Continuing my regular reporting to c/Conspiracies, OP made a new statement about Christians being "welcome" which I initially read as welcoming me to operate within the rules. However, a brief exchange by modmail indicates this is not the intent, and that there's a disconnect between the idea that Christians are (all) welcome and the continuing idea that Christians can be permabanned at mod discretion without recourse. I see these as essentially contradictory, but Seeker is not aware of how the perception of contradiction hurts his cause.
On the ban modmail "You can no longer post in TheNarrowWay." I wrote: "Thank you for your new rules comment. Any chance you can unban me from c/TheNarrowWay, so that I can seek to ask supportive questions about The Way and Original Christianity, please?"
Seeker wrote from his own account "TheNarrowWay Ban Appeal Inquiry": "I didn't make any new rules comment(s). Ban remains as is. Appeal denied. No further or future appeals please." (Incidentally, Seeker, if you wish to keep the reply as coming from the same modmail account instead of from your personal account, just reply from the individual message page in the modmail tool.)
So it appears that I, and any others who have been banned by this account, will remain so even as Christians are "welcome".
TLDR: How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them? When will he realize what everyone else does, that he is being just as abusive as those who have abused him, or more so, and that he has need of external assistance for reconciliation, not just feeling good about Self, but also having right relations with Other, as determined by Other and not just by Self? Omphaloskeptics become ouroboroi.
I was trying to communicate rationally with you, I would like to keep trying. Auto perma bans are to be used sparingly from what I understand but we have quite a few communties going out of their way to ban people they don't like, it's weird and it's petty. Just ignore who you don't like. You aren't the gatekeeper of 'the narrow way' or 'seekers of the way' and alternative views should be allowed for discourse even if the discourse isn't with you.
They're all on the same side, Paleo is no exception. There's no neutral ground with them, it's their way or the highway. TINAE likes to act like she's got power when she doesn't.
u/Thisisnotanexit was banned because she came to the forum to publicly attack me as power tripping for banning you after I had told her my issues with you chronically harassing me.
I appreciate your sharing your thoughts! By pinging Paleo you're expressing your desire again for a third party to step in between us, a desire which I've pointed out can be resolved instantly by your simply saying "Agreed" to this draft proposal on voluntary interaction ban. The fact that you don't, so far, suggests that you're not comfortable with your own terms and so the best approach for that is your continuing to define those terms in ways that I or a third party can affirm.
You logically have two options. Bilateral: We agree on terms (which you can currently do with as little as a single word). Unilateral: We continue each doing whatever we believe right (which is the default and which was the note on which the Soul account left matters):
You don't have the option of remaining logical while you accuse me of continuously harassing and stalking you and while also you refuse agreement by which all the actions you categorize as harassing and stalking would end. You either act like a person who cares that they end, or you act like a person who doesn't care that they end, but not both and remain logical.
If you agree on voluntary interaction ban, then I can leave you to consider the next trap (your playing the victim card) in silence, rather than to encourage you to rise above it. If you don't agree, then status quo continues.
Add: I was just reading Teresa's Interior Castle last night just as you were today, so we are on the same wavelength and it would be nice to talk about. It would be a pity for this opportunity for better understanding to be bypassed.
Continuing my regular reporting to c/Conspiracies, OP made a new statement about Christians being "welcome" which I initially read as welcoming me to operate within the rules. However, a brief exchange by modmail indicates this is not the intent, and that there's a disconnect between the idea that Christians are (all) welcome and the continuing idea that Christians can be permabanned at mod discretion without recourse. I see these as essentially contradictory, but Seeker is not aware of how the perception of contradiction hurts his cause.
On the ban modmail "You can no longer post in TheNarrowWay." I wrote: "Thank you for your new rules comment. Any chance you can unban me from c/TheNarrowWay, so that I can seek to ask supportive questions about The Way and Original Christianity, please?"
Seeker wrote from his own account "TheNarrowWay Ban Appeal Inquiry": "I didn't make any new rules comment(s). Ban remains as is. Appeal denied. No further or future appeals please." (Incidentally, Seeker, if you wish to keep the reply as coming from the same modmail account instead of from your personal account, just reply from the individual message page in the modmail tool.)
So it appears that I, and any others who have been banned by this account, will remain so even as Christians are "welcome".
TLDR: How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them? When will he realize what everyone else does, that he is being just as abusive as those who have abused him, or more so, and that he has need of external assistance for reconciliation, not just feeling good about Self, but also having right relations with Other, as determined by Other and not just by Self? Omphaloskeptics become ouroboroi.
I was trying to communicate rationally with you, I would like to keep trying. Auto perma bans are to be used sparingly from what I understand but we have quite a few communties going out of their way to ban people they don't like, it's weird and it's petty. Just ignore who you don't like. You aren't the gatekeeper of 'the narrow way' or 'seekers of the way' and alternative views should be allowed for discourse even if the discourse isn't with you.
They're all on the same side, Paleo is no exception. There's no neutral ground with them, it's their way or the highway. TINAE likes to act like she's got power when she doesn't.
Inconceivably based 😎
🤣
I appreciate your sharing your thoughts! By pinging Paleo you're expressing your desire again for a third party to step in between us, a desire which I've pointed out can be resolved instantly by your simply saying "Agreed" to this draft proposal on voluntary interaction ban. The fact that you don't, so far, suggests that you're not comfortable with your own terms and so the best approach for that is your continuing to define those terms in ways that I or a third party can affirm.
You logically have two options. Bilateral: We agree on terms (which you can currently do with as little as a single word). Unilateral: We continue each doing whatever we believe right (which is the default and which was the note on which the Soul account left matters):
You don't have the option of remaining logical while you accuse me of continuously harassing and stalking you and while also you refuse agreement by which all the actions you categorize as harassing and stalking would end. You either act like a person who cares that they end, or you act like a person who doesn't care that they end, but not both and remain logical.
If you agree on voluntary interaction ban, then I can leave you to consider the next trap (your playing the victim card) in silence, rather than to encourage you to rise above it. If you don't agree, then status quo continues.
Add: I was just reading Teresa's Interior Castle last night just as you were today, so we are on the same wavelength and it would be nice to talk about. It would be a pity for this opportunity for better understanding to be bypassed.
u/Paleo, in re u/SeekerOfTheWay pinging you, his admitted prior account wrote, "It's two-ways free range. Swamp .... can do what he wants in regards to me, say anything on here to me or about me, and I can respond however I want and vice versa", 7:24:08 PM CST 2025-12-26.
I continue to "reserve such rights as (1) to comment at a distance in response to contributions that involve me, (2) to interact with any comments in forums where both the commenter and myself are contributors with equal rights, (3) to invite others to interact with other accounts as fitting, and (4) to continue in my prayers for account holders here that they grow in absolute dedication to The Way." Obviously, while an offered agreement on voluntary interaction ban remains unconfirmed, I also retain such rights as commenting at a distance on other contributions.