I’ve counted four Sims in Alphaville already — I keep finding new cases — who were never into the BDSM lifestyle before, even played the Sims for months, who were friends of mine or other Sims, and now, they are suddenly into the lifestyle, sporting its regalia and insignia….

… I don’t intend to be pushed out of AV by intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society….

What I’d like to know is how Dyerbrook thinks this happened.

Did someone point a gun, through the Internet and the PC screens, at the Sims players’ heads, and force them to make their characters don these “regalia and insignia”?

Or did the players freely choose to do so?

If by force, were the players kept continuously online and at gunpoint thereafter, or did they get to sign off occasionally to do thinks like go to school or work?

If they got to sign off, then how were they forced to sign on again later, to resume this awful shameful degrading condition?

Couldn’t they make these characters discard the “regalia and insignia” and go back to a non-BDSM lifestyle?

If not, couldn’t they have simply abandoned the characters who were being so horribly abused?

In other words, exactly how is this “involuntary” recruitment supposed to have been accomplished?

On the other hand, if they joined freely and of their own will, why is Dyerbrook now determined to expel from Alphaville the same people he referred to as having been “friends” of his?

Doesn’t he respect their free will to live their lives as they choose? Or does he require that they must live as he wishes, in order to be allowed to stay in Alphaville?

If the latter, then who really is being “pushed out of AV”, and who really is behaving like “intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society”?

And as for Dyerbrook’s posturing as a well-intentioned Christian determined to rid Alphavile of foul disgusting influences….

brigit wrote at January 1, 2004 06:44 AM:

i couldn’t sleep last night and went into sims……saw a BDSM house open…had two people in it…so thought i would drop by…..OMG…two women who lived there and right in front of me landed……………dyerbrook………..*claps hands to her cheeks making the O shape with her mouth*….

and he said…..You Bitch…..this is one of those BDSM houses…..

now when he said that…i tagged him…it made me mad….the other woman said…omg who was that… now who is harrassing whom…..and after i tagged him…he ran away….and then the well spoken dyerbrook IM’ed me…..and said

You Sick Little F_ _ k……

so now who is the low life…..who is the one who has their mouth in the gutter….

Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 08:20 PM:

Yes, let me say it again for good measure, so you don’t have to bother fetching screenshots.
YOU SICK LITTLE F##K.

[Obscenity obscured by ##. —Raven]

Darksoul wrote at January 1, 2004 03:35 PM:

Oh my….dyerbrook has gay, naked sims on his site….how decadent for a man of god

http://syminalist.tripod.com/academy/id7.html

… and at January 1, 2004 03:40 PM:

and some more http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/gayfrats.htm

Are W/we learning anything about the little man?

toy wrote at January 1, 2004 07:13 PM:

or perhaps these gems

http://dyerbrook.tripod.com/simgems/id9.html

http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/roadtosedation.htm

Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 09:26 PM:

Yes, I have several Sim story sites, and indeed, one could be characterized as “pornographic”…. But what’s the difference between MY “porn” site, that is, a site with some adult stories and screenshots, and Lady Julianna’s, and why is it NOT a legitimate subject of conversation for TSO?

Well, gee, Lady Julianna had already written at December 27, 2003 09:31 PM:

I am sure Maxis is aware of my website and finds it not objectionable. There is no pornography on it, no profanity, no nudity. There is creative writing there, and general info on BDSM. None of this violates TOS.

And Dyerbrook still doesn’t know the difference?

Well. Let’s take it from that rhetorical question that he sees no difference. So he’s “no different” from the people he denounces as unfit to grace the virtual pavement of Alphaville. But then why does he stay, himself? And if he stays, what standing does he have to demand that others leave?

So much for his purity of motive.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5, cf. Luke 6:41-42)

To illustrate.. we are not only faulted and flawed as human beings, we are flawed as a species. We are species-centric. Look at the big picture, do you think we will not be judged for our treatment of other creatures on this planet? My charity money goes to the SPCA and wildlife preservation groups.

So, we cannot know God’s mind. We try, we can’t help it, another flaw of the species. And another flaw… we are not humble enough to realize and accept this, and many presume to tell us the mind and will of God.

Okay, that is all I will say on the religious aspect, but morality as defined by God did come up as an argument here.

because Phin you can only judge by using what you know as a guideline… i.e. comparing your beliefs to anothers beliefs after all is this not how all judgements for humans are done?

Why categorically rule out the possibility that others can be judged fairly and rightly, not by our beliefs, but by God’s standard as Revealed to us?

Phin I rule it out from viewing history’s lessons only God can judge us by his standards we are not God.. we are human we do not have the wisdom to make these judgements on others we only have our narrow preceptions on what we assume God means.. only he can judge fairly and justly… and he will do so not what is in our minds but what is in our hearts

Why assume that morality cannot be based on God’s standard instead of our own opinions or perceptions?

because we form our own opinion of God’s standard and use those preceptions in our lives Phin.. I point to our preception of the commandment about Killing.. you preceive it to mean only in Malice… I deem it to mean all Killing malice or not…

Morality is based on what we feel is Moral i.e. right or wrong.. we are a self centered race.. We think of ourselves before we think of others.. we tend to think ourselves of not being wrong.. blaming others instead of where the true fault lies..

we as Human’s fail to recogonize that our beliefs may not be the right ones.. we do not like ourselves being questioned or what we think we believe to be firm.. we must open our minds to learn and to strengthen ourselves.. we must address all aspects of the questions we receive not just the ones we feel we can answer correctly.. this is why I welcome any that are sent my way and I am not afraid to say I do not know.. this my friends is how we become better people and make this world a better place..

Do unto others is a two way street and it is a great way of life..

Phin and thank you I think you are actually starting to listen instead of assuming
or thinking I am attacking you

You know, I believe you are exactly right in this. But I think the bigger questions are these:

Why assume that our beliefs are the only standard by which others can be judged? Why categorically rule out the possibility that others can be judged fairly and rightly, not by our beliefs, but by God’s standard as Revealed to us? Why assume that morality cannot be based on God’s standard instead of our own opinions or perceptions?

So yes, we should not judge others based on our own opinions or perceptions. But we have a responsibility to judge them based on God’s revelation. That’s why we have a responsibility to stand up to immorality like Hitler’s.

–Phin

I said that philosophy is not for everyone, and it isn’t. But that isn’t because people are not smart enough to engage in it. Rather, some people are not willing enough to be open to having their beliefs challenged. They want to believe what they want to believe and will not allow reason to threaten it. Instead, they will snipe, us ad hominem attacks, play the martyr, or whatever else they can think of to avoid having to confront a challenge to their beliefs.

–Phin

Which sounds more in the context that God wants..

Thou shalt not Kill… or

Thou shalt not Kill only when done with malice

As for your statement to toy about the martyr act.. that was also uncalled for.. she approached this with serious intention of joining us.. your reply to her was rude and uncalled for she asked if she was wrong to be pointed out why so she could study further,, remember Phin they will know we are christians by our love…

Toy: so questioning anothers morality based on ones own beliefs of morality, it simply cant be explained as far as toy can see…..:

explained yes toy not proven.. we are all human.. we are no better than our brother or sister… so how can we judge others actions based on our beliefs? we can but it doesnt make us right… History is filled with judgements against others based on our beliefs.. history has also shown that doing so 90% of the time was wrong to do let me set examples toy… The pilgrams left England for they were not allowed to pratice what they thought to be correct… later White men enslaved the blacks which they thought correct to do… Americans then fought the Native Americans because our beliefs were different.. we later moved the remaining Native Americans to reservations so we could have their lands this was wrong as well.. but based on our beliefs… we delagated that the blacks could not use the same things the whites could based on our beliefs… Hitler passed his law on killing jews because of his beliefs of them.. the Salem witch trials were all done based on their beliefs… Osama attacked the WTC based on his beliefs… In each and every one of the examples we judged based on our own idea of morality… simply put we judged others to be right or wrong and we imposed our ideals on them and we were wrong to do so…

History is a learning lesson.. but we only learn if we do not repeat our errors.. How is Dyerbrooks statement of the BDSM being moved to their own server.. any more right than Us saying that the Native Americans being moved to reservations… if I was to say that All Islamics should be deported from the US and sent to the middle east would Phin and Dyer agree? I doubt it in fact I hope not for I am judging a class of people by their beliefs… just like Dyer is judging BDSM by his beliefs… so toy yes we can judge based on our belief of right and wrong but that does not make it right to do so…