I do think there needs to be intent or any flame could also be the basis for a "y'all made me do it" excuse.
It is problematic for someone to try to bait someone (and bait can be subtle) to strike back. But where there is NO intent to bait someone why is that a violation?
I agree, Dr. Steve....
One of my frustrations over my many years at CF is that at times, everything seems to hinge on what was admittedly NOT posted, NOT said - but someone (a user or staffer) FEELS there is some IMPLICATION...
however unintentional. Someone hits the "Report" button because they feel "offended" over something that's not there, not intended, but they
feel "offended"
nonetheless. That has often frustrated me.... greatly.
Without a doubt, many of us are sensitive when it comes to Our Lady. I can be hyper-sensitive (which I often and freely admit). For many of us, She is the most esteemed, the most adored, most loved, the most loved of all women - the Mother of God, the Chief of Saints. We CARE what is said about Her (especially dogmatically)
because we LOVE Her so very, very much. If you said some times about my mother - I might CARE, because I love her. And my care MIGHT cause me to be emotional... and to let my emotions "see" and "feel" things that just aren't there. Now, raise that by the power of near infinity - and you have the case with Our Blessed Lady. For many of us. This can cause some..... peculiar things. Sometimes WHOLLY unintentionally.
What I think tends to happen in this forum more than maybe any other at CF is emotions reign rather than respectful discussion of TRUTH. And sometimes there's a confusion between respecting FEELINGS (however inappropriate they may be) and respecting rules, between feeling offended and being flamed. Apples and oranges - but OFTEN confused.
NO ONE has any control over anything other than posted words. That's all we have here, just words electronically displayed on the screen. Nothin' more. People can (and usually should) be held accountable for the words they choose, they
cannot (and should not) be held accountable for what they did not post but how people "feel" upon reading the post. I think this distinction is not always remembered.
It's NOT easy... and for some it's impossible... but this is a debate forum. It's ergo academic in nature and will include positions contrary to our own. If that troubles or hurts or offends (and that CAN reasonably be the case)... leave. I hate to be that blunt, but sometimes I think that's the wisest counsel. "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen...." If our faith or piety or relationships are going to be harmed or are harmed by reading threads here - my counsel is just don't read them. There are PLENTY of other forums at CF. I have (rarely) left a thread (even CF) exactly for this reason - it was beginning to trouble my soul or somehow my faith. TIME TO LEAVE! But that is
NOT a rule violation and NOT offense or flaming. It's MY "stuff" - and no one else's. People need to take responsibility for their OWN feelings, reactions, etc. I think people are often WAY too eager to hit the Report icon when maybe they should just bow out... or maybe step back, think, and respond with a HELPFUL post to the issue(s) raised (if they can do that
objectively and
academically, with the sole issue being TRUTH -rather than my feelings or my denomination's position)?
IMO, SOME issues here,
by their very nature, are problematic vis-a-vis CF rules. For example, would we normally permit a thread where the sex life of my mother would be discussed? No! The
very topic would likely be a violation of the rules here... and yet, the sex life of Our Mother MUST be permitted here because it's one of the Marian dogmas, one of the issues CF is asking us to discuss HERE. Unless we set aside some rules in that singular topic (or at least apply uniquely), the topic
itself seems to violate rules, CF itself perhaps is violating it's own rules. Obviously, things need to be handled differently there than in any other thread or forum. For example, how can one say "She had no sex!" and then shout "it's inappropriate to say if she had sex or not? I think that whole dogma is a set-up for problems... and mandates some very special considerations (one that may well be problematic for some).
And Staff stressed the need for substantiation. This too is more problematic than Staff
seems to be admitting. If a Mormon says, "The LDS teaches it - that's proof that it's true" that might not be viewed by Staff (or by posters) as the substantiation that Staff requires. Well, what happens when a Catholic says, "The Church teaches it - and that means it's true?" Or a Baptist posts, "The correct interpretation of Matthew 28:20 teaches it - that makes it true?" I think what Staff may be overlooking (?) is that there IS no singular understanding of what is normative, no singular understanding of what substantiates what. You have a rule with no real meaning to it. And OFTEN,
that's the issue of debate (especially as it regards Our Blessed Lady). Things get locked into the "he says.... she says" endless circle
precisely because all sides are doing EXACTLY what Staff mandates - supplying your evidence - without ANY agreement on what is and is not evidence. It DOES end up being exactly what Staff doesn't allow - but then how does Staff enforce that? Equally? Or simply on a Report basis?
I think the issue needs to be what's posted - not what someone FEELS when they read it. I think no one should be rebuked for what was not stated
or intended. And yes... there ARE situations (specially in this forum!) where people will need to be cut some slack - or else the issue itself needs to be pulled and disallowed.
Just my half-cent.
Pax
- Josiah
.
I did not know smileys were used as a bad thing...I almost always use smileys because of my happy mood on whatever it is I'm talking about. Now I'm wondering if I offended anyone. 
. You say, "Yeah but the rule is not intended to bait you." I respond, "Read your rule, that is irrelevant, it baits me."
