Bill made this public.

Semi, I've always liked you on here, but I do think you are WAY overreacting. In my opinion, it seems this was posted just to show how totally screwed up Bill really is.

It's OK, he's gone! I say "good riddance to bad rubbish!"

I aint gonna start a post with "_______, my friend."

There are many times that I have been at odds with Bill on various subjects but also feel that our core faith and beliefs are most likely more aligned than many others.  Although totally mischaractorized by Bill many times as being liberal in my beliefs, usually because they were opposed to Bill's own rigid and narrow intrepretation, I am very much Conservative in my personal beliefs but readily admit that I have had changes in some of my doctrinal beliefs over the years.  Bill, though, isn't the only one that has mis-chactorized my stand/beliefs/opinions and I also readily admit that it's very possible that it comes as a result of my own self not being so plain and simple with responses.  

That said I do believe that Bill deserves a more informed response from the Times Daily as to the nature of his banning and what exactly was the straw that broke the moderator's back and made the determination that he went too far.   I have my own thoughts and opinions as to what most likely tipped the scale.   I, and many others, over the years have tried to constructivly offer suggestions, to Bill, about his methods and his tone with others but all suggestions fell on deaf ears.  

When our post seem more generated with an attitude that we are trying to be disruptive or be harmful or hateful toward another person then that is abusing our right of being here.  While Bill may have seen his cartoons as making some kind of Christian statement others saw them as jabs and intimidation and frankly I think that's why he did post some of them and that alone may be reason for what the moderators did.   When we go  from expressing our opinons to purposly hitting hot buttons that someone knows intimidates and hurts another than that is not living or acting in neighborly fashion, my own opinion that is.  

Bill, like many others, if not most others, was very opinionated and dogmatic with his beliefs and defended them strongly but like everyone else there was a tendency to take things to a personal level where there was obvious attempts to through jabs of intimidation.  I believe that may be what the mod's may have picked up on.  Not expressing your faith but more of attacking others in a subtle unkind way.

Whether or not it's justified keeping Bill banned is not my decision but I do believe he deserves a more detailed explaination of what it was that was responsible for the banning.  While there is still much I disagree with Bill on I do believe if he had listened to some of our criticism about his methods and the way his approach was actually being perceived and taken then he might not have reached that point of being banned.  Just my own opinion mind you worth as much as anyone elses.

Bill got what he deserved. The mods made the right call. I think they made it clear too that they don't have to give explanations. He should have been banned long ago, and if more had complained about/reported him maybe he would have been. There is no excuse for the way bill spoke to some people, the lies he told about some, or the insinuations he made about others.

The way he talked to the forum is one thing, to threaten the mods is

something they aren't going to take over a period of time.

He did this to himself and he can't blame you or the mods. It's their house.

Just a small point, but I don't think there are actual moderators on here. Administrators? Yes. 

Do I think they made the right call? I didn't see what either Vic or Bill wrote. I'm right to assume it was kind of argument that caused all this?

The catalyst was most likely Bill calling or e-mailing the publisher directly. 

My personal opinion is that the editor handled the matter correctly.  Giving Bill the actual reason that he was banned would only encourage more "dialoging" from Bill, who would never understand any reason that you gave him.

Bill was given a lot of constructive criticism.  He never heeded any of it.

And he won't be back.  What kind of idiot questions the professional integrity of the one person who can help him?

A narcissistic personality

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

I agree 110%. Poor man. You know this has been devastating to him. 

I must admit Mr. Gray got to me a few times till I realized his motives were purely carnal and not from God so I really shouldn't take it personal.

This passage fits well with those who supposedly want to "minister" but truly only want to push personal agenda's.

Act 5:38  And now, I tell you, stay away from these men and leave them alone.For if this plan or this work is of men, it will be overthrown;
Act 5:39  but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even be found fighting against God." So they were persuaded by him.

It's only a matter of time like so many other so called ministers of God before him.

Pro 16:18  Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Which in my opinion is a good thing and only good will come from it for his benefit. One can only hope God will open Mr. Grays eyes and humble his spirit to get him thinking about his beliefs.

Amen!

Pro 16:18  Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

===============

That was him alright!

the pot calling the kettle black