Sheila,

For someone who is constantly urging others to answer questions, it seems strange that you still have not directly answered whether you are J.P. Holding or not. You also have not provided a single reason why you should not be banned.

This is not a thread to discuss motivation--yours, ours, anyone's.This is a thread to discuss whether this forum (or ANY forum, really) should allow participants to do what you've done.

I want to give you one more opportunity to do the following:

A) Answer directly whether you are J.P. Holding or not.

B) If you are J.P. Holding, explain why we should allow people to create false identities to promote themselves and their own outside websites on this forum.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Eddie,

may I ask to what extent this breaks rule #1 according to the forum FAQ?

http://thebeastmovie.com/forums/faq....faq_guidelines

I ask this solely for clarification.

from Punkish

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



I'm not the one making films about the matter, contrary to the bulk of credentialed scholarship, and distributing them to churches, often under false pretenses, dear.

I take it you can't show a single place where I said, "Holding is da bomb" or whatever. Apparently you think mere use of material from his site is some sort of effort to that effect. So in other words, if Holding provides the most thorough available treatment on subject X, I am obliged to find some other website with lesser material simply in order to please you.

In other words, as your namesake and my fellow toon does, you're pulling a scam. It's a way to effectively "ban" use of Holding's material here by means of "coercion" because you know you can't answer it; you know that it destroys Brian's silly little film, and the lackadaisical arguments of the people here, and you fear that.


Perhaps I really don't care. My liege will make capital of it, whatever you do.

Imagine this if you will, read by tens of thousands on tektonics.org and theologyweb.com:

COWARDLY FLEMMING CRONIES BAN SHEILA OVER TRIVIALITY!

Your master's little film is in bad enough shape in terms of credibility, especially after the Beddru fiasco. Do feel free to heap on more bad rep. I've noticed that there are perhaps less than a dozen active members here now...oh my, what a horrible loss it would be for me to be banned from here. For you, that is.


What? Embarrass your master with arguments he and his cronies can't refute?


For a quarter, yes?


Okay, look....don't tell anyone...

My name is "Rumpelstiltskin".


Like my liege needs anything from your pissant little forum, dear?

Have you checked alexa.com's traffic ratings lately?

Thebeastmovie.com
Traffic Rank: 433,272

Tektonics.org
Traffic Rank: 183,981

Oh my. I think you've got something backwards there.... And you know....that's pretty darned sad for a site that's a FORUM.

In any event, if you do wish to run with whatever excuses you can, it is no skin off of my pink little wiggly nose.

Say hello to Ed and Edd for me, will you?

No. Because Sheila is not in any violation of any stated rules, at least not that I can find anywhere, and Sheila can't be blamed for breaking a rule that you only recently made up. Open and shut case as far as I can see. If, in the future, you want to prevent other users from creating such accounts, then state that doing is not tolerated in the guidelines. At least that way your complaint will be legitimate.

Perhaps a sticky, would be approrpiate?


A sticky stating that holding=sheila?

Would this perhaps, satisfy all parties? Rather than re-naming the account, which is somewhat violating his controll over his account. I mean, we are free to make whatever threads we wish, on whatever topic we wish.

Threads are fair game, after all, since it's public domain.

I mean, if richard carrier came on here, I personally think it would be an honor to talk with the guy. I would not be too concerned if he used a pseudonym in the process.
In the course of discussion, if it were found that carrier was in fact, a member here going by a different name, I don't think it would be too out of line to make a post stating as such.


Fair?


ADDENDUM:


In all fairness however, I don't think coersion is the route to take. I'm looking forward to hearing what holding/sheila has to say. It's been awhile since we had someone of his ability around here. However, sheila, I dissagree with the tactic that I see being played. While I agree, that this is a somewhat minor thing that we're devoting time to, I don't think that coersion is justified. While your entirely free to make whatever statement you choose on your own forum/site, I don't think that stating you will become more vitriolic in the event of a ban, is a good route to take. At least, threatening it, isn't.

The choice to not ban, or ban, should be made on it's own merits. Not for whatever consequences come of it, from your reaction.

Rather, I think that if the public views the respective action as unwarrented, then the public will reach that conclusion on it's own. The confident man speaks in silence, after all.
While I fully respect the irritation that can be had from all of this, I simply don't think that the threats are warranted.
Or perhaps I misunderstood.

In either case, I hope this can all be resolved soon. As soon as I can think straight, I'm looking forward to future discussions on more interesting matters.






Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.


And indeed, allow me to add this, from the very definition that Brian uses on his weblog:


Now dearies, applying this to me is just silly. I'm all over Holding's hobby website (tektoonics.com), the star of a series of comics. I've given Brian his medication in a series that starts at http://www.tektoonics.com/notthere/notthere1.html

May I ask Ed, Edd, and Eddie how my presence here would "protect [Holding's] image in a community" since I *am* his creation?

May I ask what "community" the intended "protection" is intended for? THIS little backwater forum? Please. TheologyWeb? They all know Holding and I there. For attention to an account? Backwards idea; it's this forum that needs attention, not Holding's website.

But I do rather like the sticky compromise. Goth, you are rather a genius, you know that?

And in any event, I DO want Eddie to answer the questions and he can even have Ed and Edd help.


Did you ever read William Shatner's account of how he went onto a Star Trek forum as himself and was jeered off of it as a lunatic for pretending to be himself?

Presuming that this is a privately owned/run forum, TPTB have no inherent need to justify who they might ban or why. However I do think it's good that they choose to be more conscientious.

That said, using a sock puppet in this manner is not only childish, but also clearly unethical. Given my observations of JP Holding's forum behavior I would be surprised if he grasped that, or many other less than completely transparent ethical issues. Clearly unethical behavior, even if not implicitly dealt with in the rules/ToU, is IMO, sufficient grounds for banning a user. On the other hand having sufficient cause and acting upon it are two different things -- it may not be the case that because it's justified it's the best course of action (or even a good one).

Personally I'd hope that someone of JP Holding's character would be essentially ignored in here in any case. It seems to me you have to have a certain level of respect for one's opinion before you care enough to respond or react to it, and JP Holding doesn't warrant that minimal level of respect.

Byron

__________________
At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before . . .

A sticky is a good idea, but which forum to post it in?

I also think it would be an act of cowardice to ban Sheila Rangslinger.

I would also add there is no board rule saying you have to use your own name. And for the record, timestar is not my given name.

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



It's so clear that you can't explain how, especially in light of the last post. It's a very sweet sermon, X my dear, but like most of the pap delivered on Sundays, manifestly short on quality exegesis.

It's no secret that you don't have answers to anything I say either.