Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Roy's comment's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Roy's comment's

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I'm not disappointed in Roy. I'm disappointed in a pantywaist, hypocritical culture that screams tolerance while despising people who disagree with their core values.

    I wish I could thank this a million times. So sick and tired of living in a world where a group of people can claim someone is being intolerant while being completely intolerant themselves. It makes absolutely no sense, and it is getting way out of control. People sit around and whine about tolerance and equality when they can't even reciprocate those same things.
    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

    Comment


    • Re: Roy's comment's

      Am glad Roy apologized. Now y'all mother ******* can get over it and move on.

      Comment


      • Re: Roy's comment's

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        I don't know that anyone is saying that Roy intended to be homophobic..or that he is homophobic.

        I think all anyone has said is that the phrase "no homo" is similar to saying "that's gay." It's using a minority group that's discriminate against

        Quite frankly, I hate this idea that people are "too sensitive" to language. No. People don't pay enough attention to language. Normalizing the phrase "no homo" is not a good thing. It's not anything close to what Kobe said. Who also clearly isn't homophobic.

        People say things they shouldn't all the time. Roy is human. He made a mistake. He didn't understand the full context of what he said, and why some people (the group he picked on and those who understand the context of it) may be offended. Because, honestly, the phrase is already normalized. It's not anything more than that. This should be a quick "I apologize, I shouldn't have said that." And moving on. No beating himself up..or anything.

        I'm not personally offended. And Roy's comments bother me far less than some comments here, either refusing to believe that what he said could possibly be construed as being all that offensive (because straight people should get to decide what's offensive to gay people..) or just an overall lack of awareness.
        Just wanted to say thanks for being an intelligent human being and a voice of reason. Said it better than I could have.

        Comment


        • Re: Roy's comment's

          I found this funny

          Brian Windhorst ‏@WindhorstESPN
          Roy Hibbert released a statement apologizing for homophobic comment last night. Did not apologize for calling reporters "mfers." Oh well.

          Comment


          • Re: Roy's comment's

            A couple of things that I'm not sure have been looked at, not in the way I'd like to bring them up.

            First, I don't have even a ghost of a suspicion that Hibbert used the phrase in an anti-gay context. More on that in a minute but it was an example of stupidity, not anti-homosexuality.

            Second, the reason the term "homo" should IMO be considered fully as reprehensible as the N-word is that for centuries an entire class of people were unable to live their lives openly. To this day in some communities homosexuals are at risk of being killed for who they are. For a long, long time an openly homosexual person couldn't get a job, couldn't go to Church, couldn't engage in any sort of normal life. The crimes associated with slavery add up in total to a greater offense against Humanity than the crimes against homosexuals but some absolutely appalling things happened to homosexuals fairly frequently. There are reasons to efface terms like homo from English language usage.

            Back to Roy. IIRC he came out firmly in support of Jason Collins. I believe he came out and said something along the lines of, "I don't have any problem with a gay man in the NBA and he should be judged the same as any other player." He did this fairly early I believe. Nobody can say that an ignorant comment he made represents how he really feels.

            Roy Hibbert is not a homophobe. He's a young man who got carried away, forgot the situation he was in and made some stupid comments. He shouldn't have made them, he's apologized, the media will play this for everything they can, which will probably last until the game starts Monday, and the world and Roy will go on.
            Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 06-02-2013, 12:23 PM.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • Re: Roy's comment's

              Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
              Everyone is a bigot in some form or another. The difference is that one side is trying to oppress a group of people, and the other side is simply trying to fight for the freedoms that others take for granted. There is a BIG difference.

              A great saying to live by: Being wrong is a chance to learn. If you never allow yourself to skew from your original viewpoint then not only will you be wrong, but you will also never learn.

              Just being open to others views is really all anyone wants. There is common ground... the problem is that some people don't want to give up any of that ground.
              Trying to oppress people? I'm not a Christian at all, but lets talk about the kids in public schools these days that are forced to call it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree. Or the kids who aren't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance, or say a prayer before they eat their meals. You want to talk about being oppressed?
              "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

              Comment


              • Re: Roy's comment's

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                No, I don't, because I'm looking at the situation from the perspective of a different culture and from the culture that Hibbert is more than likely from. .
                All right then, let me explain it.

                Anytime I heard it, I have ALWAYS interpreted it to mean, "I'm not a punk." or "I'm a man, and I'm not just going to let you dominate me.".


                Sort of like the F word, right? How Eminem would always say that word is just referring to someone being weak or a wimp. Or some other offensive words I won't say.

                But Homo means homosexual, and the F word is an offensive slur for gay people. Not only that, but you have to be naive or living under a rock to not notice that the correlation (gay men and weakness) are often seen together.

                Then you continued on to say.. "feminine" personality or traits than the other. When I heard that comment, it usually means "I'm not girlfriend.".

                So, feminine is bad? Gay = girly = bad.

                BTW: I don't think it's an African American culture that thinks that way. I think it's a male culture. As I've heard the same thought process (with "no homo" or any other word) from plenty of white men.

                I don't think people who use it that way really are aware of the full extent to what they are saying. But my point, is that this is exactly what they are saying, whether they realize it or not. And some awareness isn't a bad thing.

                Hicks...I don't think anyone thinks "no homo" is a slur. Obviously one group doesn't have a monopoly on what's offensive. And I agree, that we'd all have to shut our mouths if we couldn't say something that offends someone. And probably, everyone makes offensive jokes..and they're funny.

                I think this situation though, is simply about awareness of the context of the phrase...and what it really means. You may not have realized that "no homo" is very similar to "that's gay." But it actually is. Some people may be offended and some not. It really doesn't matter. The point is, that people need to be more aware of what they are actually saying.

                Roy Hibbert isn't homophobic. What he said probably isn't offensive to most gay people (I'm not going to speak for gay people, but I'm guessing.)...just a little annoying an cringe worthy. And maybe a bit of awareness about language and how normalizing negatives...just isn't a nice thing to do.

                And I think everyone is guilty of it. Personally, I use the phrase "that's retarded." And I hate that I use it. I have nothing against mentally challenged people. In fact, there's barely any connection to the two for me. But it's cultural. I grew up with people using that phrase to mean "stupid." And I hate that I say it..but it comes out. When it does, right after I say it I tend to feel very ignorant guilty.

                And for me, it's just a matter of realizing what I say...when I use a term as an insult..could hurt someone. And that I'm saying that mentally challenged people are stupid and that being mentally challenged is a negative. When I don't really believe that. It's just part of normalized language.

                I don't think Roy understood the context, as clearly..a lot of people don't. (Personally, it's pretty obvious to me. But then again, I have been around the gay community a lot.) but I don't think he's any different than any other human being who makes mistakes and does the above. Which is why it's not a big deal, so long as he understands the context and apologizes. It's unfortunate that it happened now..because Roy deserves all the praise in the world right now..plus if he had just left it to swearing at the media members..he would probably be the most likeable NBA player in the league right now to the casual fan. But maybe it'll bring some awareness to the phrase and maybe people will realize the extent to some of the subtle things that are said.
                Last edited by Sookie; 06-02-2013, 12:07 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Roy's comment's

                  Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                  Just wanted to say thanks for being an intelligent human being and a voice of reason. Said it better than I could have.
                  I will second your thanks.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Roy's comment's

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I guess what I'm trying to say is that only the offended can tell you whether or not they were offended, and that can range from completely understandable to head-scratching and ridiculous. In a free speech society, someone should not have to speak in fear of offending someone when they're not even trying to hurt anyone. Especially if they were only joking, which it seems to me Roy was.
                    I understand that people will use "no homo" in certain settings, but Roy used it on live TV on a national stage. That is VERY different. If I had said something like that in my place of work I would either receive the same backlash from my superiors, or be fired from my post. The thing is "homo" is the key word here. No use of the word "homo" is acceptable because what is derived from. Are you gay Hicks (rhetorical, no answer needed)? I am, and the word is offensive to me. It brings me back to the point where if a percentage of people in a group find a particular word associated with them offensive, then only they are allowed to define that, and others should have the respect and decency to honor that. Of course not everyone is going to care. My significant other does not, but then again he cares about very little when it comes to these things because of his job, family, and really his loss of faith in people to show any sense of true empathy.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Roy's comment's

                      I wish Stern would just fine him already, I want this over with

                      Comment


                      • Re: Roy's comment's

                        Originally posted by HC View Post
                        Trying to oppress people? I'm not a Christian at all, but lets talk about the kids in public schools these days that are forced to call it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree. Or the kids who aren't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance, or say a prayer before they eat their meals. You want to talk about being oppressed?
                        Who isn't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance? That's such a myth. My son has gone to public elementary school in two states and he says the pledge of allegiance every day. And there is no one stopping kids from praying before they eat. Again, a totally made up myth.

                        Where did you hear this?
                        Last edited by A-Train; 06-02-2013, 12:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Roy's comment's

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post


                          We need to close this thread....I FINALLY watched the video, and there's NOTHING to have a discussion about. NOTHING! Before I watched the video, I assumed the context was more about "Yeah! We stomped Miami! We're no homo about our game!"....

                          This....this....it was just "clarification" of his previous statement, because it sounded awkward when he was talking how Lebron stretched him out. Now, this is taking over-sensitivity way too far.
                          Think about the many reasons this is dumb/wrong/unnecessary though...

                          1. Why even need to clarify? Because the media would have assumed Hibbert meant LeBron had gay sex with him during the game? Think about how stupid that is, and how wholly unnecessary it would be to "clarify" anything there.

                          2. Think about the process of "othering" then, specifically with the slur "homo". It's synonymous with me saying "I was [activity an ethnic group might be stereotyped for], no [ethnic slur]!" What he's essentially saying is "please don't confuse me for a homosexual for having said that", through a slur (yes, "homo" is a slur), as if he needs to distance himself from a "perceived" (in his mind) homosexual act. The process of othering = how we arrive at bigotry, however subtle or non-subtle it might be.

                          I don't believe Hibbert had any negative intent. I personally was not offended. But I wouldn't blame anyone who was, and it's their right to be offended if a culture which perpetuates the practice of othering and offers a word like "homo" as an accepted figure of speech (better yet, a punchline) is just deemed acceptable or applaudable. If a gay man or woman is offended by this, they have every right to be, because it's part of a culture which acts to diminish their presence.

                          All that said, again, my biggest personal gripe here is that it just wasn't funny/appropriate anyway. Even if you're into "no homo" jokes -- and those died 2 or 3 years ago, now it's just lame to keep bandying them about -- that was a really dumb one. Hibbert is a professional basketball player, not a boy in a junior high cafeteria. We should expect more.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Roy's comment's

                            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                            Moral of the story: Insult anyone, anytime, for anything, and it's acceptable, perhaps even funny... just as long as it's not homosexuals. Make any comment directed at homosexuality, even if that comment clearly has no malicious intent behind it, and you're a vile subhuman being who believes that every non-heterosexual male alive today is a walking **** monster. Oh, and you also laughed when Bambi's mom died.
                            Moral of the story: You're a master of exaggeration and hyperbole... the very thing you're ranting about, ironically enough. About as ludicrous as bringing Jesus into this.
                            No Jesus!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                              A couple of things that I'm not sure have been looked at, not in the way I'd like to bring them up.

                              First, I don't have even a ghost of a suspicion that Hibbert used the phrase in an anti-gay context. More on that in a minute but it was an example of stupidity, not anti-homosexuality.

                              Second, the reason the term "homo" should IMO be considered fully as reprehensible as the N-word is that for centuries an entire class of people were unable to live their lives openly. To this day in some communities homosexuals are at risk of being killed for who they are. For a long, long time an openly homosexual person couldn't get a job, couldn't go to Church, couldn't engage in any sort of normal life. The crimes associated with slavery add up in total to a greater offense against Humanity than the crimes against homosexuals but some absolutely appalling things happened to homosexuals fairly frequently. There are reasons to efface terms like homo from English language usage.

                              Back to Roy. IIRC he came out firmly in support of Jason Collins last fall. I believe he came out and said something along the lines of, "I don't have any problem with a gay man in the NBA and he should be judged the same as any other player." He did this fairly early I believe. Nobody can say that an ignorant comment he made represents how he really feels.

                              Roy Hibbert is not a homophobe. He's a young man who got carried away, forgot the situation he was in and made some stupid comments. He shouldn't have made them, he's apologized, the media will play this for everything they can, which will probably last until the game starts Monday, and the world and Roy will go on.
                              Good comment, however his statement was more along the lines of "no pun intended" given the context of the conversation.

                              Personally, people are just looking for an excuse to be offended or feel sorry for the group that they believe was offended.

                              If you want the honest truth, I was more taken surprise by Ernie's comment than Hibbert's.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Roy's comment's

                                Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                                Who isn't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance? That's such a myth. My son has gone to public elementary school in two states and he says the pledge of allegiance every day. And there is no one stopping kids from praying before they eat. Again, a totally made up myth.

                                Where did you hear this?
                                It's just a deflection on what the topic actually is here. To say that Christians are being oppressed is both irrational and degrading to those who are ACTUALLY being oppressed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X