Lindon Tinuviel
Well-Known Member
- Nov 19, 2002
- 3,551
- 109
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And to hell with them. It's not like those types are a majoriy, nor do they contribute anything to this community besides malice and discord.
Those are exactly the types this site can do without, and needs to do without if Erwin ever wishes to unite anything more than the modern day pharases.
wow...that was harsh...And to hell with them. It's not like those types are a majoriy, nor do they contribute anything to this community besides malice and discord.
Those are exactly the types this site can do without, and needs to do without if Erwin ever wishes to unite anything more than the modern day pharases.
With nightfall the flames have died a bit.And to hell with them. It's not like those types are a majoriy, nor do they contribute anything to this community besides malice and discord.
Those are exactly the types this site can do without, and needs to do without if Erwin ever wishes to unite anything more than the modern day pharases.
I don't know that I agree with that.
I mean, I like the new proposed policies, but I also think that there are a lot of good-hearted, well-intentioned people who have left, or who will leave, because their consciences simply won't allow them to stay.
I urge, and in the strongest possible terms, that an Us v. Them or Faithful v. Traitor mentality be discouraged.
Wow, really?did you hear that erwin is chaging the fourms?
Are these changes for real?
Amazing. Just because I care about all my fellow Christians, not just an approved group of them by another's standards, but even the least of them, who may be less tolerant and less tolerable, I am one of them.It wasn't pure assumption. It was based very heavily on what you've been claiming here. You're standing up for people who have been practicing oppression and feeling sorry for them. You've attempted to justify this by telling us what others are going to do, even though the mechanisms which allowed what you're predicting no longer exist.
So the conclusion seems rather obvious. I just spelled it out. If I'm wrong you're welcome to demonstrate how I'm wrong.
You made an assertion I felt was incorrect. So I not only told you that I believed it was incorrect, I presented examples. You've been speaking your mind here but when I speak mine, you suddenly have a problem with it and wish to classify it as "off topic", even though the examples were in direct relation to the assertion I was demonstrating to be incorrect. This is one of the problems with the whole "derailing" rule. It's fine to not wish to lose the general overall idea of a thread. But too many attempt to use such a rule to erase examples they can't refute.
If you think I've tried to thrust any particular kind of responsibility upon you, I invite you to cut and paste the specific text. I've done no such thing nor have I suggested that you weren't showing responsibility. This is just you presenting your ideas and me presenting mine. The difference is that you keep trying to fall back to old fail-safe methods like claiming I'm trying to impose my "brand" of responsibility on you when I've done no such thing or making allegations of violating the topic when no such thing has occurred.
You forget, the old systems aren't going to be in place much longer. Many of them seem to be melting as this series of threads progress. You can't oppress my thoughts through the key phrase "off topic" the way you used to. When the new rules are drafted, it's very likely that someone will have to demonstrate that the post was actually off topic.
I'm not trying to oppress you. I'm just discussing things with you. You don't seem to care for that so you turn back to the old system of oppressing what you can't refute. You have an opinion and I have an opinion. You're expressing yours and I don't see you implying that you shouldn't be doing so. But when I present mine, suddenly you're suggesting I'm trying to oppress you when nothing of the sort is occurring. If you decide to discontinue the discussion, by all means, feel free. But please don't make invalid and unsupportable accusations in the hope of regulating my right to present my opinions.
Yes, I read the post by Erwin.did you hear that erwin is chaging the fourms?
Hi there!hi ruth
I believe Erwin has the best of intentions with this concept, unfortunately he's not been around and involved with CF, so he really doesn't understand the ramifications of this reform.
Speaking as a former Debate forums administrator, I can tell you opening up that kind of influence forum wide as the strong potential to create mayhem.
You of all people are well aware of the incivility in the OPEN forums. Now think of expanding that for the entire site!
It's better than having a definition of marriage on CF, which was a rather ridiculous idea, because there are marriages outside that definition...Guess that British woman that married a dolphin can get the wedding ring icon she's always wanted.
Thank you, Erwin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?