Poll Revision

honorthesabbath · Aug 28, 2007

So Woob--do you think the word 'stinker' is a word violation or should be one?

DarylFawcett · Aug 28, 2007

StormyOne said:
and therein lies the rub.... in the progressive sub-forum we have agreed no flaming, and basically anyone can discuss anything.... the rules that are being hashed out now would overrule the rules established in the sub -forum.... so why allow each sub-forum formulate their own rules then negate them with the global rules?

We could add an exception clause as a separate proposed rule here that would allow within reason the rules in the respective sub-forums to supersede the global ones.

DarylFawcett · Aug 28, 2007

As this is also being discussed in the wiki, and as there is now a sticky topic link to the wiki, I am going to go with and work with what is being proposed in the wiki.

Adventist Dissident · Aug 28, 2007

djconklin said:
I agree that this is an unbiblical teaching--which is why we do not teach it.

oh my mistake it is the lost not the saints

woobadooba · Aug 28, 2007

RC,

I realize that some of the rule suggestions are already FORU.MS rules. However, I think the rules are poorly defined. They are not definitive enough in my opinion, and should be more explanatory.

I would like to have our forum define them in a way that there would be no room for debate, or argument when they are violated.

But the point about the sexual content rule is well taken.

woobadooba · Aug 28, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
So Woob--do you think the word 'stinker' is a word violation or should be one?

I think a person could say this to someone in a friendly manner too. The mods would have to be the ones that determine whether it would be a flame or not.

In any case, I can see that the majority in here don't really care about my opinion.

Just as they don't want me to be a mod they don't want to accept what I have to say.

It's probably best that I just leave you guys to hash this out on your own and find another forum to become a member of.

RC_NewProtestants · Aug 28, 2007

woobadooba said:
I think a person could say this to someone in a friendly manner too. The mods would have to be the ones that determine whether it would be a flame or not.

In any case, I can see that the majority in here don't really care about my opinion.

Just as they don't want me to be a mod they don't want to accept what I have to say.

It's probably best that I just leave you guys to hash this out on your own and find another forum to become a member of.

Yes I agree. I think further restrictions are unnecessary and the moderators discretion is important so we don't have to spell out tons of little do this don't do that rules. We are now at liberty to discuss moderator's actions also which should be helpful.

honorthesabbath · Aug 28, 2007

woobadooba said:
I think a person could say this to someone in a friendly manner too. The mods would have to be the ones that determine whether it would be a flame or not.

In any case, I can see that the majority in here don't really care about my opinion.

Just as they don't want me to be a mod they don't want to accept what I have to say.

It's probably best that I just leave you guys to hash this out on your own and find another forum to become a member of.

The reason I asked about this word is because I was reported for using it in a funny context. I had to edit it--can you believe that? ROFL!!

Some ppl report just to be 'get back'.

honorthesabbath · Aug 28, 2007

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum and we don't have SDA here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

RC--I'll thank you NOT to make such sweeping generalizations in the future. This kind of bashing is what keeps the fires of fighting going. Please stop.

Click to expand...

sentipente · Aug 28, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
RC--I'll thank you NOT to make such sweeping generalizations in the future. This kind of bashing is what keeps the fires of fighting going. Please stop.

He did not call any names so those who do not resemble the remark should ignore it.

RC_NewProtestants · Aug 28, 2007

honorthesabbath;38251687]

All of this appears to be over emotional Traditionalist SDA's trying to turn the entire SDA Forum into their narrow minded sancturary. If someone comes and starts a thread in the debate sub-forum and we don't have SDA here who can argue down that thesis we don't deserve to have our own forum. And frankly those that always want to restrict things tend to produce the least intelligent church members. People who cannot explain why they believe what they believe.

Click to expand...

RC--I'll thank you NOT to make such sweeping generalizations in the future. This kind of bashing is what keeps the fires of fighting going. Please stop.

There are only some traditionalists who have resorted to this emotionalism. To say there are emotional traditionalists is not a generalization of all traditionalist it identifies those who are being emotional and who are using their emotionalism to make narrow definitions. You might want to check the history of the Christian church if you don't think that restricting views does not create a less intelligent church membership. The Dark Ages are not called that only because of the lack of information about that time period but also because of the ignorance of the population under the restrictions of a totalitarian church.

As for flaming I don't think I will ever attain to your amount of flame production. I think you have rarely produced any productive posts, at least in the last several months, rather spending your time in less productive comment posting.

djconklin · Aug 28, 2007

spending your time in less productive comment posting.

Well, your post certainly fits into that category.

RC_NewProtestants · Aug 28, 2007

djconklin said:
Well, your post certainly fits into that category.

Your post it seems fits that category but my post was meant to show that saying emotional Traditionalists is not a generalization of all traditionals. I felt it was necessary to correct the false accusation. Of course if the accusation had not been made like your comment above it would not have been necessary to make the post to clear up any misconceptions. So true it is not terribly productive but it does demonstrate just how things spiral away from productivity when false accusations are made.

reddogs · Aug 29, 2007

This would actually be redundant, as the mention of one already implies the other.

-But it makes it more understandable as Satanism is the more proper term in this context.....

The rule already implies that it is unmerited, as it is written within a context that constitutes 'non-allowance of'.

-No the rule says nothing of the sort as quoting a verse that says "sexual fornication" could bring a infraction the way its written....

But not everyone understands what constitutes blasphemy. So what I had said isn't redundant, as it just simply adds clarity to the rule.

-They dont need to know as you could not even begin to list all the ways you can blaspheme, the 'mods' have to decide it.....

It is necessary to speak of variations for reasons already implied within the rule. Not all words are defined as profane according to the dictionary; but some words can be used in a profane manner as a substitute for words that the dictionary defines as profane.

-Again, the mods decide what is profane by normal standards.........

We need to make the rules as clear as we can, so that there will be no room for misunderstanding as to what they mean.

-You are making them as clear as mud the more you try to clarify, make it simple and let the mods discern, thats why you chose them.....

So are there times when it is necessary to do these things?

You may be the one who ends up doing it, you never know.......

Poll Revision

Senior Veteran

Ticket Support Manager

Ticket Support Manager

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency