Preparation for Great Controversy issues, Chapter 28

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I think the idea of having a limited audience while it's going on is so it doesn't get too scattered. Sometimes the more people involved, the more complicated it can get.

I've become a sort of neutral overseer. *lol* It's up to Red or Tall if they want others to watch or participate, though. Should be really interesting.

 

[mva1985]

I think the idea of having a limited audience while it's going on is so it doesn't get too scattered. Sometimes the more people involved, the more complicated it can get.

I've become a sort of neutral overseer. *lol* It's up to Red or Doc if they want others to watch or participate, though. Should be really interesting.

Crimson,

I was just wanting to be an observer - if possible. If not I probably will have some reading to do!!! ;-)

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Sarah,

You are absolutely correct in that we should have a limited audience. As the old saying goes; "Too many cooks in the kitchen spoils the stew."

Doc

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Now, why did I go and say Doc as one of the people it's up to. Rofl. I meant Tall. Musta been cause Doc posted right before me.

 

[reddogs]

Bad News: Since the thread is in a debate area which requires a minimum of 100 posts, neither James or Jack can post there. I am afraid we will be forced to move this thread to the Trad area and ask that everyone else please not enter into the discussion till we are done, unless a way can quickly be found around this.

If this is acceptable to Tall, Crimson can you move the thread to the Traditional Seventh-day Adventists sub-forum and ask everyone to hold off going into the thread till we are done with the discussion....

Good News?: Since the thread is in a debate area which has requirements and needs to be moved, we may have a "real-time" discussion in the Trad area...

I will be out till around 5:00pm so I have to call on you Crimson to handle the move or solution and PM all the parties as to what has been done in advance to a full online discussion at 6:00pm EST...

 

[mva1985]

Red,.

Cool. Just to assure those involved I will observe only.

Thanks for the update.

 

[AMujeres]

I agree with what has been presented so far and with Sarah's prayer.

 

[tall73]

Hi Red,

I also would like to follow this "discussion." I'm not sure how productive it will be however. Sometime ago, before Tall left the church, I had indicated that I would like to talk to him about this subject but he never responded. Personally I think this topic, and those who disagree with SDA teaching on it, has beome a case of "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." There are also some other aspects from independant research and study which has been published that no one has addressed in any of the previous discussios.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

Was the thread not there for all who wanted to participate? If you did not share information that was your choice

 

[tall73]

The trad area is a non-debate area. Therefore I will not be debating there. Another reason for not having it in the Adventist section is that I did not want it to be said that I was trying to draw away converts.

We need a place where a limited group can discuss. If necessary that may be my forum or Crimson's. But it is certainly NOT the traditional section as I can't even post my view here.

As I referenced in my pm I will be gone for a bit because I am moving to a new house, and will not have internet. I guess we will have to work this out when I get back.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Bad News: Since the thread is in a debate area which requires a minimum of 100 posts, neither James or Jack can post there. I am afraid we will be forced to move this thread to the Trad area and ask that everyone else please not enter into the discussion till we are done, unless a way can quickly be found around this.

That is funny you want to move the discussion to a sub-forum where any discussion against the IJ would be deemed a violation.

Oh and equally as funny is the idea that discussion by people in a discussion forum would be too confusing so the discussion must be restricted to a few particular people. Amazingly such things are unnecessary for the rest of the board but it can't work when discussion of the IJ?

Personally I don't join discussion forums to watch other people discuss things. In fact that is what makes discussion work better by having people be able to point out a particular point and not having to wait till it occurs to a couple of select people.

So why not just take it to email and post it when you are done. So that then a real discussion can occur.

 

[tall73]

That is funny you want to move the discussion to a sub-forum where any discussion against the IJ would be deemed a violation.

Oh and equally as funny is the idea that discussion by people in a discussion forum would be too confusing so the discussion must be restricted to a few particular people. Amazingly such things are unnecessary for the rest of the board but it can't work when discussion the IJ?

Personally I don't join discussion forums to watch other people discuss things. In fact that is what makes discussion work better by having people be able to point out a particular point and not having to wait till it occurs to a couple of select people.

So why not just take it to email and post it when you are done. So that then a real discussion can occur.

It was just a discussion between us. Therefore it was in the formal debate section. That section does in fact provide for

a. a discussion among limited participants.

b. an outside discussion of it by the public.

But due to technical difficulties the discussion cannot happen there.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Well, I agree that it can't happen in here. I have a feeling Red wasn't thinking of the FSGs when he suggested that.

My forum is completely dead, and only a few of you here even know where it is. It may be a good idea to do it there, and membership isn't required. I have no problem with posting the link to let you guys read after it's done, and you all can discuss afterwards here or there.

(I do ask those who do know about it to just read along if you wish, though. )

Let me know and I'll PM the link to Tall and Red.

 

[mva1985]

Personally, I welcome your discussion here. Others may feel differently though, and I understand that - I would hope that we could make an exception for this situation.

However it happens I would be interested in observing so I would hope that a link could be provided for that reason only.

Thanks for the update.

 

[thecountrydoc]

If the participants would like to have a restricted site which would be completely nutral to conduct this discusson I can provide such a site.

If Red and Tall would agree on this, one or both of them could PM or email me with a list of those who are acceptable for enterance, and I will explaine how it may be done and open the site for you.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Personally, I welcome your discussion here. Others may feel differently though, and I understand that - I would hope that we could make an exception for this situation.

However it happens I would be interested in observing so I would hope that a link could be provided for that reason only.

Thanks for the update.

I agree, but the problem is that it would go against the forum guidelines. If we were to allow that this time, it kinda opens the door to future issues. Make sense?

If it's at my forum, I think you already have the link anyway.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

If the participants would like to have a restricted site which would be completely nutral to conduct this discusson I can provide such a site.

If Red and Tall would agree on this, one or both of them could PM or email me with a list of those who are acceptable for enterance, and I will explaine how it may be done and open the site for you.

Respectfully,
Doc

That's basically what mine or Tall's forums can provide as well. Thank you for offering, though. Probably simpler to use one already up and running.

 

[reddogs]

What a Gordian Knot, but I will cut throught it and give a answer that should allow us to unravel this.

Jack and James will read Tall's objections in the formal debate forum and post their answers here, so technically Tall is not debating in the Trad area. Everyone will be able to see Jack and James answers here, and I will copy and paste their answer(s) to Talls posts in the formal debate thread and Jack and James can verify it and let me know if any questions/adjustments......

This looks like it may take a bit, so everyone please be patient and Crimson, if you can help oversee to make sure everything goes smoothly, as after all the planning looks like we all missed the 100 minimum post rule for the debate section...

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

What a Gordian Knot, but I will cut throught it and give a answer that should allow us to unravel this.

Jack and James will read Tall's objections in the formal debate forum and post their answers here, so technically Tall is not debating in the Trad area. Everyone will be able to see Jack and James answers here, and I will copy and paste their answer(s) to Talls posts in the formal debate thread and Jack and James can verify it and let me know if any questions/adjustments......

This looks like it may take a bit, so everyone please be patient and Crimson, if you can help oversee to make sure everything goes smoothly, as after all the planning looks like we all missed the 100 minimum post rule for the debate section...

I didn't even know there was a formal debate section, let alone a 100 minimum. Rofl.

If you think that's the simplist, then go for it. It's up to you.

 

[reddogs]

I didn't even know there was a formal debate section, let alone a 100 minimum. Rofl.

If you think that's the simplist, then go for it. It's up to you.

I am talking to Jack and James on the phone to go over it, and as soon as they get to their computers we will see if we get this rolling........

 

[mva1985]

The formal debate forum? Is that our D&D forum?