General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

Since you made this suggestion for dealing with the conflict between Trixie and me, the topic has been reopened on this thread, and I think some kind of opportunity to hash it out does need to be given after all. Roxrkool just made a long accusation of me which I cannot answer otherwise.I'd rather it weren't a Great Debate but open to whoever has an opinion about the original conflict. It just needs to be aired.

Just for the record, I appreciated AdminRandman's defense very much but I didn't think he got it said very clearly. This I believe is because the whole thing was very confusing, and my own posts on the subject weren't clear either. Figuring out what Trixie was doing was not easy and answering her full of risks of further misunderstanding. Since he may well be defending himself against everybody else in the private admin forum I just want to offer him some support. She may not have intended to be "playing games" but a fair assessment of her strange communication should show why one would naturally think she was.{ABE: I went through the thread and tried to capture the basic problem}This message has been edited by Faith, 01-07-2006 05:30 PM

May I make one more attempt to explain this thing about my advocating a position and seeming to deny it? This had to do with Trixie's creation of an either/or that said that if I believe THAT part of the Bible that says sin leads to disease, then I must oppose the understanding of God as healing our diseases. And it wasn't said as clearly as I just said it here. It was set up so that if I acknowledged that I agree with the first Biblical statement I must therefore deny God's good will in healing. In other words, she put me in a double bind, no doubt without intending it -- it probably simply reflects her own way of thinking -- but recognizing and dealing with a double bind is difficult under the best of circumstances. This doublebinding effect is what I called "playing games."P.S. I appreciate the ultimate evenhandedness of the Admin conclusion in this case, and I'm sorry Randman was a casualty of it all.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-09-2006 06:06 PM

Yes that is what happened. I supplied the source for Buzsaw in response to a query from Crashfrog. The problem isn't that it doesn't represent my own position, it was the implication that if it does I am denying another part of the Bible. Trixie had set it up so that it was just about impossible to get out of that box, and even hard to recognize that's what was happening. And her way of characterizing the either/or certainly cast me in a pretty negative light -- I'm this person who is glad that people suffer was the implication. Again, I doubt she had any idea she was implying all this, but that is how it read to me, very crazy-making and almost impossible to answer.{I've tracked down the message in question. It's
EvC Forum: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name.
Now I guess it's best we put it all behind us. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-09-2006 06:46 PM

Just for that, CF, I will apologize for telling you off about your political rant. Sorry to have lost my temper at you to such an extent. Let's stay cool.

What a generous compliment, thank you.

Welcome back, Randman.