Former bosses didn’t say data was irrecoverable; you guys did. You aren’t able to shift blame for that. Also; I was speaking to the ministry of FFC in current time, not your ability to witness in your local communities.

Rukh’s ban was intended to be temporary but Hunter overrode the decision and made it permanent. I do not agree with this decision, but Rukh caused a significant amount of trouble, as well as damage to the faith of multiple non-Christian members who were considering Christianity and Hunter felt it was justified. Rukh, just like anyone else, is welcome to post on FFC’s new site, but he is just as responsible as anyone else to uphold the rules and will be banned if we are forced to ban him, just like anyone else. We do not ban for any reason except breaking the forum rules, which are posted clearly for everyone to see.

So Hunter is the top admin now and can over-rule majority? That seems like an odd management style. I’ve passed along to Rukh that he was welcome back, I would hope you’d already have done as much.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: your account was not restored out of spite, it was restored because Ian and I did not know how to ban on that sloppy Joomla software and Hunter fixed it.

So, you do admit all three of you openly decided to ban an already deleted account; I’m still failing to see how you don’t see that as emotional overkill.

Also, if you are going to play the same-sex attraction card I will gladly point out that we have been informed of commissioned pornography of you having anal sex with your ex-boyfriend and administrator of Christian Furs, Flechmen. I also have chat logs from March 2012 of you describing you having no moral problem with giving handjobs to friends. But if you would like to call our administrators of low moral fiber because two of us experience same-sex attraction, by all means go ahead. I didn’t want it to come to this, because I believe in civility and cooperation rather than launching accusations, but you and your constant slander have backed us into a corner and at some point the rat needs to bite the cat.

Slander would be an obvious false accusation. I never brought up same-sex attraction; simply people who refused to take a position on it. I believe homosexuality is wrong; I also have never dated Flechmen. We also didn’t speak in March, so I believe you are referencing an event in January where we both took snuggling too far and had a heart-to-heart on personal limits — at some point I’ll make a blog post on snuggling to properly lay out my views on that area; but given you have an ex-boyfriend yourself (and even the fandom we’re in and came out of) it seems odd to try and spite people with past fault. That’s why I focused on people needing to commit and hold to a standard on it as best as they can. People fail, and, we could spend days and pages on pointing out the pasts of everyone in CF, CFF and FFC. My concerns relate to the present and future, and that you still seem to allow people in other forums to believe you are female; my issue is also when folks are unwilling to commit where they stand on homosexuality, as well as what would seem to be dangerous teaching on familiar spirits. If you want to defend or counter-attack me; do it in the present.

The patch offered did not work with that custom build of Joomla. I assure you it was not refused.

I didn’t give you a patch… just a configuration change for Apache and a redirect handler o.O

If anyone decide to contact Sleet for details; please have the courtesy to contact me as well; wolfin AT wagztail DOT com.

Flaws have not been silenced. You are holding us accountable for the words and actions of our former bosses who we could not control. We are aware of the capabilities and the shortcomings of our staff members and community members who work together to make FFC, and it can be seen how efficiently and effectively we are working on the Joomla-free site. On the issue of ministry, Ian has asked me to point out that he has single-handedly organized Sunday services for Rocky Mountain Fur Con three years in a row, and I have discussed the Word of God with dozens of nonbelievers in the furry fandom, and some have even returned to Christ.

Rukh’s ban was intended to be temporary but Hunter overrode the decision and made it permanent. I do not agree with this decision, but Rukh caused a significant amount of trouble, as well as damage to the faith of multiple non-Christian members who were considering Christianity and Hunter felt it was justified. Rukh, just like anyone else, is welcome to post on FFC’s new site, but he is just as responsible as anyone else to uphold the rules and will be banned if we are forced to ban him, just like anyone else. We do not ban for any reason except breaking the forum rules, which are posted clearly for everyone to see.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: your account was not restored out of spite, it was restored because Ian and I did not know how to ban on that sloppy Joomla software and Hunter fixed it. Also, if you are going to play the same-sex attraction card I will gladly point out that we have been informed of commissioned pornography of you having anal sex with your ex-boyfriend and administrator of Christian Furs, Flechmen. I also have chat logs from March 2012 of you describing you having no moral problem with giving handjobs to friends. But if you would like to call our administrators of low moral fiber because two of us experience same-sex attraction, by all means go ahead. I didn’t want it to come to this, because I believe in civility and cooperation rather than launching accusations, but you and your constant slander have backed us into a corner and at some point the rat needs to bite the cat.

The patch offered did not work with that custom build of Joomla. I assure you it was not refused.

FFC does not have official doctrine it requires all members to believe in order to not be silenced. As such, we do not make it against the rules to discuss what is or isn’t sin. Members are not only allowed but encouraged to point out sinful behavior, but they are asked to do it /with civility and respect/. Universalism is the belief that everyone is saved no matter what. Such a claim has not been endorsed by Furs For Christ, and in fact every one of the staff members who have even posted about universalism have expressed /opposition/ to the belief (myself included). There’s a big difference between allowing open discussion and universalism.

If anyone reading this would like evidence of any of the claims I have made in this comment (because I admit they are rather bold ones to make), feel free to reach me via PM on http://www.fursforchrist.com, AIM (SleetTheFox) or Skype (SleetFox). I would strongly request to not be asked to present the pornography, however, because I am strongly morally opposed to pornography of all kinds and would prefer not have to look online for a picture of a fox with the sacred symbol of Christ, our Lord and Savior clearly visible on his back while he’s being sodomized by a wolf with the tail of a dolphin.

I’m saying if you participate in something to the degree that you are living though those actions yourself in role-play; in your mind your are performing those actions and your are doing that; you’re not reading or watching someone else tell a story, you are making a fantasy for it. In that senario fantasy and actually performing the act are both equally sinful.

“3) Vore that doesn’t do 2 or 3 but assumes pain or control of the victim — these acts are rooted in at least a light degree of Sadomasochism, which play on pain (which, probably was not an original part of creation) to control the victim.” Xyie engages in vore where the other furry is swallowed into a warm pouch which contains no digestive juices; I don’t believe this involves any degree of pain. You might say it involves assuming control of the “victim”; I don’t know what I’d say to that, except that I hope he’s the kind of dragon who’d spit the occupant out upon request. I’ll need to ask him.

“[A]s for practice it is something that will eventually encourage you to try more types of vore and can quickly lead to 1 and 2.” Reminds me of an argument people have against pawing off: they claim that it increases the temptation to engage in far more illicit and dangerous types of sexual sin. Maybe you should make a post about pawing, too.