Temporary Policy Measure -- Only Theistic Evolutionists may post in this forum

[Letalis]

Policy? If this is a temporary solution to a temporary problem then how can it be policy already?

The problem isn't temporary. This is the current policy until a lasting solution can be found.

Here's my concern: from my experience when temporary solutions are not given strict parameters they often turn into permanent solutions by default. This happens despite the fact that better solutions exist and can be implemented. If we do not identify clear parameters for this current lock down, my concern is that it will become the solution, because its done, it wasy easy and the problem is solved for at least one involved party. I think we must, because of our ministry, strive for something better than that. To work at a better way that will probably be harder to achieve but more missional in the end.

Do you have any suggestions?

Again, am I pleading with you to set a limit so that we are working within a set of specific boundaries.

Constance and I discussed it, and we will be reviewing the situation in one month.

 

[chaoschristian]

Do you have any suggestions?

My suggestion at this time is to ensure that we have and follow a solid process to make sure the members of OT are solicited for information and ideas and given more than ample opportunity to examine and respond to any possible outcomes that derive from the process.

I would not think that putting up a poll after a month of silence fits the description.

Constance and I discussed it, and we will be reviewing the situation in one month.

I look forward to Constance's return after Easter so that we may continue this dialogue in earnest.

 

[Pats]

I just don't know where this leaves some one like me except perhaps out of both subforums altogether since I seem to have nestled down into a comfy undecided position on OT and haven't been in a rush to force myself into one catergory or the other.

Alot of the creationists see me as a TE anyway, and the TEs don't mind my being here, so I guess that's that.

 

[chaoschristian]

You're always welcome here Pats.

 

[Assyrian]

We love having you here.

 

[Pats]

You're always welcome here Pats.

We love having you here.

thank you both.

 

[Pats]

I have a question. If a TE started a thread in the TE forum with an [OPEN] tag, then any one could post in it. Even a creationist, right?

 

[Assyrian]

he he

 

[Dannager]

Geez, if Pats were ever considered a creationist that would make her basically my favorite creationist ever. You needn't ask permission to chill with us, Pats.

I have a question. If a TE started a thread in the TE forum with an [OPEN] tag, then any one could post in it. Even a creationist, right?

I think so...hopefully that's the purpose of the [OPEN] tag. If not, why does it exist?

 

[chaoschristian]

I have a question. If a TE started a thread in the TE forum with an [OPEN] tag, then any one could post in it. Even a creationist, right?

That's what the tags are for, to invite others who wouldn't otherwise be able to post to be able to post in fellowship.

 

[Letalis]

I have a question. If a TE started a thread in the TE forum with an [OPEN] tag, then any one could post in it. Even a creationist, right?

Actually, the [OPEN] tags are only meant to invite non-Christians to post in the CO section.

Currently, the policy as written does not allow for [OPEN] tags to be used to invite Creationists.

 

[chaoschristian]

That's a very narrow interpretation.

 

[shernren]

It would be akin to using the [OPEN] tag in the girls' section of Youth to open a thread for guys to participate in with limited extent. While (AFAIK) it should be technically feasible, it would be a lot easier to open that thread in the Youth general forum and request for it to be kept debate-free.

If technical restrictions are used to wall off the various OT subforums, I think pretty much the same idea would apply, wouldn't it?