back to my first thread that went over so well :]