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.
So it appears that I, and any others who have been banned by this account, will remain so even as Christians are "welcome".
Yep. Suck it up and deal with it.
You and u/Thisisnotanexit are not welcome there. Other Christians are. In the Welcome message I stated: "Appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.". u/Thisisnnotanexit made an appeal on your behalf and stated: "Would you be willing not to perma ban so quickly? This is getting pretty power trippy to me. There are a few boards on power trips and I just don't understand it, these are discussion boards right?". Like I had said, appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.
Please also consider the paragraph: "Rule 1 above is designed to maintain the spirit of the forum and keep bad faith users away. If you agree or disagree and want to ask questions, make comments, post, discuss, and the like with what's posted here, that is fine. Please remember that comments/posts here are subject to removal at mod discretion and bans issued at mod discretion, and egregious behavior like targeted harassment, manipulation, spam, and etc. will be subject to comment/post removal, and possible ban (depending upon severity and intent of mod discernment). Appeals can be made if you disagree with a ban and "no appeal" is not stated in the message. Appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.".
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. You keep trying to provoke me and publicly humiliate me in order to manipulate my behavior. You're engaging in DARVO tactics as you slander me saying: "How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them?".
You and u/Thisisnotanexit have been acting in bad faith towards. me, and you're behavior is targeting me to try and cause me distress while playing the victim. You know I have brain damage, and you delight in targeting me to try and cause me psychological distress. It's sadistic behavior. I'm not repealing your ban when you slander me and continue to target me for harassment.
u/Paleo, can you please tell u/SwampRangers to stop harassing me and consider banning him from the platform. I'm trying to do my own thing and Swamp's stalking me and trying to provoke me so he can claim victim and slander 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.
Yep. Suck it up and deal with it.
You and u/Thisisnotanexit are not welcome there. Other Christians are. In the Welcome message I stated: "Appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.". u/Thisisnnotanexit made an appeal on your behalf and stated: "Would you be willing not to perma ban so quickly? This is getting pretty power trippy to me. There are a few boards on power trips and I just don't understand it, these are discussion boards right?". Like I had said, appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.
Please also consider the paragraph: "Rule 1 above is designed to maintain the spirit of the forum and keep bad faith users away. If you agree or disagree and want to ask questions, make comments, post, discuss, and the like with what's posted here, that is fine. Please remember that comments/posts here are subject to removal at mod discretion and bans issued at mod discretion, and egregious behavior like targeted harassment, manipulation, spam, and etc. will be subject to comment/post removal, and possible ban (depending upon severity and intent of mod discernment). Appeals can be made if you disagree with a ban and "no appeal" is not stated in the message. Appeals that are attacks on the mod will not be reconsidered.".
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. You keep trying to provoke me and publicly humiliate me in order to manipulate my behavior. You're engaging in DARVO tactics as you slander me saying: "How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them?".
You and u/Thisisnotanexit have been acting in bad faith towards. me, and you're behavior is targeting me to try and cause me distress while playing the victim. You know I have brain damage, and you delight in targeting me to try and cause me psychological distress. It's sadistic behavior. I'm not repealing your ban when you slander me and continue to target me for harassment.
u/Paleo, can you please tell u/SwampRangers to stop harassing me and consider banning him from the platform. I'm trying to do my own thing and Swamp's stalking me and trying to provoke me so he can claim victim and slander 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.
Fuck off
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.