You appear to of falsely banned me, but will withold judgement till you explain why on earth I was banned. It got into your head to do so, I can't begin to understand why. It certainly wasn't the quality of my list, any historian would of said what I said, I have a very wide number of posts from around history sites to point to from degree holders of various ranks. He was a atheist systematically attacking Islam then Christianity, so it isn't his religious beliefs your protecting, but his bigotry. Likewise, you unwisely castigated James for pointing out he was a bigot. Prismatic is highly predictable.
Your response however appears to be a merging of the ACLU with the Aryan Nation. You only protect hate speech, but not the rejection of it. You seem to enjoy bending over backwards to break your own rules.
Prismatic has to submit to Peer Review. It doesn't occur to you at all whatsoever, but the more scientific portions of philosophy, due to our Cartesian heritage, actually put Peer Review first and foremost. And yes, contrary to whatever you and Magsj may think, a hostile confrontation and accusations of wackery and falsification, due to a lost of authority and clear bias, and overall weak methodology, is orthodox and central to HistoryCraft, if anything, may be the central pillar to the Peer Review process. It is practiced literally everywhere. It is how we know if someone wrote something legitimate, and to discourage false history writing, but letting the larger community know "hey, look at this guy, he us a incredible wackjob, his work and intentions ate untrustworthy, you use him as a positive influence on his work, you will be similarly derided for reasons X, Y, Z".
If you banned me, and threatened James merely for stating the reasons X, Y, Z..... Know your horribly in the wrong. That's not how the Philosophy of History, at least not since the medieval to early Renaissance era when the Inquisition existed, forcing it's own version of events on everyone else, stamping out responses to the contrary. Are we currently in a Carleas Inquisitional State? Then all the hate speech and hate history on this site is a product of your engineering. You've chosen it to be this way, not because you defend free speech, which you clearly don't, but prefer foul speech. What other way can your actions be taken than this? There is a website on the net called KTS, it's designed for guts with such a mindset, I recommend you turn control of this site, which you did not found, but merely took over, to someone more responsible and less biased, and go join your kindred spirit Satyr.
If your going to insist writing history, and this includes even me, you got to be open to peer review, negative statements exposing your bias, and he prepared to respond, showing how that isn't the case. Prismatic choose not to. He rather just hide and disregard anyone pointing out he is a bigoted baffoon, and push them away while posting more attacks on religions he lacks a understanding of, by delving into their supposed histories. He clearly doesn't have a understanding of modern standards, and you cleverly running interference in the dialectic keeps him from finding out and improving himself, in the unlikely event he so chooses.
Go back, review the post carefully, and search for our past interactions. Then go look up how bad historians are treated on history websites, you'll find I was actually rather restrained in my approach, and consistent. He is writing in the area of the philosophy of religion, as a atheists, he isn't religious. He isn't presenting his own religious ideas, but pure bigotry desguised as historic fact, implying everyone today is part ad parcel to it. That is both bad history writing and shitpoor reasoning. You've done something incredible foul Carleas, you have as far as I can see no justifiable excuse for your actions.
Cease and dissist, and take a history course or two. Or look up Al-Biruni, Al Kindi, Ibn Khaldun, Rumi, al Farabi, Averroes. Especially Al-Biruni and In Khaldun in this case, the first for starting the science of comparitive religion, which Prismatic does absolutely no justice to, declaring at crude swaps all muslims are evil because a bumpkin in the desert wrote something absurd in a Fatwa- a Fatwa isn't a enforceable law, merely a legal opinion, and every country has it's own assortment of crude fools, Prismatic is a perfect example of that. Ibn Khaldun practically invented Sociology and modern history writing. He is on my top five list of greatest writers ever, period. How often has Rumi been accused of evil brutality? Was he plotting to destroy the world with Shamz?
You can't write off the history of one billion people that easily as merely being "evil", it is about as crude and retarded of a insight as you can get. I've been no great lover of Islam, I'm not on the left denouncing any claim that Islam today is messed up or less than glorious us wrong. That's absurd, I've denounced the actions of many Muslims more than anyone on this site. I was a soldier in Iraq for crying out loud, I don't think they are sweet and innocent. But I don't think they are inherently evil either. They have been touched by Greek Philosophy as the Christians and Jews have been. Ethics and morality us not a unknown concept to them, and they take it to heart as we do. Their religion evolved out if the brutality of the desert, one that has yet to fully receed, it has a split personality, but that split isn't more absurd than Christianutt's alter ego if Social Nationalism and Communism. We've been the fools more bloody in the last 100 years. Islam has a lot to answer for, but we shouldn't kill it off intellectually merely at a glance, get into the habit of enforcing bigotry as you have apparently done in attacking James and I. James and I don't even get along that well, and still both see through this fool. Catholicism can survive just fine with or without Prismatic's Anti-Popery, but it doesn't help when you ban Catholics from responding to Anti-Cathokic threads. I build my argument on his wide spectrum accusations that all Muslims are evil, Catholics have learned to disregard such attacks and force our points by becoming the top intellectuals in the fields we enter, like Jews do. We serve our society well. The bulk of Islamic Intellectuals live in the middle east and don't speak English. Fools like Prismatic can run a disproportional amount of damage against the religion for that very reason, as there are fewer in a position to respond. This site doesn't attract very many religious thinkers period, mostly due to the blind, insipid hate you've cultivated here in selective punishment.
And I've in the past have stated, and shown by my lack if posting in the religious section, I don't respond much to religious questions because they are too fragile to crack, scaring away new members. On rare occasions of blantant abuse of history I have, but it is very rare. Pezer even once complained upset why I never post there. I'm reading Peter Abelard's "Ethica" right now, it certainly isn't from a lack of knowledge or fear of some heterodoxy or paganism evolving. I have a general respect for such efforts, however illogical or short lived they are. They tend to self implode. False historical narratives don't however, as they feed on raw emotions, especially hate, and encourage conspiracy theories, pogroms, militancy in opposition.
Do we really want to live in a era where we return back to literal pogroms in the street all because you've mustered a terrible defence of your actions in protecting prismatic in a area in which he is clearly in the wrong of? What kind of website would that make us? Something akin to Stormfront?
Until you give me justification for your actions, I stand by my statements. In no way do I change my stance, and nor should others bow to your lack of foresight. Back off on subjects your clearly lacking in understanding if, and let philosophy look after itself. I'm a product of several historic schools of history and philosophy, let me do the task I was meant to do, by the great minds that preferred me. We have a method, worked damb well for 600 years, we aren't about to change it all up just because Carleas of all people get a sudden notion that hate us good, and peer review and historical analysis is bad. It isn't your place. If you think it is your place, your in the wrong. Learn our methods before you make a further fool of yourself and make a greater ass of philosophy. You insult not me, but centuries worth of philosophers who have cone before us, and all the efforts they've made to encourage us to stronger and better reasoned thinking. I'm not asking, I'm pointing it out and demanding respect for them.