Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 136 of 302 (276285)
01-06-2006 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by pink sasquatch
01-05-2006 5:44 PM


Re: let Rrhain defend himself, at least.
Thanks. At least now I feel that someone has read and understood what I was saying. Even if admins did not agree with the method I chose, and so closed the thread, I could have been treated with more respect... and there still needed to be a solution.
I knew this impacted more than me, and simply shutting down the thread and ignoring my questions was not going to make it go away.
Perhaps the thing I find most inappropriate about the closing of your thread: Rrhain was never given a chance to defend himself. Quite unfair to Rrhain, regardless of whether or not he was very much in the wrong.
Almost 100% agreement. My first reaction to seeing the closure was why it had been closed before the main person who should reply was even given a chance to. Heck I hadn't even gotten around to posting a link to Rrhain as a pointer to that thread.
I assume he will want to respond, and where will that be now? Of course the powers that be may very well chuck the thread before Rrhain can see it... but that would still leave me with my outstanding question: How do I respond to OT accusations in a thread?
Hell, repost it in the Festivus Grievance thread - seems very on-topic there.
I wish I had thought of that. But then again it had ended on such a happy note. I'm not sure I'd want to spoil that, and even if it turned out for the best I'm not sure if I'd be as happy if it ended with Rrhain getting a "smiley" based off his avatar. The thought is chilling. Yours is very cool.
Let me state I am still trying to take your advice from festivus and I hope it is showing at least a little. Several times already I finished with a long response, looked at it, and then rewrote in a condensed version.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-05-2006 5:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 137 of 302 (276286)
01-06-2006 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by randman
01-05-2006 5:54 PM


Re: let Rrhain defend himself, at least.
I view my situtation more as Holmes see his on the issue you raised up.
I want to clarify something, it is not that I want a resolution on whether I won an argument regarding a position with Rrhain. As frustrating as an oustanding argument is (where people don't seem to recognize the reality of one's position), the point of my thread was dealing with false accusations that I was engaging in unethical behavior.
The post could also be used to continue debate on the positions, there is no doubt about that. But the primary purpose allowed me to address the charges of unethical behavior by presenting evidence regarding the charges. By the nature of the charges I could not help but pull quotes from debate.
I feel several people including admins, saw only the quotes from debate and drew a false conclusion of my purpose.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 01-05-2006 5:54 PM randman has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 138 of 302 (276287)
01-06-2006 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Admin
01-05-2006 4:09 PM


Not for the private resolution of battles
EvC does not exist, and has never existed, for the private resolution of personal greviances. I concur with Admin.
Holmes, your behaviour with Rrhain just makes you look worse. We can judge for ourselves whether or not Rrhain is wrong without your helping hand. While it may give you personal satisfaction to settle your score with him, it does nothing to benefit EvC as either a discussion board or a community. In my opinion, therefor, the mods were right to close your thread.
Having said that I do also believe the admins should have intervened in the unseemly scrap between you and Rrhain earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Admin, posted 01-05-2006 4:09 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2006 6:14 AM Dr Jack has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 139 of 302 (276288)
01-06-2006 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AdminJar
01-05-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Do something about JAR
Please prove me wrong. Try behaving.
They were complaining about YOUR behavior. And they are right. While you are a decent enough poster I have pretty much never liked you as an admin. It seems to me that you have not handled the power you received wisely. Not that you couldn't just that you haven't.
I never liked the way I've seen you treat others in that mode. You are prone to condescenscion and insult as your original post which spurred this subthread is a good example. You use your power to shield your own misbehavior. Look at this:
If your behavior shows me wrong, all will see it and be amazed.
Who are you? These look like words from a tinhorn tyrant.
And worse, you use your position to shield your decisions from mere question. We on low are to accept your decisions as bread crumbs from on high. IF you deign to respond it is as if you have been somehow disturbed, and need not explain yourself so we can understand what rule system we are supposed to be following.
Like I said I have pretty much never liked your admin behavior, and up till now that has been towards others. Having tasted it firsthand this time, I am more angry than ever. I know I didn't treat you with disrespect. But you gave my honest questions nothing but insult, condescension and the brush off. In addition you have created (or fostered) a problem and have yet to hand me a solution.
Yeah, you don't get paid for being a moderator. We don't get paid for putting in our time posting either. Lack of payment is no excuse for impractical or rude behavior on either side. I don't think you should quit or be knocked out of being an admin, but you do need to take a look in the mirror (or hear the cries of the people below). You can be a much better admin.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AdminJar, posted 01-05-2006 6:39 PM AdminJar has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 140 of 302 (276289)
01-06-2006 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Jack
01-06-2006 5:30 AM


Re: Not for the private resolution of battles
Take this as neutral sounding. People seem to keep assuming I am emotionally overheated. This started with me doing something I thought was practical and neutral (and Ironically if I had just accepted being an admin when asked, perfectly legit). I'm still just seeking a solution.
private resolution of personal greviances.
What personal grievance? I was not saying I don't like the way he talks, or he bugs me, or something like that. When a person posts arguments against your position generally people respond with counter evidence. When people post ACCUSATIONS about behavior others have most certainly responded to defend themselves.
What I did was not something new. People have even collected groups of OT discussion from one thread and moved it somewhere else, including based on a single poster. I believe Buz has received his share of such threads.
I didn't ask anyone to do or resolve anything FOR me. All I did was create an area so that when a specific charge (well set of charges) were brought up by a poster in a wholly OT thread, I could point him there to debate them, or others can go to see if the charges have merit. I have no idea how someone could "judge for themselves" whether Rrhain is right or wrong about his accusations, which relate to posts scattered throughout another thread. How could they?
While it may give you personal satisfaction to settle your score with him
Let me ask... you didn't read the thread did you? What "score" did I try and settle with that thread? I stated in the intro what it was for. I admit it was to give me some personal relief. That way I did not have to worry about defending myself against his accusations in an OT thread. I could point to that thread and he could come and defend his accusations or not.
In my opinion, therefor, the mods were right to close your thread.
How did it solve the issue of resolving disputes? I have already said that I can accept the closure of the thread, but then what is the solution to the problem?
unseemly scrap between you and Rrhain earlier.
Honestly, I thought I was doing quite well in not responding in kind. I kept condensing posts to the prevalent points and using evidence. With the exception of some pointed commentary AFTER he began making up things to "charge" me with, I would really like to know what I did to make it unseemly. Just point to a post. I won't even debate whether you are right or not. I will look at my post and think about how I can lift my game above "unseemly".
But I will end on a practical question regarding that claim. Isn't the best solution for "bickering Hendersons" to have them "get a room"? When I see others engaged in what I consider personal scrapping, I am more annoyed that it is taking up space in a thread I am trying to read. If it is in a thread labelled correctly, I can avoid it and never be offended at all. If the subjects pop up in some other thread the posts can be shifted to that thread, or the posters directed back to it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Jack, posted 01-06-2006 5:30 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Jack, posted 01-06-2006 6:37 AM Silent H has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 141 of 302 (276290)
01-06-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Silent H
01-06-2006 6:14 AM


Re: Not for the private resolution of battles
How did it solve the issue of resolving disputes? I have already said that I can accept the closure of the thread, but then what is the solution to the problem?
Let it go.
Honestly, I thought I was doing quite well in not responding in kind. I kept condensing posts to the prevalent points and using evidence. With the exception of some pointed commentary AFTER he began making up things to "charge" me with, I would really like to know what I did to make it unseemly.
I didn't accuse you of unseemly behaviour, I said the exchange was unseemly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2006 6:14 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 01-06-2006 7:54 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 142 of 302 (276296)
01-06-2006 7:34 AM


General Suggestion for a Solution
No one has to address anything else said previously. This is just a suggestion.
1) For people that are simply yelling at each other, obviously it can be ended by admins giving a cooling off time, or telling people to return to civil on topic discussion.
2) For people that have persistent debates on an issue (a topic), but do not want or for some reason cannot commit to a great debate, why not open a forum area for that? Each thread could be labelled simply with names and topic. It could be known as a relatively nonmoderated area, and anyone uninterested can avoid them. When posts from those posters begin to hit that subject they can be redirected there or just have there posts moved there.
3) For people that have accusations of misconduct, this could be handled more directly. Obviously only those accusations that involve forum guidelines should be considered, but once made admins can look at the evidence provided and judge if it has merit or not. If it does then the "offender" should get a warning of some kind. If not, then admins can say there is not enough evidence that there was misbehavior and that the issue is closed.
This last one is probably the most problematic to handle. I don't like, and I don't think it should be encouraged, that people tattle on others to admins. So I wouldn't be for a thread where people can go whine to the powers that be. But if admins come across accusations they could be investigated and dealt with.
If there is going to be a forum at all, perhaps it could be for people that have been accused of something. They can create a thread to state they have been accused of some behavior and present the evidence on their own side. The accused person can direct the accuser to place any further accusations into that thread and not drag the topic further off course. Admins (when they have time) can come in and review the evidence and make a judgement.
After a judgement has been made further debate/accusation can be censured (provided there is no new evidence), as well as accusations outside the created thread before a judgement has been made.
When I say censure it doesn't have to be banning or suspension, though repeated behavior may make that necessary. Maybe repeat offenders can be "marked" with a tag of some kind warning that certain statements by the poster should not be taken seriously and need not be responded to (maybe pointing to the thread where the judgement had been made).
Anything sound useful?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 143 of 302 (276300)
01-06-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Jack
01-06-2006 6:37 AM


Re: Not for the private resolution of battles
Let it go.
As can be seen in this thread, that is not the commonly desired solution, and so an impractical suggestion. Its sort of like saying the answer to STDs is abstinence.
And this ignores the crux of the problem. It takes TWO to let go of a problem, when the problem is someone making up stuff and repeating it. That makes most people uncomfortable, and want to respond in some way.
I was dealing with someone that would NOT "let it go". The poster was confronting me in a totally different thread with accusations of wrongdoing in another thread. I created a tool where I could "let it go" even if he did not. He brings something up, and I just say "go here".
There is so much irony in all of this its amazing, but here is one more. All I did was make up that simple fix. More people have spent time and energy telling me I should "let it go" and criticizing me, and so generating negative energy, than likely would have if it was just allowed to stay open.
And this raises a question, why didn't you just "let it go" and let the admins deal with the issue? This had nothing to do with you at all.
I didn't accuse you of unseemly behaviour, I said the exchange was unseemly.
My mistake, I was assuming that if I am part of an exchange that is unseemly it meant that I myself was acting in an unseemly way. Okey doke.
(AbE: I should point out that Jar's closing of the thread was not stated as the prupose you gave and attributed to Percy. If you read Jar's statement it was that he thought I could have continued using some other method.
As a note to all, I am letting THIS go. My questions have been raised, and I have given suggestions. Not a whole lot else can be said from my angle. I'm going to be busy over the weekend so likely won't be back till Monday anyway.)
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-06-2006 10:23 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Jack, posted 01-06-2006 6:37 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 144 of 302 (276460)
01-06-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Trixie
01-03-2006 3:38 PM


Re: What is going on here?
Bump, since I haven't had any feedback on this Message 78

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Trixie, posted 01-03-2006 3:38 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AdminRandman, posted 01-06-2006 5:59 PM Trixie has not replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 302 (276483)
01-06-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Trixie
01-06-2006 4:33 PM


feedback
Trixie, you asked admins to read your public complain, and upon reviewing the matter, I responded that if you were just after discussion, I think you would have approached Faith and the material differently.
The crux of the issue stemmed from the following, imo, but you were as interested in trying to level charges at Faith (it seemed to me) in asking for admin's participation, and it appeared to me that Faith was very upfront in answering you honestly.
You made this comment.
Another question that this raises for me is, if disease is the payment for sin, are Christians then going against God's will in praying for healing? Surely if God has decided that the punishment is appropriate, who are we to question this? And wouldn't we be committing terrible sins by treating these sin-induced infections with antibiotics etc? If these diseases are the punishment of a righteous God on sinners, surely we are no better than helpers of Satan when we treat and care for these sinners and mitigate or ven cure the punishment that God has sent?
Part of one of Faith's responses:
Again, ..... You are imputing all kinds of ideas to me without quoting me, and most of them I don't recognize as my own.
However, assuming this is what you are talking about: The view of Jesus as a loving Father comes from the Bible. So does the view of God as a righteous judge.
I don't want to rehash all of this. My comment was that I think that you did not seem to be simply trying to discuss the issue since Faith was very clear on her stance, and you were taking a tone and direction in a manner that was not just addressing her responses, but getting into defending what I think was rightly described as playing games, in one sense. I was trying to steer you into the substance of the issue, and just stating as an observer, some of your comments and manner of approaching the material did not seem to be about just attempting to discuss the issue, as you put it.
This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 01-06-2006 06:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 01-06-2006 4:33 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by roxrkool, posted 01-06-2006 7:45 PM AdminRandman has not replied
 Message 148 by Brian, posted 01-06-2006 8:04 PM AdminRandman has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 146 of 302 (276506)
01-06-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by AdminRandman
01-06-2006 5:59 PM


Re: feedback
For crying out loud, I read that thread and I understood exactly what Trix and Percy did. If there was a misunderstanding on Trixie's and Percy's part, it's because it was not clear what Faith was stating. And even when Faith attempts to clarify her position it STILL was not clear to me what her position was/is. So NO, Faith was NOT clear in her stance - obviously.
None of Trixie's posts seemed at all goading or as if she was 'playing games.' All I saw was Trixie attempting to get to the heart of what Faith stated and what exactly she was or was not supporting.
The following (from post 105) I found extremely confusing:
Faith writes:
I did NOT say "Follow God for better health" Percy, I quoted JESUS telling a man He healed to "Go and sin no more" and I referenced Proverbs where people are admonished to avoid sin and practice righteousness and ill or good health is often the consequence.
Yes this is my opinion ALSO, but the FIRST thing that has to be noticed is that I WAS JUST PROVIDING A CITATION, WHICH CRASHFROG EVEN NOTED, why can't you? This is what the Bible says. So that if someone is going to start arguing with me about what the Bible says they are arguing with the Bible and not with me.
She was just quoting the Bible AND she supports, but you can't argue her position because they are not her words but the Bible's. HUH???
.
.
.
So basically:
1) Faith DOES believe one should follow god for better health,
2) which was suspected by Trixie after Faith posted the original Bible quote in post 76.
3) To which Trixie responded by questioning Faith in post 79;
4) But in post 80, Faith implies she does not necessarily support what she posted (which we now know is not the case), which starts the confusion.
5) Then in post 88, Faith states
"Again, I wasn't "saying" anything. I quoted the Bible. Referred to the Bible in the case of Proverbs. Didn't give my own view of anything. In fact I have to guess what you are talking about. You are imputing all kinds of ideas to me without quoting me, and most of them I don't recognize as my own.
again denying support of the statement.
6) Then in post 98, Faith starts losing her patience and accuses Trixie of playing games because apparently Trixie is perfectly aware of what the Bible states (but as far as I can see, Trixie is attempting to clarify FAITH'S position, not the Bible's)...
Faith writes:
You perfectly well know that the Bible is full of God's will to cure the sick, so what kind of game are you playing anyway?
and being dishonest, manipulative, ...
Faith writes:
Please excuse me if I say that I can't think of this question as anything but absurd, disingenuous, dishonest, manipulative. If you know the Bible at all, you know perfectly well that it teaches BOTH. You perfectly well know that healing is a great part of the Biblical teaching, so why are you asking me if God "approves of us trying to mitigate his punishment?" You're playing games. If you didn't know that it teaches that disease is caused by sin I'm surprised, but by now evidence enough has been given to demonstrate that to you.
Why does Faith accuse Trixie of all this? All because Trixie does not believe exactly as Faith does. Because Trixie's understanding of the Bible is different. And because Trixie dares ask Faith to clarify her position, but Faith likes to hide behind the Bible. Faith supports what the Bible says, but since she didn't write those words, she doesn't need to defend them. Argue the Bible instead, apparently. Uh...okay...
Not ONCE did I see Trixie be anything but polite and ask simple logical questions congruent with the direction of the discussion. But Faith THINKS she knows what Trixie is up to, as if she can read minds.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-06-2006 11:30 PM
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-09-2006 06:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by AdminRandman, posted 01-06-2006 5:59 PM AdminRandman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 01-06-2006 7:58 PM roxrkool has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 302 (276510)
01-06-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by roxrkool
01-06-2006 7:45 PM


Re: feedback + long ABE
Trixie was bringing in her own objection to the Bible, but making it into an objection to me without admitting it is an objection to the Bible and in the process making all kinds of insinuating statements that appeared to be imputed to me personally, which represent not one thing I have ever said -- about how it must be wrong to pray for healing etc. This was very hard to answer because she was presenting it as if it were MY position, which it certainly is not -- healing is a BIG part of the Bible -- and it was very hard to figure out what on earth she was carrying on about, and making it sound like it somehow represented ME. {ABE: And since it IS such a big part of the Bible the whole complaint about how Well it must be wrong to pray for healing then and so on was just crazy talk I couldn't sort out.} AND it was OFF TOPIC because I had done nothing but offer a citation to the Bible's statements about the connection between sin and disease. I wish I had stayed cooler but I found her thicket of strange insinuations difficult enough to deal with, and then along comes Percy taking her side and that made it all the harder to deal with.
{ABE: And THIS post of mine is also garbled. There is just something crazy-making about what Trixie was doing whether she intended to or not, that is hard to sort out, especially with all the usual accusations flying at me.
Yes, the Bible connects sin and disease.
Yes, because the Bible connects sin and disease, I personally believe there is that connection. I didn't make it up, it's there. I don't see how it can be interpreted to say anything else.
Also, the Bible promises God's healing for all kinds of diseases, and encourages us to pray for healing.
SO, when Trixie comes on sort of snidely -- or so it sounded to me -- acting as if the connection between sin and disease means we aren't to pray for healing, and not only that but this is all something I personally seem to have invented, rather than that both can be shown to be in the Bible, without ambiguity, and of course with the implication that I'm this mean nasty person who doesn't want people to be healed all rolled into it, which is typical EvC-think, I experienced some sort of cognitive meltdown. It felt like somebody had just dumped this garbage on me that I was never going to dig my way out of -- though I did answer her more or less cautiously, as even Percy acknowledged. If he hadn't joined in the fray on her side it might have finally worked its way out to the light.}
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-06-2006 08:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by roxrkool, posted 01-06-2006 7:45 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by roxrkool, posted 01-06-2006 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 148 of 302 (276511)
01-06-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by AdminRandman
01-06-2006 5:59 PM


Re: feedback
Rand,
Sorry mate but you are a complete joke.
An admin, I wouldn't let you feed my cat!
Brian.

This is not the place for such comments. Your positing privileges are suspended for 24 hours.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-06-2006 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by AdminRandman, posted 01-06-2006 5:59 PM AdminRandman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 01-06-2006 8:44 PM Brian has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 302 (276516)
01-06-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Brian
01-06-2006 8:04 PM


Re: feedback
Your positing privileges are suspended for 24 hours.
Does he retain his surmising privileges?
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-06-2006 09:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Brian, posted 01-06-2006 8:04 PM Brian has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 150 of 302 (276571)
01-06-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
01-06-2006 7:58 PM


Re: feedback + long ABE
But Faith, Percy had a hard time following you and I just told you I did as well. Chances are others also had a hard time following your logic. So there is no reason anymore to assume the worst of Trixie.
All I saw was an attempt at clarification and a normal, run of the mill, ornery discussion about religion. If Trixie insinuated you said something it's because that's what it looked like to her. I thought the EXACT same thing she and Percy did. There was no reason that I saw for you to go off on her. You simply assumed the worst and went from there. If people aren't understanding you, maybe it's you and not everyone else.
Yes, the Bible connects sin and disease.
Yes, because the Bible connects sin and disease, I personally believe there is that connection. I didn't make it up, it's there. I don't see how it can be interpreted to say anything else.
From what I saw, this statement of yours is what she understood and was trying to discuss with you. You believe the above, she doesn't (I think), and therefore she wanted to know how you personally reconciled this belief with other parts of the Bible.
Why is it so wrong to ask you to support your particular beliefs and interpretations in a religious debate/discussion? If off-topic, then a simple, "that's off-topic, but perhaps we can continue the discussion in a new thread" would suffice.
You are constantly assuming the worst from people and if you look for it, you'll always find it.
Just chill out, quit with the martyr complex, stop whining and tattling, share your thoughts and beliefs with people when they're interested enough to ask you, and for crying out loud admit when you're wrong, being a jerk, or don't know something. The fact is you don't know it all. Deal with it like the rest of us do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 01-06-2006 7:58 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024