No, just those who had fewer than 100 posts. The others get their posts edited instead.

ok

Quite frankly I find you to be lacking in basic debate skills. You throw up red herrings, take things out of context, and misinterpret what anyone else posts, then take it as proof that you're right. Then have your sorority sister come in and parrot whatever you said. It's quite frankly childish.

Don't assume that anyone's nerves were gotten on. Humor was found and it was taken from there.

I'd like to turn this into a "people who assume they are offending are usually the sensitive ones" discussion.

There's nothing to debate. Don't be so sensitive.

Well if no one was offended or annoyed, why the heck were the two last night banned? Because they said they thought it was wrong to be gay and thus didn't want to associate with them and in some vague and likely nonexistant way that violates the TOS?

Have you tried PMing a supermoderator or the site owner?

Do you really care that much?

And do you think that anyone on here honestly believes that "bowsandtoes1000" wasn't just a new name for a previously banned poster?

No, I don't really care at all, it doesn't effect me. But to have that kind of reaction and then pretend that you're some great venue for discussion is absurd.

By all means, if you can support that. Seems to me like some people (including me I admit) are being flippant, some people are reading the facts, and others are putting on an air of self-righteousness.

Do you think it really matters? If so he clearly learned his lesson because nothing he posted was particularly offensive, much less over the top.

Apparently bowsandtoes wasn't available...it is a fairly common fraternity term after all, if the anti-hazing fanatics at your school haven't gotten to it yet.

Pledgetrainer, as long as you don't post patently offensive racist garbage, I think we'll be just fine.

99% of the people here have no clue what that term means, just fyi.

Well, then I'll do the brief on that.

Supporting yourself by just your elbows and the tips of your toes for a long period of time.

I know what it means, thanks. I just always find it suspicious when a poster with one name gets banned and a new poster with almost the exact same name signs up almost immediately.

Maybe he picked it because "SoggyBiscuit" was a little to extreme of a hazing name :D

Oh c'mon, no one wants think about that. =p And we'll be fine Kevin, I was going to be flippant here but I'm actually finding this a rather interesting personality study...the psych major side of me never turns off I guess.

Yeah, I'm not gonna explain that one.

And I'll try to keep it under control as well Kevin.

Oh the typical "you all are excellent study subjects" approach.

Way to try to be above it all. :)

I may be getting my FHers confused at this point, but wasn't SF the one making poor attempts at Holocaust humor? And I don't know what bowsandtoes the first did last night, but he was all up in that little wolf pack the other night posting unbelievably disgusting images and making sport of "outing" people with facebook pictures, etc. You boys are something when you get your pack mentality on.

Oh I admit that one, couldn't help it. I wouldn't speak if I were you, though. But it is true, that's why I started off with such serious posts as "I'm going to go see how gay we are nationally" and am still here, actually attempting to discuss something (but having to just defend myself, oh well).

HmmMmm I personally think gay guys are awesome. I seem to find that for the most part they are more loyal to their friends and by far more genuine. Not to say that any straight guy isn't, but that's a personal opinion of the many guy friends I have. Now I also know a lot of gay guys who are very dramatic and quite frankly anyoing. I don't associate myself with them. Not every gay person is the same just like not every straight person is the same. If you're going to dislike someone just for being gay (different), whether you believe it to be by choice or by genetics, then do u dislike and disapprove of every single persn who is not 100% like you? I think it's unfair that many fraternities don't even consider gay people to obtain brotherhood. Why did you join a fraternity? Or why did you want to jon one? I'll bet you 9 of every 10 gay guys will give you the same answer to that question. Thankfully where I live, people who are different are accepted just as easily as those who are the same. I know at least 3 fraternity brothers who are openly gay and whom are well respected and accepted. Needles to say all my sisters love them and their house is more popular with the girls.

Hopefully you know what you're talking about because I don't.

Assumptions make for weak arguments. I know for a fact the bowsandtoes I know was not involved in the FH pack, because we first saw this website mentioned in the report of that little escapade on FH (hope this doesn't count as advertising another website). SF I can't speak for.

Fine by me, this is getting old anyway

I joined a fraternity to be around people who had the same interests, goals and background as me. If that is exclusionary by its very nature, so be it. It's human nature to want to be around people you have something in common with, and it's not the job of my fraternity to go around making people feel more accepted.

My fraternity doesn't let people in just because they want to be one of us/hang out with us, we have to want to be around them too.

So you're saying if these people hid the truth, for the rest of their lives, and never told anyone they were gay, and fit perfectly with your fraternity you'd have no problem with them? But the second the issue of them being gay arises they're automatically discriminated against. I understand the whole issue of being confortable with them (actually not personaly I don't because I'm not a guy so I can't fully understand what living with a gay guy and being male is like) and I'm certain it must be difficult. However I highly doubt you and every singe one of your brothers is 100% alike in every way. There has to be some differences amongst you and your brothers whether great or not.

Agreed. Maybe the gay guys I know are unusually stereotypical, but from my experience they wouldn't particularly like the fraternity atmosphere either. People should have the basic right to form bonds with those they feel naturally comfortable with, and it's not good for anybody to force the issue.

There are differences, but it's a group for people who are, similar-minded, maybe? I don't know the best way to word it, but it's a group of people that I'm comfortable living with and being around for a huge percentage of my time. If there are groups of people that the house isn't comfortable spending all their time with some may call it discrimination, but I'd say that's just the nature of the beast.

Until I see that sort of issue actually happen, and not just forum posts saying "we had a brother who everyone loved and then he came out and stayed exactly the same," it's not worth hypothetically discussing. No, theoretically the label shouldn't matter, but I've HONESTLY never seen a gay guy with a personality that would fit into a standard fraternity or who I would believe would even enjoy the experience. I'm sure they can find a place to belong, and I wish them well, but it wouldn't work well in a typical fraternity.

I agree with what you're saying plaedgetrainer but in the instance that they weren't "unusually stereotypical" and they were more like you and your brothers, despite living with them because I can only imagine how uncomfy that might get, would you have any issue with letting them in your fraternity?

Another issue would be that we are a "Christian fraternity," and the morals that our fraternity professes to stand for would be considered by many (not me, but a lot of my brothers) to be counter to homosexuality.

You're incorrect. The original bandt (not the new 1000 version) was absolutely part of that mayhem, I was there during most of it and posted directly to him more than once. And I'm as over the subject as I'm sure you are now so let's just KIM...

In pure theoretical principle, there wouldn't be an issue. In practice, it would simply be down to the comfort issue and given my admittedly traditional experience of fraternity life, I would be skeptical that it would work out to everybody's satisfaction...it's hard to picture when I'm working from a purely theoretical perspective.

Okay that's respectable. I just feel that it's unfair that many gay people are not as accepted as straight people. I know there are several fraternities which have no problems with it. Or in certain cases it goes against the believes and practices of the fraternity. However what bothers me most is that people are so strongly against it and won't even bother giving these people a chance.

I wouldn't say "whole fraternities" are okay with anything.

I imagine my organization's membership selection criteria is not the same at Dartmouth as it is at Auburn.

My mistake your right. If at best a chapter but even that is saying too much. there will always be at least one person who will disagree with the majority

B&T(both versions) and SF where most likely banned for many more reasons than what you know.

And as already pointed out, why the 20+ postings in a "farce"?

And IF you are a Brother of mine, please feel free to contact me over in SAE's National GC (The other one).
We then can take this conversation to a more private level.

I am indeed a brother of yours, and feel free to PM me. I indicated when I decided to take my presence here from posting about my amusement (not really the word i want but it'll do) about the banning of my pledge brother, to seriously contributing to the discussion.