ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: peter_speckhard on November 27, 2010, 11:20:33 AM

Title: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 27, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
I am away from home and office for Thanksgiving and have not been keeping up with things here for a few days. Based on the reported posts and complaints, I'd have to say that some of the usual suspects have remained true to form. I won't have much chance to get things in order until about Tuesday, but in the future I'll be taking a more aggressive stand about revoking the posting privileges of people whose participation here is unedifying. Just a general warning.

Secondly, the website is running out of space. The proposal has been made to eliminate any threads that haven't been posted on for sixty days. While that is not set in stone, one thing you might want to consider doing, if you have certain topics or old threads near and dear to your heart, is to copy them into documents or otherwise save them to you computer.

Meanwhile, anyone with suggestions on how to improve, streamline, or otherwise make this forum a more generally helpful thing for all concerned can feel free to post them here. Thanks.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on November 27, 2010, 02:30:25 PM
Rather than deleting all threads that have not been posted on for 60 days, I would suggest deleting those threads that have not been posted on for 60 days AND have fewer than 100 replies. It seems to me that this might save those "near and dear" threads.

Another option would be to delete all the posts of certain people - I'll leave who up to the moderators.  ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 27, 2010, 02:41:25 PM
Much of what has been stated in the past on this board has value. So why not put all of the threads that haven't been posted to for 60 days in a searchable database, burn it to a DVD and sell it for ten bucks a copy.

Losing all that historical data would only result in it being posted over and over again from memory for the benefit of the lurkers.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: revklak on November 27, 2010, 04:36:55 PM
Why not just have another mysterious purge?  You could post a page for a couple of days that says, "This weblsite was updated in 1934 and these pages may have been moved at that time."  Then, a few days later, mysteriously reappear with only a score or four threads left. 

Or maybe you could just say the "divine goddess' within the system was due for a sacrifice and took all the threads...

Or what if we claimed that NASA, in an effrot to save money and their jobs, BOUGHT all our messages and threads to recycle into fuel to blow the next shuttle into space, thereby avoiding the need for O rings and thermal panels...

Or what if.......

(Oh, too much family for too much time the past 78 hours. in my house.....)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 27, 2010, 05:03:57 PM
Dump everything over 1 year old into a server somewhere. And then forget where it is.

Ban anonymous contributions. Require everyone to use their real name.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on November 27, 2010, 05:43:48 PM
I have written some well-researched and argued posts over the years from my "Scott1" years through my current "Scott5" account. I'd hate to see them lost entirely.  If you do plan to remove them, please let me know b/c I'd like to request some type of backup for my own use.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on November 27, 2010, 05:56:54 PM
Dump everything over 1 year old into a server somewhere. And then forget where it is.

Ban anonymous contributions. Require everyone to use their real name.


I dunno - I think the moderators like anonymou$ contribution$   :o :o :o :o

Or maybe that's it - raise money for extra storage space - by taking bribes donations like a church carnival "jails"  It costs $100 bucks to put someone in jail for a month, unless they have already been banned - then it is $10 per day....
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: FrPeters on November 27, 2010, 06:38:57 PM
Some threads I continue to go back to... others I never paid much attention to in the first place... so I would suggest you delete the ones I have not paid much attention to and keep the ones I value... but that is a strictly personal ::) perspective with which others may disagree...
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Maryland Brian on November 27, 2010, 06:54:46 PM
Rather than deleting all threads that have not been posted on for 60 days, I would suggest deleting those threads that have not been posted on for 60 days AND have fewer than 100 replies. It seems to me that this might save those "near and dear" threads.

Another option would be to delete all the posts of certain people - I'll leave who up to the moderators.  ;D

  How about deleting every thread that is over 30 days old AND contains a reference to gay or lesbian clergy or same sex marriage?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Voelker on November 27, 2010, 07:09:28 PM
I have written some well-researched and argued posts over the years from my "Scott1" years through my current "Scott5" account. I'd hate to see them lost entirely.  If you do plan to remove them, please let me know b/c I'd like to request some type of backup for my own use.

Scott,

You likely know this, but...the "Profile" button at the top of the page will lead to a "Show Posts" link which will go to all your posts. If all you want is to save your responses, you can save each page of posts you have made from your browser (depending on what you use; some will save as plain html, others as some form of web archive, and, if you have a Mac (and perhaps a Windows box with the proper additions) you can print to PDF.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Michael Slusser on November 27, 2010, 08:01:29 PM
You likely know this, but...the "Profile" button at the top of the page will lead to a "Show Posts" link which will go to all your posts. If all you want is to save your responses, you can save each page of posts you have made from your browser (depending on what you use; some will save as plain html, others as some form of web archive, and, if you have a Mac (and perhaps a Windows box with the proper additions) you can print to PDF.

Cool.  8)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on November 27, 2010, 08:33:21 PM
I have written some well-researched and argued posts over the years from my "Scott1" years through my current "Scott5" account. I'd hate to see them lost entirely.  If you do plan to remove them, please let me know b/c I'd like to request some type of backup for my own use.

Scott,

You likely know this, but...the "Profile" button at the top of the page will lead to a "Show Posts" link which will go to all your posts. If all you want is to save your responses, you can save each page of posts you have made from your browser (depending on what you use; some will save as plain html, others as some form of web archive, and, if you have a Mac (and perhaps a Windows box with the proper additions) you can print to PDF.

Thanks, though you're right that I knew that.  Most of the posts I'm referring to were in my "Scott3" incarnation and earlier, as I haven't put as much time into my posts for quite a while as I did then.  Unfortunately, I've canned those profiles for various reasons and am now on "Scott5", so it makes it a bit more difficult to find my posts.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Keith Falk on November 27, 2010, 10:32:05 PM
We could also delete messages in our private inboxes.  I don't know how much space that would save, but it wouldn't hurt.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 28, 2010, 06:07:39 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: FrPeters on November 28, 2010, 06:29:45 AM
Is the "balance" the numbers of people or the equal access and the lack of restraints about how much or how vigorous the discussion and debate?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on November 28, 2010, 06:51:52 AM
two suggestions or proposed changes:

1. could there be some way of clumping like topics together...  perhaps there are many that are unclumpable and I do not mean a whole system of outlining everthing but keeping certain topics together, like Seasonal, Sexual, Sports, whatever...

2. old complaint, but can newly minted topics be placed forward in the topics list even before they get additional postings or somehow get automatic bumps?

3. maybe this is something I don't know how to do but can we find an easy way to enlarge the reading font?

Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on November 28, 2010, 07:12:56 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Coach-Rev on November 28, 2010, 07:32:39 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


I'm puzzled what this observation has to do with the original point of the thread, namely that vitriol levels have risen (again?) and that space is becoming a commodity on the server?

signed,

an anonymous user who isn't mentioned here b/c he has fewer than 500 posts.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 28, 2010, 08:02:32 AM
But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me).

I can add at least 3 more to this category, Charles, from communications I've received personally about the tone of your comments.  It's easy to place the blame elsewhere rather than looking at our own habits.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 28, 2010, 08:37:42 AM
I have said before, deaconess many times...
I do not impugn the faith of another person, even if I disagree with what they say.
I do not call them "un-Lutheran" "un-Christian" "un-biblical" or worse.
I do not call them bad pastors leading their flocks astray.
I do not repeatedly say how misguided, etc. etc. they are and how awful it is that they are in the same "Lutheran" boat as mine.
I express my admiration for much of what the LCMS has been and in some places, is today.
I am persistent in correcting (I hope) misconceptions about the ELCA and in saying that if one is in the ELCA, one should abide by the pertinent obligations.
As for "tone," well, that often depends upon the ear of the hearer and is out of my control.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on November 28, 2010, 09:19:42 AM
two suggestions or proposed changes:

1. could there be some way of clumping like topics together...  perhaps there are many that are unclumpable and I do not mean a whole system of outlining everthing but keeping certain topics together, like Seasonal, Sexual, Sports, whatever...

2. old complaint, but can newly minted topics be placed forward in the topics list even before they get additional postings or somehow get automatic bumps?

3. maybe this is something I don't know how to do but can we find an easy way to enlarge the reading font?

Harvey Mozolak

Harvey,

You can do this in your browser - on Google Chrome it is in the Zoom setting - I think on IE and Mozilla there is an actual font overris in the settings, where you can stipulate font height.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 28, 2010, 09:39:12 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on November 28, 2010, 09:42:16 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

How are you generating this statistic?

membership?
Attendance?

or confession?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on November 28, 2010, 09:44:17 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

I'm going to make a contribution to the space thing...  I'm getting off this board...again... 

Life is too damn short.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 28, 2010, 09:49:10 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

How are you generating this statistic?

membership?
Attendance?

or confession?

Membership. As Charles has pointed out, a majority of the ELCAers with over 500 posts do not agree with the recent ELCA actions. We are not a church body that tries to create unity by confessional agreement. We have diversity within the limits imposed by our constitutional Confession of Faith.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Michael Slusser on November 28, 2010, 10:44:23 AM
Anonymity should not be a bar to participation on this Forum. This should be obvious to everyone in the cases where a "moniker" is supplemented, either in the signature or in the offer to make the real name available by personal message. Even where that is not the case, the nature of this MODERATED Forum eliminates the principal objections to anonymous contributions, including the frequency with which on non-moderated forums they mask irresponsible invective.

As I have said before, this Forum is open and anyone Googling your name can pull up your posts on it. This is too much exposure for some of our members, and, as one who also tries to protect his privacy--as in being "hidden" when I am online--I think they have a right to keep a low profile.

As for irresponsible invective, we have plenty of evidence that it does not require anonymity.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: ptmccain on November 28, 2010, 12:55:11 PM
I'd say dump as much older content as possible. The "sixty day with no activity" idea is a good one. Keeps the content fresh and prevents the old "we've already talked about that" argument we hear on ALPB forum often.

As for comments...I'd say analyze the content of the comments. When the content is more often, than not, a comment about a fellow commentor, that's where I think the forum gets bogged  down. And as much as we'd like to say, "Just ignore that particular person" it does not seem to work. I've been guilty of allowing myself to get drawn into a cat fight with fellow commenters. I've tried very hard to ignore certain people, and it is working, for me, but it seems nearly an impossible task for others.

It is my perception that nearly every important topic on the ALPB is, sooner or later, derailed into a squabble about who said what and why they said it, analysis of motives, chastisement, snark, nastiness, and to use Richard's latest term: "jackassery." It would be nice if we could have relief from the inane musings and speculations of some but those are easier to ignore, I think.

Whatever can be done to mitigate those who participate in this fashion, I say, go for it. Frankly, my participation in the forum is dropping way off because I'm tired of the endless repetitious scoldings and personal attacks, by name, one forum participant in particular, continues to make in what appears to be an obsessive compulsion to attack people personally, ad naseum and ad infinitum. Most recently Richard Johnson called him out and demanded an apology and the only response was more of the same, times two. And again, no action was taken. That this behavior continues unchecked in spite of many moderatorial admonishments seems, to me, to call for decisive and final action.

Beyond that, Peter, I've shared my private observations with you already.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Maryland Brian on November 28, 2010, 01:09:26 PM

  I was serious about the gay and lesbian clergy and same sex marriage debate.   Wouldn't it be cool to take a complete vacation for a month or so?  Who knows, if orthodox and advocates dedicated a month to, oh, how to reach Gen Y (statistically less than 4% were in a church this weekend in North America) with the Gospel, maybe we'd find points of interesting contact and discussion.  Just saying ...

PB
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 28, 2010, 01:09:45 PM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

That would limit any Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox contributors to about 1 post a year. Of course if you see this board as a Liturgical Christian forum, as I do, then we all should have equal access. I would like to see a closer tie to Luther's works, the Augsburg Confession and Malanchton's "Loci Commune". Yeah, I know, like that is going to happen.  :P
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 28, 2010, 01:13:00 PM
two suggestions or proposed changes:

1. could there be some way of clumping like topics together...  perhaps there are many that are unclumpable and I do not mean a whole system of outlining everthing but keeping certain topics together, like Seasonal, Sexual, Sports, whatever...

2. old complaint, but can newly minted topics be placed forward in the topics list even before they get additional postings or somehow get automatic bumps?

3. maybe this is something I don't know how to do but can we find an easy way to enlarge the reading font?

Harvey Mozolak

Harvey, most browsers will allow you to temporarily enlarge the font by pressing <ctrl> and <+>.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 28, 2010, 01:22:17 PM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

I'm going to make a contribution to the space thing...  I'm getting off this board...again... 

Life is too damn short.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


I hope you change your mind but certainly understand your frustrations. Just remember that the Church has successfully defended the faith against Gnosticism from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Matt on November 28, 2010, 01:29:18 PM
I appreciate this Forum very much as it is, and I'm grateful for the work of the moderators and others who make this possible.

I believe moderation should continue to be used with a light hand. When a person engages in jackassery, he only hurts his own reputation. Participation in this forum is voluntary and I don't think anyone should be trying to patrol the numbers or types of contributors. The only time posts should be deleted is for gratuitous personal nastiness (the definition of which is necessarily subjective), revealing confidential information, and spam. Otherwise, let the feathers fly!
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 28, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


Given that 99% of the Christian world and 2000 years of Christian history disagree with the decisions of the CWA I would say that the ELCA's current position is over represented on this board.

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

How are you generating this statistic?

membership?
Attendance?

or confession?

Membership. As Charles has pointed out, a majority of the ELCAers with over 500 posts do not agree with the recent ELCA actions. We are not a church body that tries to create unity by confessional agreement. We have diversity within the limits imposed by our constitutional Confession of Faith.

So if we do not create unity by confessional agreement, how do we create it? Oh that's right we don't, we created controversy and division. As can be seen in the splitting of congregations and synods, the exodus of members and congregations, and the decline in mission support.

Why do we claim acceptance of the historic creeds, the authority of scripture, and the Augsburg Confession if we don't want to have unity with the confessing Church? Or have those marks of our Lutheran Christian faith been voted out at the last CWA also.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 28, 2010, 01:36:39 PM
This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

So invite your friends to the discussion.  Someone thought enough of something I said elsewhere to invite me to check out this forum; they might regret doing so, but at least I'm learning some things.   :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Jim Lehmann on November 28, 2010, 01:40:49 PM

Wouldn't it be cool to take a complete vacation for a month or so?  

PB

A month's vacation sounds great.  Actually, taking a month's vacation from the forum has been tried.  I discover that, like a TV soap opera, when I came back, nothing had changed.  Same topics, same arguments, same commentators.  

Maybe a way to change the forum would be that once a person has reached a number of comments on a given thread (maybe 30), they would no longer be able to comment.  We may still have the same topics and the same arguments, but at least the commentators would be different.

Jim Lehmann


Jim
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 28, 2010, 01:55:16 PM
As for "tone," well, that often depends upon the ear of the hearer and is out of my control.

No, sir, the tone is set by the writer.  If it is outside the control of the writer, perhaps it's time for the writer to take a good hard look at his or her habits.  I can see my own tone taking a decline based on how the conversation gets derailed on here, so I think I'll take Pastor Kliner's same path and focus on more positive ventures for a time.  "Life is just too damn short" (Amen! Pastor Kliner) to go down these negative paths all the time.  My faith brings me so much joy, and when that no longer becomes evident, it's time to think through the kind of witness we're providing.  Thanks to you all who are admitting this very thing and are taking actions to improve your habits . . . you've inspired me.   :)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: hillwilliam on November 28, 2010, 01:56:09 PM
Let me restate my suggestion. If the threads could be deleted, that have not been active in the last 90 days, and put on a DVD, the archive could be made available as a service to subscribers (for the cost of postage and handling) or as a separate subscription on a quarterly basis. Of course, I am assuming that the comments made in the threads are in the public domain.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Maryland Brian on November 28, 2010, 01:59:15 PM
My faith brings me so much joy, and when that no longer becomes evident, it's time to think through the kind of witness we're providing.  Thanks to you all who are admitting this very thing and are taking actions to improve your habits . . . you've inspired me.   :)

  That's what Facebook is for!  Seriously.  It's how I stay in touch with positive people who are making a difference.  Can I friend you?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 28, 2010, 02:09:19 PM
My faith brings me so much joy, and when that no longer becomes evident, it's time to think through the kind of witness we're providing.  Thanks to you all who are admitting this very thing and are taking actions to improve your habits . . . you've inspired me.   :)

  That's what Facebook is for!  Seriously.  It's how I stay in touch with positive people who are making a difference.  Can I friend you?

Absolutely!   :D  Kim Carr Schave

Despite the negativity, I am learning a lot from others and am very thankful for the diversity we all have here.  It would be helpful if we could do a better job as Christians to accept this diversity, myself included.  When the comments get personal on a continuous basis, it just becomes too much.  Sounds like the moderators are working on that.  I certainly appreciate being called out as I have been when I've crossed the line.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 28, 2010, 03:25:09 PM
As for "tone," well, that often depends upon the ear of the hearer and is out of my control.

No, sir, the tone is set by the writer.  If it is outside the control of the writer, perhaps it's time for the writer to take a good hard look at his or her habits.

There is some of both: a tone by the writer's words and the tone assumed by those who read them. I find that it makes a lot of difference in reading posts from folks I know personally -- those with whom I've conversed face to face where all the non-verbal stuff comes into play. Such a relationship makes it more likely that I will "hear" their posts more accurately than from others whom I don't know.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 28, 2010, 05:27:45 PM

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

Perhaps we should establish a quota system.  After all, look how much that has helped some church bodies.  Take the number of good ELCA posters, Pr. Austin could help determine who the good ELCA posters are and from that allocate half as many slots for ungood ELCA posters and non-ELCA posters, again, perhaps Pr. Austin could help in the winnowing process since he is so good at detecting those whose posting is unacceptable, or conduct a lottery for those slots (giving preference to Lutheran Forum subscribers) and kick the rest off.  That would lessen the overload in storage, lower Pr. Austins blood pressure and ensure a more respectful Forum experience.

Or Charles and Brian could go out a recruit more ELCA posters.  ;D

Dan
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: iowakatie1981 on November 28, 2010, 06:07:54 PM
What if we started from scratch and everybody had to be anonymous?  It would force us to read what people are actually saying and evaluate arguments on their merits, rather than our personal opinions about the individual posters.

Or, we could have an awesome party game - the moderators could pull all the names of registered users on the board, shuffle them, and reassign them to us all via email.  For 30 days, each of us has to post in the spirit and personality of the name we've been assigned.  Free subscriptions to Lutheran Forum for the first person to uncover another's "true identity."  It would be sort of like Blindman's Bluff - hey, they play that in A Christmas Carol.  It's seasonal and everything! 

(I hope I don't get Brian or Scott - I haven't figured out how to type in Greek here.  ;) )
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 28, 2010, 06:30:59 PM

This is a Lutheran discussion board in the United States. Considering that the ELCA is nearly twice as large as the LCMS, we should have nearly twice as many posters as the other U.S. Lutheran denominations.

Nonsense.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: gausmann on November 28, 2010, 07:04:51 PM
I would suggest limiting the number of posts a person can make in a week to 21-three a day, this not only encourages people to actually stay on topic it also helps to ensure the mental health of readers and contributors alike. Archive somewhere off this site things over a year old and keep the number of topics to no more than fifty at a time unless all have over a hundred hits in a month. If people rant and rave nedlessly and endlessly call the producers of Mission Impossible and see how to get their computers to self-destruct.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Mike Bennett on November 28, 2010, 08:27:56 PM
What if we started from scratch and everybody had to be anonymous?  It would force us to read what people are actually saying and evaluate arguments on their merits, rather than our personal opinions about the individual posters.


Iowakatie gets it.

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 28, 2010, 08:30:53 PM
Pastor Fienen writes
Perhaps we should establish a quota system.  After all, look how much that has helped some church bodies.  Take the number of good ELCA posters, Pr. Austin could help determine who the good ELCA posters are and from that allocate half as many slots for ungood ELCA posters and non-ELCA posters,
I comment:
Since I have always, in every place where I had a voice, opposed quotas and still think they are unacceptable and sometime stupid, I would refuse to have anything to do with quotas here.

Pastor Fienen:
 again, perhaps Pr. Austin could help in the winnowing process since he is so good at detecting those whose posting is unacceptable, or conduct a lottery for those slots (giving preference to Lutheran Forum subscribers) and kick the rest off.
Me:
A cheap shot. But I'll put a whimsy label on it nonetheless.

Pastor Fienen:
 That would lessen the overload in storage, lower Pr. Austins blood pressure and ensure a more respectful Forum experience.
Me:
My blood pressure is just fine. Couple of pills a day, decent exercise and a slight cutback on certain foods and I'm in decent shape.

Pastor Fienen:
Or Charles and Brian could go out a recruit more ELCA posters.
Me:
Nope. The ALPB "finders' fee" is way too low. Among other reasons.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Evangel on November 28, 2010, 09:03:11 PM
I would suggest limiting the number of posts a person can make in a week to 21-three a day, this not only encourages people to actually stay on topic it also helps to ensure the mental health of readers and contributors alike. Archive somewhere off this site things over a year old and keep the number of topics to no more than fifty at a time unless all have over a hundred hits in a month. If people rant and rave nedlessly and endlessly call the producers of Mission Impossible and see how to get their computers to self-destruct.

Post Per Day Limit mod (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=255420.0) from Simple Machines Forum user site.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: SmithL on November 28, 2010, 09:33:04 PM
Would it help if we all typed slower?
 :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 28, 2010, 11:24:51 PM
I would suggest limiting the number of posts a person can make in a week to 21-three a day, this not only encourages people to actually stay on topic it also helps to ensure the mental health of readers and contributors alike. Archive somewhere off this site things over a year old and keep the number of topics to no more than fifty at a time unless all have over a hundred hits in a month. If people rant and rave nedlessly and endlessly call the producers of Mission Impossible and see how to get their computers to self-destruct.

Post Per Day Limit mod (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=255420.0) from Simple Machines Forum user site.

I was part of another online discussion group that tried limiting posts per day. What happened was fewer posts, but longer ones. Rather than giving quick replies to every question I was asked, I saved them up for one long post. Most of the other frequent posters did the same thing.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on November 28, 2010, 11:57:48 PM
Perhaps we should establish a quota system.  After all, look how much that has helped some church bodies.  Take the number of good ELCA posters, Pr. Austin could help determine who the good ELCA posters are and from that allocate half as many slots for ungood ELCA posters and non-ELCA posters, again, perhaps Pr. Austin could help in the winnowing process since he is so good at detecting those whose posting is unacceptable, or conduct a lottery for those slots (giving preference to Lutheran Forum subscribers) and kick the rest off.  That would lessen the overload in storage, lower Pr. Austins blood pressure and ensure a more respectful Forum experience.

Ooh!  Ooh!  I'm female, clergy and a minority (green-eyed Scots-Irish Lutheran surrounded by Norweigian/Americans)!  So that should count for extra in the quota system!  (I've decided to quit fighting quotas, and embrace them as long as it provides benefits to me and my causes.)   ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 29, 2010, 12:35:21 AM
We are not a church body that tries to create unity by confessional agreement. We have diversity within the limits imposed by our constitutional Confession of Faith.

 ::)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Keith Falk on November 29, 2010, 12:39:52 AM
I did a quick count, as I am ofttimes wont to do. My numbers might be off by three or four, but not much more than that.
I think I counted 68 people on this forum with more than 500 posts. I did not include the moderators.
Of those 68, five are consistently supportive of the ELCA, at least to some extent. But one of those has virtually dropped out of the discussion, disgusted with the tenor of the conversation (this person told me). Another seems to be slipping away from the discussion and one has relatively few recent postings.
Four others are apparently in the ELCA, but strongly - one might say terminally - critical of that church body.
The rest are not in the ELCA, either in the LCMS (most of them) or have left or are leaving the ELCA (and in at least one case the LCMS) because of doctrinal disputes. Virtually all of those 60+ believe the ELCA is heterodox, apostate, heretical or worse and say so frequently.
That is the "balance" in this forum.
Just an observation.


And, as I am ofttimes wont to do, I will go about to ask you who you place into each camp.  By my count, being rather generous as to who I don't know for sure if they are still in ELCA (or ever were), I count the following of the 64 who have more than 500 posts:

Solidly behind ELCA almost all the time:  Stoffregen, Austin, Petty, Doughty, vicarbob, Krauser, SCPO (Senior Chief) for a total of 7 - though, I grant, you may place one or two in a different category

In the ELCA (at least listed on our roster per the ELCA Find A Person), but not necessarily solidly behind the ELCA as consistently as List A:  A Catholic Lutheran (Kliner), RevSteve (BLiss), Mel Harris, G. Johnson, Knudson, racin_jason, Falk, Hahn, Bennett, Davidson, Wolf, Charlton, Dadoo (Kruse), Tibbetts, Erdner

That's 22 right there, out of the 62 who aren't moderators.  I don't know on that list of ELCA people who are going or not - maybe you have some insider knowledge on that point.  I do know that every time you count your list, the count is inaccurate and misleading... and the brush which is used is consistently too large.

Just an observation.   ::)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 04:14:06 AM
Pastor Falk writes:
Solidly behind ELCA almost all the time:  Stoffregen, Austin, Petty, Doughty, vicarbob, Krauser, SCPO (Senior Chief) for a total of 7 - though, I grant, you may place one or two in a different category
I comment:
Thanks for the help. Your count may have been more detailed than my quick run through the members list. But, I must note...
edoughty - infrequent participant by my first count, but more frequent than I thought,
vicarbob - infrequent participant, can't always tell where he stands
Krauser - virtually not in the discussion, only on about once a month
SCPO - almost opted out, only six brief posts since August
Petty - infrequent participant, short blasts usually, not much more
So, in terms of generally regular participants, that leaves three, Pastor Stoffregen, this humble correspondent, and edoughty as "solidly behind" the ELCA, and the others as "solidly behind," (maybe) but not regularly present here.

Pastor Falk writes:
In the ELCA (at least listed on our roster per the ELCA Find A Person), but not necessarily solidly behind the ELCA as consistently as List A:  A Catholic Lutheran (Kliner), RevSteve (BLiss), Mel Harris, G. Johnson, Knudson, racin_jason, Falk, Hahn, Bennett, Davidson, Wolf, Charlton, Dadoo (Kruse), Tibbetts, Erdner
I note:
"In the ELCA," perhaps, but...
    A Catholic Lutheran, RevSteve, Marshall Hahn are sharply critical, sometimes hostile, some to the point of making me think that they are on their way out or wondering how, given what their consciences tell them, they are able to stay in.
    So far as I know, dcharlton, Wolf, Tibbetts and some of the others remain "in", in responsible ways, but strongly critical.
    Mr. Erdner despises the ELCA, regularly maligns its leaders and virtually every one of its programs. The tone of his postings has earned him the dreaded ban. He has said he will leave as soon as he finds a congregation to his liking.

So while we can quibble about just where some people "stand," I still contend that among those 64 are only three or four regular participants who strongly support and defend the ELCA, three or four who seem to be staying "in the ELCA," though they are strong critics. The rest, almost never a kind word, almost always sharp, often nasty words about the ELCA. Therefore, I contend contra pastor Falk, that my analysis of the participants here is generally on target.

BTW, while we in the ELCA believe the LCMS is wrong with regard to women pastors, communion practices, and ecumenical relations, we see nothing here that berates them for their views that parallels the hammering the ELCA gets, day after day, from LCMS participants here about what we do.

But in the grand scheme of things.... maybe we should all just go and bake cupcakes or play the flute.

Just an observation.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Revbert on November 29, 2010, 07:35:50 AM
Ah, Charles,. I hate to rain on your parade, but unless you are speaking of the ELCA from an official policy standpoint, there are still many in the ELCA who aren't thrilled with the idea of women pastors.

A sad thing, but still factual.

Art
(who thinks signing posts when my name is beside it is redundant, and will stop doing it, even if Charles thinks it should be done)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 08:19:36 AM
Art Hebbeler writes:
Ah, Charles,. I hate to rain on your parade, but unless you are speaking of the ELCA from an official policy standpoint, there are still many in the ELCA who aren't thrilled with the idea of women pastors.

I respond:
You would have to provide me with some evidence that - after more than 35 years and several female bishops - "many" still disapprove of women pastors. Wishful thinking on your part, I believe.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Coach-Rev on November 29, 2010, 08:19:54 AM
Pastor Falk writes:
Solidly behind ELCA almost all the time:  Stoffregen, Austin, Petty, Doughty, vicarbob, Krauser, SCPO (Senior Chief) for a total of 7 - though, I grant, you may place one or two in a different category
I comment:
Thanks for the help. Your count may have been more detailed than my quick run through the members list. But, I must note...
edoughty - infrequent participant by my first count, but more frequent than I thought,
vicarbob - infrequent participant, can't always tell where he stands
Krauser - virtually not in the discussion, only on about once a month
SCPO - almost opted out, only six brief posts since August
Petty - infrequent participant, short blasts usually, not much more
So, in terms of generally regular participants, that leaves three, Pastor Stoffregen, this humble correspondent, and edoughty as "solidly behind" the ELCA, and the others as "solidly behind," (maybe) but not regularly present here.

Pastor Falk writes:
In the ELCA (at least listed on our roster per the ELCA Find A Person), but not necessarily solidly behind the ELCA as consistently as List A:  A Catholic Lutheran (Kliner), RevSteve (BLiss), Mel Harris, G. Johnson, Knudson, racin_jason, Falk, Hahn, Bennett, Davidson, Wolf, Charlton, Dadoo (Kruse), Tibbetts, Erdner
I note:
"In the ELCA," perhaps, but...
    A Catholic Lutheran, RevSteve, Marshall Hahn are sharply critical, sometimes hostile, some to the point of making me think that they are on their way out or wondering how, given what their consciences tell them, they are able to stay in.
    So far as I know, dcharlton, Wolf, Tibbetts and some of the others remain "in", in responsible ways, but strongly critical.
    Mr. Erdner despises the ELCA, regularly maligns its leaders and virtually every one of its programs. The tone of his postings has earned him the dreaded ban. He has said he will leave as soon as he finds a congregation to his liking.

So while we can quibble about just where some people "stand," I still contend that among those 64 are only three or four regular participants who strongly support and defend the ELCA, three or four who seem to be staying "in the ELCA," though they are strong critics. The rest, almost never a kind word, almost always sharp, often nasty words about the ELCA. Therefore, I contend contra pastor Falk, that my analysis of the participants here is generally on target.

BTW, while we in the ELCA believe the LCMS is wrong with regard to women pastors, communion practices, and ecumenical relations, we see nothing here that berates them for their views that parallels the hammering the ELCA gets, day after day, from LCMS participants here about what we do.

But in the grand scheme of things.... maybe we should all just go and bake cupcakes or play the flute.

Just an observation.



And I ask again, expecting no response from you, Charles, what does this have to do with ANYTHING on this forum?  It only consistently furthers the rifts and divisions that are already deep, painful, and festering.  As we count sides, the ELCA continues to crumble down around us...

It makes me think that Grundvig had no comprehension of the ELCA when he penned his words...

anonymously yours,

Rev. John Doe
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Maryland Brian on November 29, 2010, 08:42:32 AM
Perhaps we should establish a quota system.  After all, look how much that has helped some church bodies.  Take the number of good ELCA posters, Pr. Austin could help determine who the good ELCA posters are and from that allocate half as many slots for ungood ELCA posters and non-ELCA posters, again, perhaps Pr. Austin could help in the winnowing process since he is so good at detecting those whose posting is unacceptable, or conduct a lottery for those slots (giving preference to Lutheran Forum subscribers) and kick the rest off.  That would lessen the overload in storage, lower Pr. Austins blood pressure and ensure a more respectful Forum experience.

Ooh!  Ooh!  I'm female, clergy and a minority (green-eyed Scots-Irish Lutheran surrounded by Norweigian/Americans)!  So that should count for extra in the quota system!  (I've decided to quit fighting quotas, and embrace them as long as it provides benefits to me and my causes.)   ;D

  Ooh!  Ooh!  And I'm an Irish Lutheran who really can't stand Lutefisk.  Not too crazy about Ole and Lena jokes either.  I think that should count for extra in the quota system too!   :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 09:22:25 AM
Someone writes:
And I ask again, expecting no response from you, Charles, what does this have to do with ANYTHING on this forum? 
I write:
Surprise! You do get a response! Lucky you.
This forum is open to discuss anything, including the balance among the participants. (Had you been here longer, you would have noticed that.)

Someone writes:
It only consistently furthers the rifts and divisions that are already deep, painful, and festering.
I respond:
How does telling the truth, examining the situation, "further the rifts and divisions"? Would you rather they never be mentioned.

Someone writes:
As we count sides, the ELCA continues to crumble down around us...
I respond:
Oh, please. Spare us the over-heated rhetoric.
I noted far far far upstream that in the 1970s, the LCMS lost tens of thousands of members and remains strong (though somewhat diminished in size) today.
The ELCA as some people may want it to be, is changing, as the church always changes. It will be different tomorrow than it is today.
If you don't want it to "crumble," stop posting divisive language and do what you can to work in your synod and region for reconciliation among people who disagree. (And before the "they don't like me!" language starts, I'll say: It may not be easy, but it will be God's work.)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Terry W Culler on November 29, 2010, 09:42:30 AM
So there are just a handful of people who will reflexively defend anything the ELCA does and there are a handful who will attack anything the ELCA does.  My question is, "so what?"  There a lot of LC-MS folks here.  There are at least a few AFLC folks here.  And I don't know how many others.  So what?  People disagree and they disagree vigorously about what is a church dividing set of decisions.  That isn't going to change.  Let's just live with it.

But as to the topic of change.  I would like to see more serious theological discussion around things other than homosexuality.  If we did that, I think we would see a great deal of change in how we react to one another.  For example, if we were to have a serious discussion as to the meaning of "Church" I think we could have some serious give and take, some serious disagreement and still a level of civility that would please even our quick on the draw moderators.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on November 29, 2010, 09:48:56 AM
Art Hebbeler writes:
Ah, Charles,. I hate to rain on your parade, but unless you are speaking of the ELCA from an official policy standpoint, there are still many in the ELCA who aren't thrilled with the idea of women pastors.

I respond:
You would have to provide me with some evidence that - after more than 35 years and several female bishops - "many" still disapprove of women pastors. Wishful thinking on your part, I believe.


   Hahahahaha! (Wiping my eyes, and getting up off the floor.)  That's a good one, Charles!  

   Trust me when I say this:  there are many and various ways of disapproving of women pastors.  And some of those who most vocally approve of women pastors are, I fear, in need of a trip to their confessor regarding their sin of being two-faced.  

   The ones I respect (both men and women in the ELCA) are those who are honest and brave enough to tell me up front that they don't believe women should be ordained to the pastoral office.  Then we can both go forward with our honest disagreement.  (And some would say i don't know anything about respecting other people's conscience.  ::))  

  
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 09:59:23 AM
Erma writes (after the gut-wrenching laughter):
Trust me when I say this:  there are many and various ways of disapproving of women pastors.  And some of those who most vocally approve of women pastors are, I fear, in need of a trip to their confessor regarding their sin of being two-faced. 

I comment:
Can't speak to the sins of others or the number of faces they have. I don't dispute that some women encounter difficulties. There are women pastors and there are women pastors.
And - if there are ELCAers who don't believe women should be ordained, still with us after all these years, I guess that it is possible to continue in a church body with such disagreements. A sign of hope.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Ken Kimball on November 29, 2010, 10:06:01 AM
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D   And I do think that Pr. Knudson is LCMC and not ELCA any longer.

Ken

Still ELCA, despite being censured and admonished, until my congregations take their second vote (Jan 16) or I am removed from the roster of the ELCA (in which case I will remain pastor at Old East and Old West) or Old East and Old West are expelled along with their pastor.   
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: James Gustafson on November 29, 2010, 10:13:35 AM
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D    

I'll put you on a list, now which side did you want?  Naughty or Nice?  :D  I'll make sure it's checked twice.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 29, 2010, 10:26:02 AM
You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree.  Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.

It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.  Every time you discover that old interpretations were, if not wrong at the time, are wrong now; that with our modern science and sociology we understand many things better than they did of old when people wrote out what they thought God was inspiring them to write; every time you advance into the brave new future there will be some who resist, who will miss the old, comforting orthodoxies that must be changed or abandoned and they will be vocal in their opposition.  Deplorable that not everyone gets with the program, but there it is.  Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.

I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.  After all, you think that they are wrong on some of their policies and chide them for their pretentions and helpfully point out their inconsistencies and wish they would be more respectful of the larger Lutheran community that your church represents, why should they complain that they think that your Biblical interpretations (which are becoming standard in the scholarly community) betray the faith.  If you do not complain that they are not being Lutheran how dare they complain that your church has departed from what Lutheranism has taught!  Well, again, that is part of the cost of being prophetic.

As has been pointed out to the traditionists, if you are unwilling to accept the cost of taking a stand, don't do it.  To take a stand even if it offends some, even if it angers some, you've got to accept the cost.  

Dan
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: tcswans on November 29, 2010, 10:32:12 AM
Art Hebbeler writes:
Ah, Charles,. I hate to rain on your parade, but unless you are speaking of the ELCA from an official policy standpoint, there are still many in the ELCA who aren't thrilled with the idea of women pastors.

I respond:
You would have to provide me with some evidence that - after more than 35 years and several female bishops - "many" still disapprove of women pastors. Wishful thinking on your part, I believe.


Last Sunday at “my” church: the organist-choirmaster is female, the interim pastor is female, the lector is (as usual) a female. The Prayers of Intercession are offered by the female president of the congregation, who also presents the announcements at the end of the service, calling for comments from the previous, also female, congregational president. The latter encourages attendance at a service, later that day, celebrating the ordination of Elizabeth Platz in 1970. The ushers/greeters are two females. The Vocal Solo is sung by a female. One hardly hears a male voice throughout the entire liturgy.

What do you suppose would be the reaction to someone (such as myself) who was so incautious as to express even the wispiest, most tentative reservations about the wisdom and utter finality of the decision to ordain women?

There may well be more doubters than Pr. Austin suggests. Far more.

— Tim Swanson
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 29, 2010, 10:46:49 AM
I was not aware that this was a discussion forum for ELCA members in good standing and of good behavior.  Are LCMS folk, ex-(or soon to be ex-)ELCA folk and other sorts welcome so long as we express only respect and admiration for the prophetic actions of the ELCA and leave no messes on the floor?
 If there are not enough ELCA posters in the mix we have only too choices, increase the number of ELCA posters or get rid of a bunch of the interlopers.

Perhaps the company here is too rough for the delicate sensibilities of good, decent, loyal ELCAers.  Well, as has been suggested for some Traditionalists who complain of their treatment at Synodical meetings and other gatherings of the ELCA - that is the cost of making a stand, or, in other words, if you can't stand the heat keep quiet.   8)

Dan

And yes, I do personally deplore some of the intemperate, rude and inappropriate language that is used by certain posters here about the ELCA.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 10:53:37 AM
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.

You write:
Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.
I respond:
You write as if this were a bad thing. I am sorry if "traditionalists" experience trouble. But I do say that they may need to toughen up. What's wrong with that? We have people here who want to call their bishops apostate heretics and then wonder why they can't get a call. Duh!

You write:
It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.
I comment:
I have always been willing to accept responsible criticism. And again, I find the italicized phrases - given your previous postings - patronizing.

You write:
Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.
I comment:
But the point here is that "my side" (a term I dislike) is apparently in the majority.

You write:
I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.
I comment:
The ELCA may absolutely no efforts to get the LCMS "on board" with our statement on human sexuality. We aren't that stupid.

I guess I am sort of saying: At this point in history, I don't seek your "understanding." I certainly don't seek your "agreement" or even a "consensus."
We are different kinds of Lutherans. Period. Stop. End of story.
I am not even sure that the kind of LCMS Lutheran most prevalent in this forum is the "real" LCMS.
Perhaps we ought to leave each other alone.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Paula Murray on November 29, 2010, 10:58:24 AM
Erma is so very right; there are any number of people out there who are still unhappy about the decision to ordain women, and some of them say that they approve.  Closet - yea gads, what can I call them? well, chauvinists is a term of political art and so inappropriate - whatever, abound.  It's as me Da used to say, "If you want to know a person's heart, watch what they do rather than listen to what they say." 

And I am, proudly, though confusedly, an Irish-Norwegian blend, blue-eyed, auburn hair (at least, once upon a time) with RC and Haugean Lutheran roots.  What's that do to a quota system, much less my personality?

Yours in Christ,
Paula Murray
Who, if she keeps to her current rate of posting, will hit the 600 mark in 15 or 16 YEARS.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on November 29, 2010, 11:14:24 AM
The latter encourages attendance at a service, later that day, celebrating the ordination of Elizabeth Platz in 1970.

Which makes perfect logical sense. <shrug>
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Team Hesse on November 29, 2010, 11:16:52 AM
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.



Wellllll, Charles, I found what Pastor Fienen wrote to be spot-on. I was there when the "leadership" decided to be prophetic. The consensus of the ELCA was recognized by those present to be opposed to the changes under consideration. There was a profound sense of disappointment that, in the words of one my task force colleagues,"the church is just not ready for these changes." Another member piped up with "we have to be prophetic" and they were off to the races and my excruciating headaches began. What you find demeaning and insulting I consider the truth. I was there, you were not.

As to the rest of what you wrote to Pastor Fienen, there is no point to responding to any of it because you have already closed your mind to any other viewpoint. You have your reward, enjoy your Prophetic Brave New Church. You are correct that there is no point in continuing these "discussions" other than to correct obvious statements of error--Like the one you stated above.

Lou
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 11:22:53 AM
I am still sorry, Lou, that if we are to discuss the ethics of genetic engineering and agriculture, (and I sort of wish we didn't think we had to do that) we will not have your voice in our discussions.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Pilgrim on November 29, 2010, 11:25:08 AM
Tim Christ comments: To the point of the thread (which sidetracked pretty quickly as usual): As one who does not peruse the archives, given that keeping up with various threads is time-consuming enough, the poster who suggested archiving the minimal information in some of the lines (conventions, assemblies, etc.) and various other lessor utilized threads made considerable sense to me (if it addresses the storage issue), as well as (if possible) some limitations on numbers of posts within a given time period. And duly noting Brian's reflection of that having happened elsewhere resulting in his simply utilizing lengthier posts, well, perhaps a limitation on lenth (not as restrictive as twitter, but along that line) would force people to think and write more succinctly and to the point. As I believe the journalist among us would testify, haiving column/word length boundaries are beneficial along these lines. It is good training, or so it seems to me, for all of us ... from writing to preaching!  ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 29, 2010, 11:38:16 AM
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

From my perspective you probably should know patronizing since I often find you to be patronizing.
Quote
I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree.  
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.
Perhaps not you personally, but one argument that I have heard used on these fora over and over again it that things like the acceptance of PALMSGR as acceptable to God is one of the "new things" that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit going to do.  Sometimes it seems to me that just about anything that the church decides to do that is new and different is labeled a "new thing" that the Holy Spirit is doing.  It has even been suggested that those who do not go with it are actually resisting the Holy Spirit.  As for the leadership convincing the majority to go along with what they believe should be happening, I thought that was what leadership did.  A leader is one who leads, hopefully through discussion, argumentation, persuasion, and showing the rightness of the action.  I did not intend to accuse them of anything underhanded but that they have lead your church.  That I and others disagree with the direction the leadership is leading is a slightly different concern.
Quote
You write:
Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.
I respond:
You write as if this were a bad thing. I am sorry if "traditionalists" experience trouble. But I do say that they may need to toughen up. What's wrong with that? We have people here who want to call their bishops apostate heretics and then wonder why they can't get a call. Duh!
So it is a good thing when traditionalists experience trouble?!?  They should take it as a salutary toughening up experience?!?  That is what I call "grudging" sympathy.  Perhaps those who have pushed for these changes also need to toughen up.  If you are going to change what somebody's church has done and stood for for years, you should expect them to get emotional about it.
Quote
You write:
It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.
I comment:
I have always been willing to accept responsible criticism. And again, I find the italicized phrases - given your previous postings - patronizing.
Are you saying that in your opinion the Holy Spirit is not moving the ELCA in these directions?  Several times it has been suggested that the acceptance of PALMSGR in ordained leadership roles is a non-issue for young people and traditionalists are going to loose out because young people don't go along with them.  (Perhaps you have not said this, but this is not only about you.)
Quote
You write:
Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.
I comment:
But the point here is that "my side" (a term I dislike) is apparently in the majority.

My bad here, I left out a word or two.  What I meant was how few in a particular forum or discussion get it.  Your complaints have been about lack of respect from posters on this forum (and lack of respect from the LCMS in general for the ELCA and their audacity at saying the ELCA is wrong).
Quote
You write:
I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.
I comment:
The ELCA may absolutely no efforts to get the LCMS "on board" with our statement on human sexuality. We aren't that stupid.

I guess I am sort of saying: At this point in history, I don't seek your "understanding." I certainly don't seek your "agreement" or even a "consensus."
We are different kinds of Lutherans. Period. Stop. End of story.
Of courses the ELCA did not try to get the LCMS "on board" with the statement on human sexuality.  But over the years, especially during the formation of the ELCA there were efforts to get the LCMS "on board".  You still seem to resent that we do not agree that your version of Lutheranism is every bit as valid, authentic, even orthodox as that in the LCMS.
Quote
I am not even sure that the kind of LCMS Lutheran most prevalent in this forum is the "real" LCMS.
Perhaps we ought to leave each other alone.


You keep saying that you consider the LCMS to be a valid Lutheran denomination where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered as though that meant that you are now free to take pot shots at the LCMS, make snarky comments about disunity within the LCMS and complain that we do not respond by saying that ELCA version of Lutheranism is just correct as what we in the LCMS believe, teach and confess.  (Although its not exactly clear what the ELCA teaches about some topics since, for example, you affirmed in your latest legislation, CWA '09, that the ELCA has four correct teachings on a certain topic, some of which directly oppose others.)

Dan
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Revbert on November 29, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Charles,

I don't have to give you examples. Erma and Paula have offered their own, well-qualified-on-the-issue, comments.

I don't understand your snipe about "wishful thinking."  There are still many congregations out there that will not accept a woman candidate for a call vacancy, just as there are many that will not accept a PALMS candidate for a vacancy.

Once again, you demonstrate your READY-FIRE-AIM approach to comments here.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: GalRev83 on November 29, 2010, 11:50:50 AM
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D   And I do think that Pr. Knudson is LCMC and not ELCA any longer.

Ken



*sniff* me, too.....!

Put Smith under "in the ELCA but critical of it."

For quotas, put me under ethnically German and Jewish (come on, that should get a bonus for me), vocationally and occupationally a wife, stepmom, stepgrandmom and stepgreatgranny and ordained female person of almost 28 years experience.

For lunch, put me down for ham and cheese on rye with brown mustard :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 29, 2010, 12:09:02 PM
I like the idea of archiving deleted threads somewhere and making it available in some reasonable fashion.  I do kind of wonder why we have not only the last convention but the conventions previous to that of both church on line.  Would help a little.

Dan
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: SmithL on November 29, 2010, 12:11:07 PM
Paula Murray
Who, if she keeps to her current rate of posting, will hit the 600 mark in 15 or 16 YEARS.


But the more posts you make, the more stars you are awarded.  Nobody gets a star for showing restraint.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 12:38:04 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
You still seem to resent that we do not agree that your version of Lutheranism is every bit as valid, authentic, even orthodox as that in the LCMS.
I comment:
Yes, I do. No apologies for that. You see only one form, one type, one anything that is "Lutheranism." I don't. The Church of Sweden - Lutheran. The church bodies in Indonesia (that look nothing like the Church of Sweden) - Lutheran.  Our communion takes different forms around the world, depending upon its history, development and local leadership or lack thereof. You do not recognize that the way that I do.

Pastor Fienen writes:
You keep saying that you consider the LCMS to be a valid Lutheran denomination where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered as though that meant that you are now free to take pot shots at the LCMS, make snarky comments about disunity within the LCMS and complain that we do not respond by saying that ELCA version of Lutheranism is just correct as what we in the LCMS believe, teach and confess.
I comment:
I do not take "pot shots," though I at times express my disagreement with LCMS policies and sometimes I ask questions. It is not "snarky" to recognize that the LCMS is not as "doctrinally unified" as you claim to be.  As for how you respond, see above. There is more than one form of Lutheranism. You do not seem to admit that.

Pastor Fienen:
(Although its not exactly clear what the ELCA teaches about some topics since, for example, you affirmed in your latest legislation, CWA '09, that the ELCA has four correct teachings on a certain topic, some of which directly oppose others.)
Me:
We are more comfortable with disagreements and ambiguity that you are. And it is quite clear, perfectly clear, totally clear that the ELCA teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 29, 2010, 01:46:59 PM
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.


Pot?  Meet Kettle.   ::)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Paula Murray on November 29, 2010, 02:00:22 PM
Paula Murray
Who, if she keeps to her current rate of posting, will hit the 600 mark in 15 or 16 YEARS.


But the more posts you make, the more stars you are awarded.  Nobody gets a star for showing restraint.

Yeah, true, but if we all had lots and lots of stars who would look special?  It's like what we told our youngest back in the days when he was the shortest person in his class, "No dear, you can't have human growth hormone.  It's not good for you overall and besides, if we didn't have short people we wouldn't know who the tall people are."


Said son is now just shy of six feet. 

And, somewhere, I should act counter to my usual behavior.  So, here, I'll read YOUR comments and keep mine to myself....most of the time.

Yours in the Christ,
Paula Murray
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: ptmccain on November 29, 2010, 02:04:02 PM
Seems that those changes promised can't come too quickly.

 :'(
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 29, 2010, 02:15:20 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
You still seem to resent that we do not agree that your version of Lutheranism is every bit as valid, authentic, even orthodox as that in the LCMS.
I comment:
Yes, I do. No apologies for that. You see only one form, one type, one anything that is "Lutheranism." I don't. The Church of Sweden - Lutheran. The church bodies in Indonesia (that look nothing like the Church of Sweden) - Lutheran.  Our communion takes different forms around the world, depending upon its history, development and local leadership or lack thereof. You do not recognize that the way that I do.

Pastor Fienen writes:
You keep saying that you consider the LCMS to be a valid Lutheran denomination where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered as though that meant that you are now free to take pot shots at the LCMS, make snarky comments about disunity within the LCMS and complain that we do not respond by saying that ELCA version of Lutheranism is just correct as what we in the LCMS believe, teach and confess.
I comment:
I do not take "pot shots," though I at times express my disagreement with LCMS policies and sometimes I ask questions. It is not "snarky" to recognize that the LCMS is not as "doctrinally unified" as you claim to be.  As for how you respond, see above. There is more than one form of Lutheranism. You do not seem to admit that.

Pastor Fienen:
(Although its not exactly clear what the ELCA teaches about some topics since, for example, you affirmed in your latest legislation, CWA '09, that the ELCA has four correct teachings on a certain topic, some of which directly oppose others.)
Me:
We are more comfortable with disagreements and ambiguity that you are. And it is quite clear, perfectly clear, totally clear that the ELCA teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Whatever.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: LCMS87 on November 29, 2010, 02:52:48 PM
I do not take "pot shots," though I at times express my disagreement with LCMS policies and sometimes I ask questions. It is not "snarky" to recognize that the LCMS is not as "doctrinally unified" as you claim to be. 

Restricting the sacrament to "sponsorship" of a congregation alone seems to be one of the most draconian steps ever taken by those who wish to exert ultra-conservative control over what belongs to the Church as "C"hurch.
    But of course, what can you expect from a denomination that has made a long long career or ripping people up over such things, bringing its leading theologians (the "44", Concordia-St. Louis Professors) to the guillotine, and letting each individual pastor decide for himself who he deigns to be worthy to kneel beside him at the altar rail.
    Such actions are a profound embarrassment to all decent Lutheran.....
    Oh! Wait! Stop! I let my guard down and a spirit of ptmccain took over my keyboard. I think I have now killed that intrusive spirit deader than Dobbie the House Elf at the close of the most recent Harry Potter movie.
    My apologies to all.  ;) Not.

Utterly inappropriate, Charles. A genuine apology for what one complainer called "jackassery" would be in order.

Richard writes (re my mockery of a certain "style"):
Utterly inappropriate, Charles. A genuine apology for what one complainer called "jackassery" would be in order.

I respond:
I agree. Completely. (With regard to a certain style of posting, that is.)

And if the consensus, or however you reach decision, is - no women lectors, no women acolytes, no women crucifers - good luck on getting the congregations that permit such to stop doing it. I'll be watching to see how that happens.

Gratuitous, snarky, and unnecessary. Charles, please keep comments like this to yourself.


I do not take "pot shots," . . .  It is not "snarky"

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!  (Robert Burns)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 29, 2010, 03:01:36 PM
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!  (Robert Burns)

Wow, LCMS87 can cite poetry as well as he can sing!  :D  Your post is music to my ears.  Someone who is trying so hard to play the innocent victim upthread to the mean old LCMS posters gets called out.  I'm trying my best to hit my mental "ignore" button where some are concerned, so your comments match my thoughts exactly.  The mean-spirited nature of the posts of some drown out any attempt at dialogue and mutual understanding (even if the understanding means we agree to disagree).
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Revbert on November 29, 2010, 03:05:54 PM
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!  (Robert Burns)

Wow, LCMS87 can cite poetry as well as he can sing!  :D  Your post is music to my ears.  Someone who is trying so hard to play the innocent victim upthread to the mean old LCMS posters gets called out.  I'm trying my best to hit my mental "ignore" button where some are concerned, so your comments match my thoughts exactly.  The mean-spirited nature of the posts of some drown out any attempt at dialogue and mutual understanding (even if the understanding means we agree to disagree).

As I am fond of saying,

"Do not have a battle of wits with an unarmed inDUHvidual."  (apologies to Dogbert <G>)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 29, 2010, 03:09:17 PM
Well, I've now saved all my posts currently attached to my profile.  Yes, there are lots of times where they aren't very clear as they lack context, but what are you going to do!  I did discover several posts are still on the board that have never showed up via the "search" function.  And every once in a while I find a post I wrote that impresses me!  

Then there are all those typos...

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Jay on November 29, 2010, 03:13:07 PM
As a voting member of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, I found Pastor Johnson's daily reports to be valuable and accurate summaries of the proceedings.  So, if older threads are deleted, I ask that those threads be archived somehow for their historical value.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 29, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
But I'd hate to see occasional misbehavior -- and I think most, if not all, of us are occasionally guilty of that -- used as a reason for cutting back those threads that are retained to only 60 days.

I believe in continuing to impose the "lesser ban"  ;D (and administering it equitably) to prune through a lot of ridiculous and petty arguments, my own included.  Occasional misbehavior I can tolerate, ongoing misbehavior is another thing.  I would expect my own to be pointed out and acted upon, as well.  I believe some voices could be heard again that have been effectively silenced as a result of it.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.
I accept every other pastor on this board as a person apparently trying their best to minister in they way they feel called to do so.
I am allowed to disagree with them, to argue with them, even to say that I think some of their views are silly without abandoning that basic premise.
I give others the respect of taking their posts seriously and not saying "don't listen to that idiot," or "just ignore him."
Yet it seems that doing so makes others feel they can call me witless, a bad pastor, and worse.

Now, as to the topic. Clear out the convention/assembly stuff that is more than one year old. Clear out topics where no one posts for more than a week. Encourage people not to quote (either in my sensible way or in that da**ed blue box) huge chunks of nested comments.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on November 29, 2010, 04:03:02 PM
It's amazing how far an apology can go when called out for bad behavior.  I noticed Pastor Yakimow making fine use of this concept just yesterday.  I'm using the purple  box, as I find it most helpful in setting apart quotes, and when used properly, attributing the quote easily to the author.

Quote
I recently wrote a post that ended with a couple very arrogant sentences.  I have deleted them and apologize for having written them.

What respect I have for that type of response rather than seeing someone simply make more excuses for their behavior by placing the blame elsewhere.  I suppose you can call my attitude on this silly or just chalk it up to me being in constant mother mode as I try to raise four PK's to be polite, positive contributors to society who are accountable for doing more than paying lip service to their Christian faith--I'm attempting to teach them to bear the fruit of that faith in their relationships with others.  If that makes me a mean, finger-pointing person of the LCMS on this forum by stating so, I guess I'll take the blame for that.  Whew . . . way off thread topic and guilty of my own space-wasting.  Back to trying to hit the mental "ignore" button to save space.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on November 29, 2010, 04:05:43 PM
As a voting member of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, I found Pastor Johnson's daily reports to be valuable and accurate summaries of the proceedings.  So, if older threads are deleted, I ask that those threads be archived somehow for their historical value.

Yes, I think that the convention threads have considerable historical value and should be preserved at all costs.  And I do admit to some personal bias...  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: David M. Frye, OblSB on November 29, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
Is the storage issue one concerning the amount of actual server space allocated to the forum, or does the software running the forum have an absolute limit on the quantity of information it can handle or the number of distinct posts it can reference? Or does the response time when searching have anything to do with the desire to trim the size of the forum?

It's hard to avoid data-hoarding when hard drive space is running $60/T or so. It is so much cheaper to buy more space than it is to spend time in any kind of data-pruning as opposed to data-clearcutting, if I can use an arborist's image, reminiscent of laying the axe to the root of the tree.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Voelker on November 29, 2010, 04:23:40 PM
Is the storage issue one concerning the amount of actual server space allocated to the forum, or does the software running the forum have an absolute limit on the quantity of information it can handle or the number of distinct posts it can reference? Or does the response time when searching have anything to do with the desire to trim the size of the forum?

It's hard to avoid data-hoarding when hard drive space is running $60/T or so. It is so much cheaper to buy more space than it is to spend time in any kind of data-pruning as opposed to data-clearcutting, if I can use an arborist's image, reminiscent of laying the axe to the root of the tree.

Most webhosts give scads of space these days, and as this is a text-based forum, which doesn't allow much in the way of graphics (other than avatars), I'm surprised that it's running up on space limits (though, as suggested above, it could be a limitation of the forum software). Has an upgrade of the forum software been contemplated? Version 2.0 (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?P=334911d70f2d89def3c2953bb3f2696e&topic=407256.0) of the Simple Machines Forum is on its way to being released.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: iowakatie1981 on November 29, 2010, 04:41:38 PM
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Even Fr. Slusser?   ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on November 29, 2010, 04:52:51 PM
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Even Fr. Slusser?   ;)


Hey, the best Lutherans were baptised as catholics...
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Pilgrim on November 29, 2010, 05:01:37 PM
Hey, the best Lutherans were baptised as catholics...

Tim notes: Resembling that remark, I thank you!.  ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: ptmccain on November 29, 2010, 05:04:39 PM
I heard a rumor that Martin Luther used to be a Roman Catholic.

 ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: olarmy02 on November 29, 2010, 05:12:31 PM
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Even Fr. Slusser?   ;)


Brother Boris?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Michael Slusser on November 29, 2010, 05:14:39 PM
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Even Fr. Slusser?   ;)


If I'm good enough for Lutherman, I should be good enough for you!

Michael
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Jay on November 29, 2010, 05:18:59 PM
As a voting member of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, I found Pastor Johnson's daily reports to be valuable and accurate summaries of the proceedings.  So, if older threads are deleted, I ask that those threads be archived somehow for their historical value.

Yes, I think that the convention threads have considerable historical value and should be preserved at all costs.  And I do admit to some personal bias...  ;) ;D

Yes - thank you again for your great LCMS reports from last summer.  I suspect that in a generation or two when religious history scholars are evaluating Lutheranism in America, the 2009 ELCA and 2010 LCMS assemblies will be regarded as critical moments in that history, so the preservation of your eyewitness accounts will be important.  
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 29, 2010, 05:22:57 PM
I said:
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Someone pokes:
Even Fr. Slusser?

I say:
Honorary Lutheran. Anonymous Lutheran. Lutheran-but-doesn't-know it Lutheran. And if the JDDJ works, a real Lutheran. But with a pope in Rome.  ;D ;D ;) 
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on November 29, 2010, 06:01:11 PM
I said:
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Someone pokes:
Even Fr. Slusser?

I say:
Honorary Lutheran. Anonymous Lutheran. Lutheran-but-doesn't-know it Lutheran. And if the JDDJ works, a real Lutheran. But with a pope in Rome.  ;D ;D ;) 

What was that you said, Dcs. Schave, about an inability for some to admit they are wrong and apologize?   ::)

Mike

Mike,
One of the advantages of being "current" is that you are never wrong.  What you said 10 minutes ago or 100 years ago may be considered wrong now - but when it was written, it was the truth.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: revjagow on November 29, 2010, 06:47:50 PM
I'm down with whatever changes come. 

I can't think of anything I posted that should be kept in perpetuity (but I can think of several things I would be happy to see move on to cyber pergatory).

To counter what was posted earlier re: anonymous people who post - as long as they contribute to the conversation, I say they are welcome.  Those who abuse their anonymity to play cyber games should not be welcome (a fine line I am happy to leave to the moderators).  To that end, I think that any post that "out"s an anonymous poster against his/her wishes should be deleted by the moderators. 

Overall, I am really happy with this board and much to everyone's chagrin, plan to keep checking in.  God's blessings!

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Michael Slusser on November 29, 2010, 07:51:01 PM
One of the main areas where we should cut down on posts is in posts about other posters--and some of those who do that most are posters who are themselves targets of posts about them and their obvious shortcomings. If the shortcomings are obvious, why waste your time and ours pointing them out? Not naming any names, because then it would be about . . . .

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: JMerrell on November 29, 2010, 09:31:43 PM
Peter,

Is the issue with the database?  If so, might I recommend that you contact your host company (unless someone is doing it privately) and see how much it costs to bump your space to unlimited.  Also, are their personal files stored on the website that you no longer need?  Some hosts have a limit on the number of files, not on the db size.  Getting rid of extra themes for the forums can really free up a lot of space.  I run a website that has 3 db's, all unlimited.  However, my host has a file limit.  The kicker is that the files can be any size.  The cost is about $150 a year for the domain and space.  Send me a PM if you want details...in my previous life I ran my own website company, which paid my way through seminary.  Now I do it for fun for a few friends.  I have lots of contacts that you might could use.

-Judson
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: J.L. Precup on November 30, 2010, 04:53:46 AM
I said:
I continue to accept every person on this board as a fellow Lutheran and a beloved child of God.

Someone pokes:
Even Fr. Slusser?

I say:
Honorary Lutheran. Anonymous Lutheran. Lutheran-but-doesn't-know it Lutheran. And if the JDDJ works, a real Lutheran. But with a pope in Rome.  ;D ;D ;) 

What was that you said, Dcs. Schave, about an inability for some to admit they are wrong and apologize?   ::)

Mike

As the dark glass through which we now dimly see lightens, it becomes mirror like until at last we see clearly.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 30, 2010, 02:48:22 PM
Back from a good Thanksgiving break, but headed into the busy season sans associate pastor, so I'll continue to be be checking in but only posting sparingly.

A few points about the suggestions above-- this forum does not function in relation to the ELCA. Just as Pastor Swensson can testify that his views re: Pietism are in a distinct minority here, but are nonetheless welcome, or mqll can take a position re: Contemporary Worship that is controversial here (though very mainstream in Lutheranism more generally), so people who are very pro-ELCA are welcome to post here, though most of the participants will likely disagree on many things.

Secondly, calling someone un-Lutheran, unfaithful, or non-Christian is not in and of itself out of bounds or inappropriate. Many of the discussions center around just such questions-- what is Lutheran, what are the boundaries of the faith-- so if we rule out labelling any person or position as outside those boundaries, the discussion is over before it starts. They are terms that describe things from a point of view, not merely insults. In fact, by our doctrine they couldn't possibly be insults because being a Christian is not an accomplishment. Calling someone heterodox or unfaithful is like calling them pale or unhealthy-looking. It is merely an observation, and the point of contention would then be whether the viewer is seeing it correctly or not.

Thirdly, I'm inclined to agree that hands-off moderating while allowing for annoying people and distractions is better than hands-on moderating that stifles free discussion.

Lastly, I think the moderation works best dealing with problem posters rather than problem posts. Nothing has been decided for certain yet, but the 60 day plan for old threads seems to be the working option on the table being tinkered with.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Evangel on November 30, 2010, 03:05:34 PM
Peter,

The questions about what is driving the need to trim the board are still an open question.  Is it due to using too much space or have we reached the limit of the current forum software?  IMO, either of those reasons could be fairly easily addressed (buying more server space or upgrading to a more capable software package).  Taking a collection of the members of the discussion board ought to easily net the funds for either option.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 30, 2010, 03:14:53 PM
Peter,

The questions about what is driving the need to trim the board are still an open question.  Is it due to using too much space or have we reached the limit of the current forum software?  IMO, either of those reasons could be fairly easily addressed (buying more server space or upgrading to a more capable software package).  Taking a collection of the members of the discussion board ought to easily net the funds for either option.
I don't know. As Larry, the youngest son in the movie Parenthood once said, "That is for a man in a labcoat and glasses to decide. I make the deal."
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: mqll on November 30, 2010, 03:49:00 PM
Back from a good Thanksgiving break, but headed into the busy season sans associate pastor, so I'll continue to be be checking in but only posting sparingly.

A few points about the suggestions above-- this forum does not function in relation to the ELCA. Just as Pastor Swensson can testify that his views re: Pietism are in a distinct minority here, but are nonetheless welcome, or mqll can take a position re: Contemporary Worship that is controversial here (though very mainstream in Lutheranism more generally), so people who are very pro-ELCA are welcome to post here, though most of the participants will likely disagree on many things.

Secondly, calling someone un-Lutheran, unfaithful, or non-Christian is not in and of itself out of bounds or inappropriate. Many of the discussions center around just such questions-- what is Lutheran, what are the boundaries of the faith-- so if we rule out labelling any person or position as outside those boundaries, the discussion is over before it starts. They are terms that describe things from a point of view, not merely insults. In fact, by our doctrine they couldn't possibly be insults because being a Christian is not an accomplishment. Calling someone heterodox or unfaithful is like calling them pale or unhealthy-looking. It is merely an observation, and the point of contention would then be whether the viewer is seeing it correctly or not.

Thirdly, I'm inclined to agree that hands-off moderating while allowing for annoying people and distractions is better than hands-on moderating that stifles free discussion.

Lastly, I think the moderation works best dealing with problem posters rather than problem posts. Nothing has been decided for certain yet, but the 60 day plan for old threads seems to be the working option on the table being tinkered with.

Got that right baby! Just call me "Mainstreet Mark". Nice ring...
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 01, 2010, 11:37:23 AM
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on December 01, 2010, 12:23:39 PM
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on December 02, 2010, 10:23:03 AM
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.

So, what are we thinking of setting the maximum posts per day at?

And I'm still for retaining a window of threads much longer than 60 days even up to a year (or two between prunings) unless we are just talking about archiving/locking threads older than that and not deleting them outright.  My assumption was that we were talking about deleting them outright since the sizxe issue was brought up in conjunction.

Mike

This is totally unscientific and based on a quick look at a not so random sample over the past few days.  Most contributors post less than 10 posts per day (this includes our moderators), a few consistantly post between 10 - 20 posts per day. From what I have observed a fair portion of these could be trimmed. So my recommendation for a daily post limit is ..........10. I don't think that this would be unduly restrictive but would cut out some of the chatter.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: ptmccain on December 02, 2010, 10:24:22 AM
Ten a day = one for each of the Commandments.

Twelve a day = one for each of the apostles


I'm sure there is a Biblical solution here somewhere.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Virgil on December 02, 2010, 10:46:00 AM
I suggest a twenty-four hour delay before any given post comes up for display. Too many hotheaded reactions between the usual suspects; too many reflexive defenses of one's brand of Lutheranism; too many uncharitable imputations of one's motives---will all be mitigated by a delay, one hopes.

Say I make a hotheaded reaction to somebody's post (and I have. :-[ Mea maxima culpa). If I have twenty four hours to retract before it goes to post, I may do it 90% of the time, especially my hotheaded reactions.

What's the gosh-awful reason to rush? This forum has become too reactive, little reflective. Logorrhea city. VDMA, I say, and the patience that goes with that.

There may be an occasional need to suspend a delay, and perhaps the moderators have the wisdom to know when. I could never do their job, babysitting us.  :)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on December 02, 2010, 10:52:52 AM
   Seven posts a day, for the days of creation? 

   (Or, in respect to the season, seven swans a-swimming!)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on December 02, 2010, 11:08:11 AM
   Seven posts a day, for the days of creation? 

   (Or, in respect to the season, seven swans a-swimming!)

I like your thinking!  But Erma, to be more gender inclusive, couldn't we go with eight for eight-maids-a-milking or nine for nine-ladies-dancing?   ;D ;D  You know I gest.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on December 02, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
One thing that just occurred to me that might work for this forum is setting a time limit between posts....  I was a member of a college football forum where you could only post one post every two minutes.  Overall that wasn't too bad for people like me who think and type slowly.  But it did prevent some posters from throwing up volleys of short responses and overwhelming the flow of conversation...

Oh and yet another vote for the maximum posts per day thing...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Ditto on the max posts per day thing.

So, what are we thinking of setting the maximum posts per day at?

And I'm still for retaining a window of threads much longer than 60 days even up to a year (or two between prunings) unless we are just talking about archiving/locking threads older than that and not deleting them outright.  My assumption was that we were talking about deleting them outright since the sizxe issue was brought up in conjunction.

Mike

This is totally unscientific and based on a quick look at a not so random sample over the past few days.  Most contributors post less than 10 posts per day (this includes our moderators), a few consistantly post between 10 - 20 posts per day. From what I have observed a fair portion of these could be trimmed. So my recommendation for a daily post limit is ..........10. I don't think that this would be unduly restrictive but would cut out some of the chatter.

That was the number (10) that I was contemplating...

There are days when I exceed ten postings, but I think that it's rare.  And if I did, I'd just have to shelve some of my comments. 

FWIW, when I find myself in the bitterest of conflicts on this board, that's when I have to back myself off anyway.  My own mental health really suffers when I start obsessing about each and every twitter on this board.  That's one main reason I refuse to get involved with "Twitter" and "Facebook."

And maybe that would also prompt individuals to start dialoging with each other, via e-mail or messaging, rather than conducting personal debates in public.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: racin_jason on December 02, 2010, 11:18:45 AM
A daily cap would be great, please consider it. A cap would cut down on tit-for-tat posts, bickering, give you more server space, and serve to promote the kingdom by lessening time spent here. Everybody wins except Old Scratch.


Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on December 02, 2010, 12:29:52 PM
I myself don't like a daily limit on posts for that reason.

And would those posts on frivolous threads where some find themselves having to defend their favorite football teams from the likes of this guy count?  ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: GalRev83 on December 02, 2010, 12:35:37 PM
Rather than a hard and fast number of posts per day, how about either one or two PER THREAD per day? It is a more flexible solution, I think.

Just my less-than-two-cents worth.

Donna
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steverem on December 02, 2010, 12:42:50 PM

And few would want to waste a post to say "Go Rangers" or "Go OSU" or "Remember that Cheers episode where we found out Woody was LCMS and Kelly ELCA?"

I think such posts add color and warmth to this site.  Perhaps I have embraced the site too closely and need to pull back.

Mike

Oh, I'd do my best to keep such threads alive.  I'll leave the deeper threads to those of you with all that fancy learnin' and stuff.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on December 02, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
Rather than a hard and fast number of posts per day, how about either one or two PER THREAD per day? It is a more flexible solution, I think.

Just my less-than-two-cents worth.

Donna

I also thought about that but feared that it would just generate threads such as,  "The thread for those who have exceeded the thread limit"  ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: DCharlton on December 02, 2010, 01:02:56 PM
   Seven posts a day, for the days of creation? 

   (Or, in respect to the season, seven swans a-swimming!)

How about seven a day for the Seven Deadly Sins?  It wouldn't hurt if I was reminded about them while I post, particularly with reference to the sins of Envy, Pride, Wrath and Despair.  The temptations to indulge in any of those four are often hard to resist on this forum.  I've been guilty many times.

David Charlton 
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 02, 2010, 08:13:19 PM

I also thought about that but feared that it would just generate threads such as,  "The thread for those who have exceeded the thread limit"  ;D

A meeting/group on LutherLink/Ecunet that regularly appeared on its weekly top 5 most notes list was "Lutheran Lurkers."

spt+
Who never joined that group.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: gausmann on December 02, 2010, 10:26:09 PM
Have each person's spouse determine how many posts they are aloud to make, I have a feleling too many people waste far too much time on this, facebook, twitter and all these others tech things that people should only visit occasionally.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Weedon on December 02, 2010, 10:37:55 PM
I may be the oddball here, but folks, what on earth is the problem with the way it is now?  If it's storage that needs more space, I'd happily contribute.  I know I've no doubt irritated folks with "too many" postings, but it's like a grand conversation - sometimes you chime in; sometimes you don't have much to say.  I'd honestly argue for the status quo with an appeal for extra funds, if that is needed.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: LCMS87 on December 02, 2010, 11:03:19 PM
If space is the problem, how about a post tax.   ;D  Each time you post your two cents, pay two cents as well.  Not a financial hardship for anyone, I'm sure, but memory is fairly cheap these days.     
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pr dtp on December 03, 2010, 12:21:52 AM
If space is the problem, how about a post tax.   ;D  Each time you post your two cents, pay two cents as well.  Not a financial hardship for anyone, I'm sure, but memory is fairly cheap these days.     

What about those people who posts aren't worth 2 cents?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: G.Edward on December 10, 2010, 11:36:24 AM
Why not just have another mysterious purge?  You could post a page for a couple of days that says, "This weblsite was updated in 1934 and these pages may have been moved at that time."  Then, a few days later, mysteriously reappear with only a score or four threads left. 

Or maybe you could just say the "divine goddess' within the system was due for a sacrifice and took all the threads...

Or what if we claimed that NASA, in an effrot to save money and their jobs, BOUGHT all our messages and threads to recycle into fuel to blow the next shuttle into space, thereby avoiding the need for O rings and thermal panels...

Or what if.......

(Oh, too much family for too much time the past 78 hours. in my house.....)

Thank you for the best laugh this week.  I really needed that!!
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: G.Edward on December 10, 2010, 11:38:02 AM
I have said before, deaconess many times...
I do not impugn the faith of another person, even if I disagree with what they say.
I do not call them "un-Lutheran" "un-Christian" "un-biblical" or worse.
I do not call them bad pastors leading their flocks astray.
I do not repeatedly say how misguided, etc. etc. they are and how awful it is that they are in the same "Lutheran" boat as mine.
I express my admiration for much of what the LCMS has been and in some places, is today.
I am persistent in correcting (I hope) misconceptions about the ELCA and in saying that if one is in the ELCA, one should abide by the pertinent obligations.
As for "tone," well, that often depends upon the ear of the hearer and is out of my control.


Reacting by pushing the blame on someone else is often a sign of deep-seated guilt.  I would have expected a little more self-reflection from someone of your experience.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: G.Edward on December 10, 2010, 11:40:52 AM
I'd say dump as much older content as possible. The "sixty day with no activity" idea is a good one. Keeps the content fresh and prevents the old "we've already talked about that" argument we hear on ALPB forum often.


Ditto on dumping.  No different than conversations we might have a a winkle or conference meeting.  They are but vapors except for our memory of them.

One exception to the across-the-board dumping procedure might be the suggested resources section.  That is one place I have gone back to again and again in support of my work in the parish.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on December 13, 2010, 11:58:04 AM
If I may, here's a little piece of knowledge about server storage space. File storage size is determined by the total number of bytes used, not how many individual posts there are. The use of storage space on the server is pretty much the same whether one posts 20 one-line replies of only 1,000 bytes each or one single reply of 20,000 bytes.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 20, 2010, 05:02:08 PM
The changes are still afoot, but nobody will be doing anything to implement them until January at the earliest. Haven't decided on specifics, and the people who do the deciding are way too busy right now.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: John_Hannah on December 20, 2010, 06:06:28 PM
The changes are still afoot, but nobody will be doing anything to implement them until January at the earliest. Haven't decided on specifics, and the people who do the deciding are way too busy right now.

BROTHERS AND SISTERS

Peter gives me an opportunity to remind you that most of the work done for the ALPB is voluntary. Those who are "paid" are paid only a tiny amount and have to "squeeze in" their ALPB duties somewhere outside the 60 hours for their parish duties.

During the soon to be celebrated Christmas consider special greetings and thanks to the people, seen and unseen/visible and invisible, who make all of it possible.

Thank you for remembering them.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on January 02, 2011, 10:07:51 AM
I do hope that those who will be implementing these changes do so soon (c'mon, Pete -- ignore your family!  Be an absentee father! ;) ).

My suggestion would be simply to make sure posts remain on topic.

Once a whiff of a personal post comes up, delete it and reprimand the person who did it.  Give them a couple chances to reform, and then get into bans.  If this is done consistently, the need for such aggressive moderation will diminish as well (I did this on my convention board, and all it took was 2 or 3 deletions and notifications for it to stop).

Similarly, if posts bring in everything and the kitchen sink, do the same there as well.  It may be work for a while, but eventually folks might learn what it's like to make an argument that stays on track.

Of course, these are all subjective calls, but such calls need to be made.

Finally, I do think that something Charles' has regularly said is correct.  This forum is largely dominated by more "traditionalist" types.  But there are some who are much more "revisionist" who are able to post here without igniting ire because they make real arguments that are presented in largely reasonable ways.  Such folks include, off the top of my head, Steve Sabin, Erik Doughty, Jim Krauser and the rare post by John Stendahl.  While I disagree with them and think many of their arguments are fallacious, at least they can present them and engage in a discussion that remains on track.  With these folks, there's an actual opportunity of not only at least improving our disagreements, but also the glimmer of hope of eventually coming to a consensus because they are willing to listen to and respond to arguments coherently.  These are the types of interactions I love, and the types that I have been able to engage in for a number of years because they at least hold out the promise of being fruitful.

The problem is, as I see it, that the posting habits of the regulars from the "revisionist" perspective draw so much ire (Charles, due to personal posts -- when he posts substantively and not personally, I quite appreciate what he says whether I agree with him or not) or frustration (Brian, due to not following a coherent train of thought), that other "revisionist" folks who might be tempted to post do not do so.  Who would, with so much negativity directed against the regular "revisionist" posters?  But I don't see that same ire directed toward the folks I mentioned above, and more interactions with folks who post like they do might actually encourage a larger presence of the "revisionist" point of view.  And folks who are willing to discuss and engage substantial issues coherently are always welcome.

My $.02.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 02, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others. I await proof that my posts are "personal" - which I suppose is the dread ad hominem. Of course, they are "personal" in that our own experiences play a role here.
I await a clear explanation as to how one or two persons can run people off this forum.
Meanwhile, lest people forget (and they do), Pastor Stoffregen and I have been called bad or even "evil" pastors; our vocations demeaned, and - repeatedly - told that folk here would never even receive the sacrament from our hands.
We are told that we do not believe what we try to say clearly that we do believe. We are blamed for the current bad times of the ELCA and for "driving people out," when I keep saying I want traditionalists to stay in and would gladly give good references to people like Pastor Tibbetts and Pastor Wolf and - if asked - come to their defense if they were being targeted solely for their views.
Now, everyone get ready to cheer. I'm not pulling out of the discussion. But I will probably cut back on my participation, lest my views - which I still contend are the views of the vast majority of the ELCA - be so troubling as to give LCMSers and former ELCAers heartburn.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: SCPO on January 02, 2011, 12:24:38 PM
I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others.
I await a clear explanation as to how one or two persons can run people off this forum.
Meanwhile, lest people forget (and they do), Pastor Stoffregen and I have been called bad or even "evil" pastors; our vocations demeaned, and - repeatedly - told that folk here would never even receive the sacrament from our hands.
We are told that we do not believe what we try to say clearly that we do believe. We are blamed for the current bad times of the ELCA and for "driving people out," when I keep saying I want traditionalists to stay in and would gladly give good references to people like Pastor Tibbetts and Pastor Wolf and - if asked - come to their defense if they were being targeted solely for their views.
Now, everyone get ready to cheer. I'm not pulling out of the discussion. But I will probably cut back on my participation, lest my views - which I still contend are the views of the vast majority of the ELCA - be so troubling as to give LCMSers and former ELCAers heartburn.

       I feel it is worth pointing out that Pastor Austin was not on-line during last Friday's little dust up that led to two regulars pleading for more moderating and announcing to all that they were taking a personal timeout.  I believe it is also worth mentioning that this forum consists primarily of Lutheran pastors and laity who should not require a great deal of moderating. 

       Just my two-cents, on top of Pastor Scott's two-cents.  (Pretty soon we will be talking about real money)

Kyrie eleison,

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 02, 2011, 12:25:06 PM
I await proof that I have called anyone names. I await proof that I do not respect others. I await proof that my posts are "personal" - which I suppose is the dread ad hominem. Of course, they are "personal" in that our own experiences play a role here.

Click here (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=19962;sa=showPosts).
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 02, 2011, 12:28:06 PM
Save your clicks, people. Mr. Erdner's link is to the listing of all my postings; which makes his post non-responsive and snarky. I'd even consider reporting it to the moderators, but they have enough to do, what with certain participants here being told to "shut *** **** up."
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 02, 2011, 01:11:16 PM
OK, Pete's still AWOL, so I'm stepping in to make an important executive decision. I have now set the controls here so that--presuming of course that I've done it correctly, which is a dangerous presumption--any given individual will be permitted to post only once per hour. I'd rather have it "x number of times per day" but that doesn't seem to be an option. At least I can't figure out how it could be done. So I've taken this alternative route. Once per hour--or, more precisely, when you post, you will not be able to post again until an hour has elapsed.

Perhaps this will discourage those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation, who are, as often as not, those who have little substantive to contribute. We'll try this for a few days and see how it works.

Bah, humbug, and a happy new year to all.

roj
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on January 02, 2011, 01:25:31 PM
Sorry about decisions you have to make as moderator but this is not a good one.  It can even will curtail good discussion and is only really helpful for certain problems make all ofvus pay for the few who may over use.  Harvey Mozolak who reverently protests this. 
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 02, 2011, 01:26:41 PM
Could be you're right. We're going to try it for a few days anyway.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 02, 2011, 02:26:43 PM
I think it's a bad idea, but totally respect the decision of our Esteemed Moderator to make such a choice.

But now, four hours past this posting, I am told that I cannot post because those 3,600 seconds have not elapsed. But they have.

Not necessarily complaining, just pointing out a possible bug in the system.

New edit later: The one-hour clamp-down apparently also applies to private messages. I tried to inform Richard of being shut out four hours after my last posting, but the  system would not let me send him a private message.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 02, 2011, 03:56:43 PM
OK, Pete's still AWOL, so I'm stepping in to make an important executive decision. I have now set the controls here so that--presuming of course that I've done it correctly, which is a dangerous presumption--any given individual will be permitted to post only once per hour. I'd rather have it "x number of times per day" but that doesn't seem to be an option. At least I can't figure out how it could be done. So I've taken this alternative route. Once per hour--or, more precisely, when you post, you will not be able to post again until an hour has elapsed.

Perhaps this will discourage those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation, who are, as often as not, those who have little substantive to contribute. We'll try this for a few days and see how it works.

Bah, humbug, and a happy new year to all.

roj

I also do not think that this is a good idea. You mention "those who seem compelled to dominate the conversation", with "conversation" conspicuously singular. There are 20 separate conversations on the main page. Each thread is (or should be) a separate conversation. I can understand wanting to limit people who'll make multiple consecutive posts in any one particular conversation (thread), or who'll attempt to dominate that one thread by engaging in a "back and forth" with someone else. I cannot understand how it benefits the forum at large to prevent someone from contributing to The Service Book and Hymnal (1958) lives! because that person also responded to something in A Frivolous Thread: Football Anyone? a few minutes earlier.

I think it's a bad idea, but totally respect the decision of our Esteemed Moderator to make such a choice.


Do you respect it the same way you respected his request to not continue discussing the LC-MS practices of closed communion in The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up after Richard asked everyone to cease?

There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

I added this to an older post using Harvey's method. I found that if I hit the "Modify" button, it only shows posts older than the post about to be modified. I was able to hit the "Quote" button on Harvey's post to open the edit screen with his quoted material properly formatted. I imagine that if I hit the "send" button in less than an hour, that's when the new limitation would kick in. I had to open Harvey's post in a new window, and then cut and paste the material into this post in modify mode.

The bottom line is that using the "Modify" function doesn't appear to be an especially useful "back door" to get around the one-post-per-hour time limit.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on January 02, 2011, 04:21:02 PM
There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 02, 2011, 05:36:24 PM
There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

As a kludge work around, that does have some severe limitations.

1. Assume you reply in a given thread, and a little while later, you wish to reply to a response to your post. You can use the modify function as you noted, but then your response will appear before what you were responding to.

2. One of the reasons for wanting to post more than once in an hour is to participate in multiple threads. I will often post three or four responses in a short period of time, but I try to keep all my posting in any one particular thread to one response per thread. That's why I'll try to stack multiple replies in one post, instead of making multiple posts to make multiple replies. This new system inhibits all participants from reading and participating in multiple threads.

I don't know about other people, but I find many topics interesting, and I find some that I don't have strong feelings about. I suspect that is similar for other participants as well. I'd hate to "lighten up" and post something in A Frivolous Thread: Football Anyone?, and then after I hit "send", notice a "New" button next to one of the serious threads that interests me and find that I can't post a serious reply because I blew my quota for the hour with something trivial.

On the other hand, I think it's always good to test any software for functionality.

New material in this post.

As a test, I attempted to use the method Harvey discovered to modify my old post at position #155. As I noted there, the bottom line is that using the "Modify" function doesn't appear to be an especially useful "back door" to get around the one-post-per-hour time limit.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 02, 2011, 06:11:31 PM
When my children were young, they used to go through all kinds of contortions to discover ways to "get past" various parental rules and regulations. "Well, you said I mustn't eat candy so close to dinner, but you didn't say anything about taking a spoonful out of the sugar bowl." I generally ascribed it to original sin. You people have proven me right.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on January 02, 2011, 06:39:46 PM
What amazes me in parenting and pastoring is that you have to tell people not to put beans up their nose.

Peter (get the tweezers) Garrison
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Paul L. Knudson on January 02, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Is the "hourly post" a new form of governance?  This afternoon I tried to post a thought and was told in writing that I had to wait 3600 seconds.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on January 02, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
But then again we are not i say with respect we are not children or yours.  We are adults and this forum exists because of us good bad and lurking. Moderation is not what this rule is about.  Restriction unneeded for most is what it is. I am getting a bit offended ( not religiously Brother Richard. Harvey.     If the rule continues we may not need moderators at all or a this will no longer be a forum and more an hourly bulletin board.


When my children were young, they used to go through all kinds of contortions to discover ways to "get past" various parental rules and regulations. "Well, you said I mustn't eat candy so close to dinner, but you didn't say anything about taking a spoonful out of the sugar bowl." I generally ascribed it to original sin. You people have proven me right.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: racin_jason on January 02, 2011, 10:08:23 PM
i applaud the change. great idea.

too often i've seen substantive posts relegated to the backwaters due to two parties going back and forth for pages on end. The change forces people to prioritize what they want to communicate, keeping the main thing the main thing rather than complaining about what the other person said. 

there hasn't been a lot of news lately, not a lot of new grist for the mill for our frequent posters to process. seeing some people sign-off due to the tone of late came as no surprise, since it was inevitable that the subject would change from lutheranism in north america to how people were relating to each other. it's the same reason why communes don't work. 

so let's try this.

might i humbly suggest that the Lord might have other uses for our time other than posting more than once an hour?   

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Dave_Poedel on January 02, 2011, 10:22:18 PM
For the good of the cause, I hereby grant permission to the ALPB and their designated Moderators, in order to save precious space for the good of the community, to remove all of my prior postings.  There is certainly nothing in them that merits archiving.

I often enjoy parts of this forum but weekly consider withdrawing completely. The level of discourse is getting to be so petty and self-serving that I often leave my time on this forum weary and irritated.  Those emotions are mine, and I do not blame anyone else for my reaction.  It just seems like we in the Church of our Lord Jesus, especially those of us Ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, can and should do much better.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 02, 2011, 10:29:52 PM
When my children were young, they used to go through all kinds of contortions to discover ways to "get past" various parental rules and regulations. "Well, you said I mustn't eat candy so close to dinner, but you didn't say anything about taking a spoonful out of the sugar bowl." I generally ascribed it to original sin. You people have proven me right.

Did your children investigate options for getting around something and then subsequently report that the workarounds weren't really effective, implying that they weren't worth attempting?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on January 02, 2011, 11:49:01 PM
When my children were young, they used to go through all kinds of contortions to discover ways to "get past" various parental rules and regulations. "Well, you said I mustn't eat candy so close to dinner, but you didn't say anything about taking a spoonful out of the sugar bowl." I generally ascribed it to original sin. You people have proven me right.

Did your children investigate options for getting around something and then subsequently report that the workarounds weren't really effective, implying that they weren't worth attempting?

cf: Saint Augustine's Confessions, Book II.

Peter (Happy Accidental Tourist) Garrison
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: SmithL on January 02, 2011, 11:52:03 PM
It looks like I won't be getting my next star, at least not this week.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on January 03, 2011, 12:08:15 AM
There is a way around thisnnew rule methinks.  Subversive that i am I shall try it. End ofmpost one  at 419 pm. Harvey Mozolak

Using modify this is post number two at 420 pm. Mozolak

Modifynnumber 3. At 421 pm. Harvey

There are also two very expensive (of memory) other way around the new change.  Richard find some other leash that does not noose the whole pack or one dog from barking more than one woof.  HSM at426 pm.

As a kludge work around, that does have some severe limitations.

1. Assume you reply in a given thread, and a little while later, you wish to reply to a response to your post. You can use the modify function as you noted, but then your response will appear before what you were responding to.

2. One of the reasons for wanting to post more than once in an hour is to participate in multiple threads. I will often post three or four responses in a short period of time, but I try to keep all my posting in any one particular thread to one response per thread. That's why I'll try to stack multiple replies in one post, instead of making multiple posts to make multiple replies. This new system inhibits all participants from reading and participating in multiple threads.

I don't know about other people, but I find many topics interesting, and I find some that I don't have strong feelings about. I suspect that is similar for other participants as well. I'd hate to "lighten up" and post something in A Frivolous Thread: Football Anyone?, and then after I hit "send", notice a "New" button next to one of the serious threads that interests me and find that I can't post a serious reply because I blew my quota for the hour with something trivial.


I TOTALLY agree with George.

My participation is sporadic, an hour or so on line a couple of times a day (that hour not exclusively on this Forum, but doing multiple on-line activities).

I may wish to respond to multiple topics during that hour.  Or carry on a public "conversation", particularly on a topic that I intitiated, such as the "2 x 9.5 Theses". 

Or maybe just read the comments of others without responding.

But I would like the freedom to choose. 

If I become an obnoxious pest, deal with ME---individually. 

There is no need to restrict the entire Forum community because of the excesses of a handful.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: SmithL on January 03, 2011, 12:27:22 PM

My participation is sporadic, an hour or so on line a couple of times a day (that hour not exclusively on this Forum, but doing multiple on-line activities).

I may wish to respond to multiple topics during that hour.  Or carry on a public "conversation", particularly on a topic that I intitiated, such as the "2 x 9.5 Theses". 


Yeah, me too.  Unlike some folks who seem like they're always here, I'll hit the site and try to catch up on everything all at once.  A daily limit would be less onerous than an hourly limit. 

And it looks as if some are trying to respond to several threads in one post, thus contributing to the threadjacking and confusion.

I can appreciate that the moderators have a tough time here, and since this is their board, they may run it anyway they see fit.   But I'll go on the record as not liking this rule change.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on January 03, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
Save your clicks, people. Mr. Erdner's link is to the listing of all my postings; which makes his post non-responsive and snarky. I'd even consider reporting it to the moderators, but they have enough to do, what with certain participants here being told to "shut *** **** up."

For the record, I was the one who told Pr. Stoffregen to "shut the (ahem!)...heck...up".

And I publicly beg forgiveness for doing so.

Brian, I have offended you and I ask for you to forgive me for my uncharitable language and harsh judgment of you.  I was wrong and have no excuse.

To my brothers and sisters on this forum, I beg your forgiveness as well and apologize for letting my temper get the better of me.  I am most sincerely sorry and will strive to do better in the future.

In Christ;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Pilgrim on January 03, 2011, 03:14:29 PM
Save your clicks, people. Mr. Erdner's link is to the listing of all my postings; which makes his post non-responsive and snarky. I'd even consider reporting it to the moderators, but they have enough to do, what with certain participants here being told to "shut *** **** up."
For the record, I was the one who told Pr. Stoffregen to "shut the (ahem!)...heck...up". And I publicly beg forgiveness for doing so. Brian, I have offended you and I ask for you to forgive me for my uncharitable language and harsh judgment of you.  I was wrong and have no excuse. To my brothers and sisters on this forum, I beg your forgiveness as well and apologize for letting my temper get the better of me.  I am most sincerely sorry and will strive to do better in the future.
In Christ; Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Pilgrim comments: When my kids were young, one habit my wife and I tried very hard to cultivate when they misbehaved was to say, "I love you. But, your behavior stinks, and here is why." It would seem to me that misbehavior is not age limited. Is it possible for us to say to one another, "I love you (insert desired name). But your behavior in this forum/conversation/thread stinks and here is why"? I must confess, your comment to Brian spoke what I have often thought, not even due to disagreement but simply the electronic argumentative diahhrea from which he (and others) often seems to suffer in these environs. I don't know if the "one hour" rule will suffice, but I stand behind the moderators in whatever means they deem necessary to maintain quality and a modicum of civility on this board.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 06, 2011, 09:31:02 PM
It was also proposed at one time that the Your Turn section would be pruned down to holding only the last sixty or so days of threads.

Is that still being considered?  I hope not, and I don't see how it would help with behavior or easing moderation at all.

Mike

Probably wouldn't help with behavior, but the way it would ease moderation is that the software seems to like to dump new threads somewhere way back in the pack, they don't get moved to the front page without moderatorial intervention, and about five or six times a week we get emails saying either "please move this one to the front" or "where the x#@&*$ is this one?" A two month cut off would immediately prune the current "Your Turn" to about 9 pages rather than 112. I'm just sayin' . . .
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 06, 2011, 09:42:14 PM
It was also proposed at one time that the Your Turn section would be pruned down to holding only the last sixty or so days of threads.

Is that still being considered?  I hope not, and I don't see how it would help with behavior or easing moderation at all.

Mike

Probably wouldn't help with behavior, but the way it would ease moderation is that the software seems to like to dump new threads somewhere way back in the pack, they don't get moved to the front page without moderatorial intervention, and about five or six times a week we get emails saying either "please move this one to the front" or "where the x#@&*$ is this one?" A two month cut off would immediately prune the current "Your Turn" to about 9 pages rather than 112. I'm just sayin' . . .

What sort of answer did the people at Simple Machines support forum (http://support.simplemachines.org/) give you when you asked about the problem? I've been on several other forums that used Simple Machines 1.1.12 that don't have that problem.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 06, 2011, 10:15:46 PM
PRUNE
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: G.Edward on January 06, 2011, 11:07:02 PM
PRUNE


Which fits best?  You decide:

a) Your favorite fruit

b) Description of your mood today

c) Treatment for hair, shrubbery, and organizations that have become unruly and disorganized

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on January 07, 2011, 05:45:46 AM
I was referring to the moderator's words. If space is a problem, prune old threads, ancient threads, dried-out, worn-down, unused threads.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Nicholas Amsdorf on January 10, 2011, 12:15:30 AM
Oh, by the way, I think prunes are a wonderful idea, for it does seem that often these topics get quite clogged up, bogged down, and otherwise woefully restricted, if not all stopped up by irrelevant comments.

So, I'm with Austin: prunes are the way to go.

 ;D

Seriously: the way to improve this forum is actually to moderate it and if that means taking on more moderators to help, go for it.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 10, 2011, 05:16:22 PM
If there is to be a movement on the part of the moderators to discourage off-topic posts, shouldn't that extend to gratuitous corrections of  typographical errors, even if done in a light-hearted manner? And shouldn't it also be extended to "welcome back" or other personal greeting posts?

On one forum that I participated in, there was a specific rule against congratulatory posts that were merely expressions of praise for something being well-said, or nothing more than a "Me, too." expression of agreement. Is that the kind of off-topic post that would be discouraged for the sake of saving space?

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on January 10, 2011, 05:44:39 PM
If there is to be a movement on the part of the moderators to discourage off-topic posts, shouldn't that extend to gratuitous corrections of  typographical errors, even if done in a light-hearted manner? And shouldn't it also be extended to "welcome back" or other personal greeting posts?

On one forum that I participated in, there was a specific rule against congratulatory posts that were merely expressions of praise for something being well-said, or nothing more than a "Me, too." expression of agreement. Is that the kind of off-topic post that would be discouraged for the sake of saving space?


Is this NOT a Christian forum?  If I've somehow come to this mistaken understanding, please let me know now.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 10, 2011, 05:49:33 PM
If there is to be a movement on the part of the moderators to discourage off-topic posts, shouldn't that extend to gratuitous corrections of  typographical errors, even if done in a light-hearted manner? And shouldn't it also be extended to "welcome back" or other personal greeting posts?

On one forum that I participated in, there was a specific rule against congratulatory posts that were merely expressions of praise for something being well-said, or nothing more than a "Me, too." expression of agreement. Is that the kind of off-topic post that would be discouraged for the sake of saving space?


Is this NOT a Christian forum?  If I've somehow come to this mistaken understanding, please let me know now.  Thanks.

You've totally confused and befuddled me. What does what I posted have to do with Christianity?

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on January 10, 2011, 05:59:17 PM
And shouldn't it also be extended to "welcome back" or other personal greeting posts?

On one forum that I participated in, there was a specific rule against congratulatory posts that were merely expressions of praise for something being well-said, or nothing more than a "Me, too." expression of agreement. Is that the kind of off-topic post that would be discouraged for the sake of saving space?

You've totally confused and befuddled me if you did not just say we shouldn't welcome someone to the forum and thank them/praise them for a contribution we particularly appreciated.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Nicholas Amsdorf on January 10, 2011, 06:55:43 PM
Congratulations on a great comment, Kim. And, I did not notice any typos in your comment, but I'll let those more adept at finding typos find them.

 :)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 10, 2011, 08:29:00 PM
And shouldn't it also be extended to "welcome back" or other personal greeting posts?

On one forum that I participated in, there was a specific rule against congratulatory posts that were merely expressions of praise for something being well-said, or nothing more than a "Me, too." expression of agreement. Is that the kind of off-topic post that would be discouraged for the sake of saving space?

You've totally confused and befuddled me if you did not just say we shouldn't welcome someone to the forum and thank them/praise them for a contribution we particularly appreciated.

I didn't "say" anything, I asked. The Moderators raised the issue of there being an excess of off-topic posts. I simply asked if the posts I described were included in "off-topic" posts. There is something of a shortage of detail in the communications regarding what it being asked of us. So, I asked for some clarification. Is there something wrong in asking for clarification in the thread "Some changes afoot"? For the record, had the Moderators not raised the issue of cracking down on off-topic posts, I never would have asked or even raised the subject.

In any case, I never said no one should welcome or praise anyone. I mentioned that in some forums, such welcomes and praise posts should be done via Private Message. Those are two of the reasons why it's there.

But that's not what confused and befuddled me about your question, "Is this NOT a Christian forum?" What does the Christian religion have to do with extraneous, off-topic posts? Do Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Atheist, Agnostics, Druids, and adherents to other religions not extend greetings to each other? Do Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Atheist, Agnostics, Druids, and adherents to other religions not sometimes post replies in internet forums that boil down to "Me, too"? What does being a forum for Lutheran Christians have to do with those things?

When it comes to how and when to post personal messages in discussion threads instead of in Private Messages, I consider this, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace."

To that list, I would add, "A time to greet in public, and a time to greet in private." I was simply asking the Moderators when they wanted those times to be.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on January 10, 2011, 09:36:23 PM
Thank you so much for clarifying what you meant.  I do appreciate the extensive explanation and think it was wonderful of you to quote scripture to make your point.  See now, doesn't that feel good to be praised?  Maybe it's just my female wiring, but a little politeness and encouragement is a good thing for Christians to offer each other even on a forum like this.  I can make my away around technology as much as the next person, but I wasn't expecting this forum to be run like a machine the way more technical forums might be.  That's all I meant.  Have a lovely evening, George.  God bless you!
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 10, 2011, 09:50:28 PM
Thank you so much for clarifying what you meant.  I do appreciate the extensive explanation and think it was wonderful of you to quote scripture to make your point.  See now, doesn't that feel good to be praised?  Maybe it's just my female wiring, but a little politeness and encouragement is a good thing for Christians to offer each other even on a forum like this.  I can make my away around technology as much as the next person, but I wasn't expecting this forum to be run like a machine the way more technical forums might be.  That's all I meant.  Have a lovely evening, George.  God bless you!

Actually, I suspect the praise was sarcastic. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

As for politeness and encouragement, I agree. The issue isn't whether or not it is right, it is whether or not it belongs as an extra post in a public thread or as a private message. Also, a little politeness and encouragement is a good thing for Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Atheist, Agnostics, Druids, and adherents to other religions to offer each other. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that a little politeness and encouragement is strictly for Christians, and not for anyone else?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: kls on January 10, 2011, 10:01:51 PM
Actually, I suspect the praise was sarcastic. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

As for politeness and encouragement, I agree. The issue isn't whether or not it is right, it is whether or not it belongs as an extra post in a public thread or as a private message. Also, a little politeness and encouragement is a good thing for Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Atheist, Agnostics, Druids, and adherents to other religions to offer each other. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that a little politeness and encouragement is strictly for Christians, and not for anyone else?

No sarcasm.  I was admittedly trying to be funny, but I meant it with the utmost of sincerity.  I hope God indeed blesses your night.  And yes, I agree a little politeness and encouragement is good for all those categories you listed.  I would even add that it's good for cats and dogs, too.   :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Nicholas Amsdorf on January 11, 2011, 05:56:19 AM
When my dog praises me and encourages me to keep petting him, it makes me feel all warm and special.

So, your point is proven Kim.

 :)

After all, don't we all know that happiness is a warm puppy, as the great philosopher Charles Schultz put it so well years ago.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on January 11, 2011, 10:26:28 PM
As long as this thread hasn't been shut down, I assume it's still a place to make suggestions.

I suggest creating a special thread for "Recommended Links". Instead of launching a whole new thread to simply share a link to something interesting that isn't really a discussion topic, start a permanent thread where anytime anyone wants to simply share a link to something they can do so as a post in the thread. That way, there won't be a bunch of itty bitty non-discussion threads cluttering things up, and all such links will be in an easy-to-find location on the main page, with no need for the moderators to push the threads to page 1.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on February 03, 2011, 11:01:55 AM
This is another general suggestion to help keep threads on topic and to better facilitate discussion.

Though we are responding to each other in the public discussions, all public posts are intended for all participants to read and respond to. That is the fundamental nature of internet fora such as this one. It makes it difficult to follow the train of a thread when people write reponses addressed only to the first name of whoever one is responding to, especially when the post one is responding two might be on a previous page, and even moreso when the first name isn't part of the main screen name, but is only a footnote in a tagline.

Overquoting is not a good thing. Hitting the quote button to copy a long series of nested quotes just to post a one or two sentence reply leads to using up a lot of server space. But using the quote button and trimming what you are responding to down to the point you are replying to makes it easier for everyone to know what you are replying to. I was taught that the best way to think of your responses in a forum such as this is that everyone needs to know what you are replying to (ie. the words in a prior post), but it shouldn't matter much who you are replying to.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on February 03, 2011, 11:08:12 AM
Yeah, well, I'm just hoping that the decision to start deleting old threads has been reconsidered.

It is helpful for me to refer to old threads to see what insights are available when subjects have been discussed before.

Mike
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on February 03, 2011, 11:26:38 AM
Yeah, well, I'm just hoping that the decision to start deleting old threads has been reconsidered.

It is helpful for me to refer to old threads to see what insights are available when subjects have been discussed before.

Mike

Mike*,

Me, too.  I would hate to not be able to refer to my work on 1 Tim 2 from 2006, for example.  This is the only place I have it.

[[Hmmm... Note to self: Go copy the posts and keep them on your computer.  Good job, self!]]


* That one's for you, George!
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on February 03, 2011, 11:59:47 AM
Yeah, well, I'm just hoping that the decision to start deleting old threads has been reconsidered.

It is helpful for me to refer to old threads to see what insights are available when subjects have been discussed before.

Mike

If the reason why old threads might need deleted is that too much server space is being used, then my advice regarding not over-quoting would be, if followed, a positive step towards reducing server space usage. It is good to expess the hope that old threads won't be deleted because of server space usage. It's even better to support reducing the use of server space to help minimize the root cause of needing to recover server space.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Drive-by Lutheran on February 03, 2011, 01:20:25 PM
Is it possible to offer these options at the end of each thread:

(Yes, it is in German, but you can figure it out)

Themenstrang als PDF (save thread as .pdf)
Themenstrang als Textdatei (save thread as text)
Jemanden per E-Mail auf dieses Thema hinweisen (recommend this thread to a friend)
Dieses Thema abonnieren (subscribe to this thread)

Provide a date when the thread in question expires and is automatically removed from the server (perhaps after 3 months of inactivity?)

Source:  http://www.politik.de/forum/innenpolitik/228395-nach.html

By the way, would blog meta tags have any value on this website?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on February 04, 2011, 12:56:09 PM
Is it possible to offer these options at the end of each thread:

(Yes, it is in German, but you can figure it out)

Themenstrang als PDF (save thread as .pdf)
Themenstrang als Textdatei (save thread as text)
Jemanden per E-Mail auf dieses Thema hinweisen (recommend this thread to a friend)
Dieses Thema abonnieren (subscribe to this thread)

Provide a date when the thread in question expires and is automatically removed from the server (perhaps after 3 months of inactivity?)

Source:  http://www.politik.de/forum/innenpolitik/228395-nach.html

By the way, would blog meta tags have any value on this website?

Those options do not appear to be part of the Simple Machines (http://www.simplemachines.org/) package.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on February 10, 2011, 04:49:47 PM
As long as this thread hasn't been shut down, I assume it's still a place to make suggestions.

I suggest creating a special thread for "Recommended Links". Instead of launching a whole new thread to simply share a link to something interesting that isn't really a discussion topic, start a permanent thread where anytime anyone wants to simply share a link to something they can do so as a post in the thread. That way, there won't be a bunch of itty bitty non-discussion threads cluttering things up, and all such links will be in an easy-to-find location on the main page, with no need for the moderators to push the threads to page 1.



I still think that this is a good idea.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 08, 2011, 05:02:35 PM
FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.

I've found that not posting at all or deliberately not posting anything substantive is much better than participating in the endless personal bickering (with Charles invariably being involved [I almost wrote "almost invariably" but I can't recall anyone else being involved in personal bickering so I deleted it]) or in the amazing inanities (Brian's Joycian approach) and the vast number of red herrings thereby spawned.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.  This forum needs more moderators b/c the number of moderators is not sufficient for the traffic of the forum, and neither Peter nor Richard have the time to police what has become a free-for-all after CWA 2009.  Which means it is now dysfunctional, and I no longer desire to participate.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 08, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 08, 2011, 05:42:39 PM
I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

Charles, when you participate, the discussions almost (and I use that word hesitantly b/c even my typical understatement is strained by the adjective) invariably devolve into a discussion of you, essentially making your "rules" the rules of the forum itself.  Which is not interesting.  I really don't care how people interact with you and what gets your goat so that you respond, and I'm quite sure I'm not alone.

What I am interested in is the topics raised by folks in the forum and not your rules that, in all honesty, are the ones that tend to rule how this forum actually runs thereby making you de facto the dominant moderator (sorry Pete and Dick, but the fact that Charles has time to spend on this forum [which he deems "small" and inconsequential] and you guys actually have ministries to look after, combined with the fact he's willing to use his time in retirement on this "small" forum, means that his participation far outclasses your own [objectively, Pete posts 2.7 times per day and Dick registers 2.4, compared with Charles' 11.4 that are almost invariably not to substance but rather to what should be classed as distinctively moderatorial issues means that he rules the roost]).
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Keith Falk on April 08, 2011, 07:04:52 PM
I note again my rough count:
Participants with more than 500 posts -- 66.
Participants favoring the ELCA and its current direction -- about six or seven.
Participants not members of the ELCA or having stated their desire to leave -- about 50.
So just what is the problem here? I dunno. (Though I have my opinions.)
I have explained my participation here.
1. I answer questions put to me.
2. When someone comments on one of my postings, I may answer.
3. If someone gets something wrong about the ELCA, I may try to provide correction.
4. Sometimes, I respond to the more blatant oddities declaimed in these precincts.
5. Sometimes I ask questions.
I said upstream:
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

I'll just note that every other time you have posted who you deemed is pro or anti ELCA, who is going to leave and who is going to stay, you have been inaccurate.  But one small example, this time, I saw 64, not 66 (granted - you said it was a "rough" count this time).  In any case, please, please, please, stop assuming you know who is planning on leaving or wanting to leave.  Just because someone does not favor the CWA09 does not mean that the person is planning on leaving.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: TravisW on April 08, 2011, 09:18:05 PM
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

The thing that is so incredibly obnoxious is that Charles does all of the the things  that he gripes about others doing.  He complains about people griping about the ELCA, but then does the exact same thing with the LCMS.  
He posts stupid, irrelevant things.  I was particularly glad when he corrected Rob Buechler's spelling of "Chaplain" in the thread about the Moravian church.  That added a lot to the discussion.  The gumbo critique that he offered up was also remarkably pointless.    The only thread that seems even somewhat unsullied by this is the "Baseball and a Bad Night for Atheists" thread.  

So, I guess an "ignore" feature would be a nice way to keep the various topics cleaner.  That way, you can try and reply to a post without it being 3 pages removed due to a bunch of childish back-and-forth.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 08, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
 Again I'll note my rough count. Of the literally hundreds if not thousands of "reported posts" we moderators have gotten since I came on board, I'll estimate that least two thirds have been about Charles or from Charles. Even among people polar opposite views I get almost no reported posts not involving Charles. For example, I don't think swbohler has ever complained to me about jpetty or vice versa. Somehow there never seems to be an ugly spat when the Orthodox Boris or high liturgy-inclined Weedon discuss things with mqll, the coiner of CoWo. But when Charles enters the discussion it is ruined. Hmmmm. It is a puzzler.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: revklak on April 08, 2011, 10:20:42 PM
WOW -- I didn't know we could complain and report people here!  That changes the whole game:

I'd like to start by reporting/complaining that PILGRIM doesn't post nearly enough for my enlightenment.  Or that DADOO needs to start singing more for us - DOBEE DADOO DOO!

 :P   8)   ;D   :D   ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 08, 2011, 10:29:54 PM
Again I'll note my rough count. Of the literally hundreds if not thousands of "reported posts" we moderators have gotten since I came on board, I'll estimate that least two thirds have been about Charles or from Charles. Even among people polar opposite views I get almost no reported posts not involving Charles. For example, I don't think swbohler has ever complained to me about jpetty or vice versa. Somehow there never seems to be an ugly spat when the Orthodox Boris or high liturgy-inclined Weedon discuss things with mqll, the coiner of CoWo. But when Charles enters the discussion it is ruined. Hmmmm. It is a puzzler.

And of course my point is that enough is enough.  If the forum enjoys the current situation (and I don't think I'm alone), I don't care to participate in the forum in this incarnation.  It may simply be a matter of my preferences and aesthetic visions, but that may be just me, so I'm OK with simply leaving.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: jeric on April 08, 2011, 10:30:27 PM
...want less of me?
Don't ask me questions.
Don't pick at my postings with glee as you point out  how wrong I am.
When you refer to the ELCA and its operations, be respectful and get it right.
Don't post stupid things.
And don't tweak my curiosity.
Then I won't have any reason to respond.
And if someone else wants to pick up the flag of reminding everyone what great church body the ELCA is, I shall hand over the standard.

The thing that is so incredibly obnoxious is that Charles does all of the the things  that he gripes about others doing.  He complains about people griping about the ELCA, but then does the exact same thing with the LCMS.  
He posts stupid, irrelevant things.  I was particularly glad when he corrected Rob Buechler's spelling of "Chaplain" in the thread about the Moravian church.  That added a lot to the discussion.  The gumbo critique that he offered up was also remarkably pointless.    The only thread that seems even somewhat unsullied by this is the "Baseball and a Bad Night for Atheists" thread.  

So, I guess an "ignore" feature would be a nice way to keep the various topics cleaner.  That way, you can try and reply to a post without it being 3 pages removed due to a bunch of childish back-and-forth.



I don't need an "'ignore' feature."  I just do it.  Does wonders for my blood pressure and makes it possible to consider the real meat chunks -theological and practical- that occasionally appear from posters who address the concern of the topics.

John Ericksen
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 08, 2011, 11:35:41 PM
Examine, friends, the threads where I do not take part.
-Take the thread on order of creation where Peter and Scott beat up on Deaconess Meyers. I'm not there.
-Take the kerfuffle and more over contemporary worship in the LCMS. I'm not there.
-Take the antinomian/legalist thread. Never posted once.
-David Lose: Is the Bible True? I made seven brief comments, none in the last five or six pages of discussion which went on its own not-so-merry way.
-Romans 14:5b. No comments from me there.
-Baseball? Football? Not a word from me, back then nor will there be in the future.
-Biblical Archeology. I'm not in that one.
-Scott's thread on Lutheranism and Judaism: Nary a single post from this humble correspondent.
-Top 50 hymn tunes: Nothing from me
-ELCA Statement on Genetics: Not sure, but I doubt I've posted at all there.
-Reshaping Missouri's Presidency: Only one post from me, saying that I thought it was a good idea for the synod president to be attached to a parish.
-Koinonia Project: Not there.
-ESV, NIV or HSV: I have not posted in that discussion about Bible translations.

I don't think you can blame me if there is a dearth of discussion. Did things reach the heights of the theological Super Bowl here during the month I was under the ban?

I have said how I choose to participate here. Others can choose their own way of participating. I'll cop to being bitchy about the sniping and unctuousness that comes from Pastor Buechler, Pastor Awtry and a few others. Will try to ignore, but my tolerance for arrogant piety is low.
Peter says people complain about me. Sorry about that, but as I have said; I do not call people names or write them out of Lutheranism or Christendom. Others do that to me and a couple of other people here all the time. I have heard from five people who have cut back on their participation here or stopped posting because the response they get from the majority opinion here is so nasty. They tell me that some of the nastiness they feel comes from frequent posters and high-level "officials" here.

I continue to marvel that my comments seem to cause so much agita. And that Pastor Stoffregen's patient teaching sends people wall-crawling.

Start up a discussion, Scott and bring in all your doctoral erudition. I'll probably not jump in on that one. Peter, rally the troops for your version of the Order of Creation and I'm not likely to disturb the ranks that march to your drum. Keep counting up those leaving the ELCA, Mr. Erdner, I've said upstream that's a good service your provide. But do us a favor and shut up about some other things. If Pastor Weedon wants to continue to post about the church fathers, I'll be delighted, 'cause I like those guys too. But I'm not that interested in deep discussions about them. Start a thread where certain folks can whine and grouse about how badly their bishop or synod has treated them. I'll leave them alone.

Do what you wish. It's a free country.

I'll continue to contend that the ELCA is a fine church body, flawed as are all other church bodies, but the place I am called to my vocation and a place where I am proud to exercise that vocation. It has some fine leaders, outstanding institutions and I have always been surrounded by pastoral colleagues I admire, lay people that inspire me, worship and theological studies that nurture me and convince me that God is blessing what we do.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 08, 2011, 11:58:56 PM
I'll continue to contend that the ELCA is a fine church body, flawed as are all other church bodies, but the place I am called to my vocation and a place where I am proud to exercise that vocation. It has some fine leaders, outstanding institutions and I have always been surrounded by pastoral colleagues I admire, lay people that inspire me, worship and theological studies that nurture me and convince me that God is blessing what we do.


I don't think anyone objects to you defending the ELCA per se. I suspect it's the fact that instead of bringing some positive things to the discussion, your defense usually consists of little but whining about the credentials of those who hold a different view of the ELCA from yours. Do you really believe that whining about the nature of posts that are not positive about the ELCA will persuade or convince anyone? Do you honestly believe that your whining casts the ELCA in a positive light?

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 09, 2011, 12:21:42 AM
Start up a discussion, Scott and bring in all your doctoral erudition. I'll probably not jump in on that one.

Don't blame you.

Do what you wish. It's a free country.

Yup.

I thought that was already clear.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: John_Hannah on April 09, 2011, 07:40:26 AM
I will come to the defense of Charles Austin. He recognizes that the ELCA is flawed but not seriously flawed enough to whine about it constantly. He is loyal to the ELCA and intends to stay.

We have many active LCMS participants here. Some will admit no flaws in the LCMS. Some simply ignore those flaws and suggest that we not talk about them in public. If pressed, some will dismiss LCMS flaws as only minor and not very serious at all. Some participants here remain loyal to the LCMS and intend to stay.

So, what's wrong with Charles?

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on April 09, 2011, 07:44:17 AM
My rough count:

People from whom I learn nothing new - 3

People who's posts I rarely read - 3

People who teach, challenge and encourage me in positive ways (even when I don't agree with them) - just about everyone else.

(Is that Carly Simon singing in the background?  "You're so vain you probably think this post is about you?")

P.S. You are probably right. 

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: MaddogLutheran on April 09, 2011, 09:23:03 AM
I will come to the defense of Charles Austin. He recognizes that the ELCA is flawed but not seriously flawed enough to whine about it constantly. He is loyal to the ELCA and intends to stay.

We have many active LCMS participants here. Some will admit no flaws in the LCMS. Some simply ignore those flaws and suggest that we not talk about them in public. If pressed, some will dismiss LCMS flaws as only minor and not very serious at all. Some participants here remain loyal to the LCMS and intend to stay.

So, what's wrong with Charles?
Forgive me, Pr. Hannah, for I greatly respect your opinion.  But in response to your question, I'd suggest you re-read Prs. Yakimow and Speckhard posts above.

I would regret it if it came down to such a stark choice.  But if it were between Scott and Charles, I choose Scott.  Not simply because I usually agree with him.  It's more simply that he actually engages in real conversation, instead of meta-moderating or public relations damage control for his church body.  And I'd also point to two of Pr. Wolf's responses to Pr. Austin's participation in the "Argus" thread.  Changing the subject or proffering false equivalencies is a major factor in conversation break-down.  Thread drift is not bad when it's organic to the discussion.  Red herrings are not organic.

Mea culpa, I too often find my participation here reactionary;  I am guilty of feeding the troll on occasion, for my own personal satisfaction or in a vain attempt to offer my own community moderation.  My theory is that if such trigger posts were nipped in the bud, much of the off-subject rancor would swiftly decrease.  Worth every penny you paid, YMMV.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: John_Hannah on April 09, 2011, 12:13:05 PM

Forgive me, Pr. Hannah, for I greatly respect your opinion.  But in response to your question, I'd suggest you re-read Prs. Yakimow and Speckhard posts above.

I would regret it if it came down to such a stark choice.  But if it were between Scott and Charles, I choose Scott.  Not simply because I usually agree with him.  It's more simply that he actually engages in real conversation, instead of meta-moderating or public relations damage control for his church body.  And I'd also point to two of Pr. Wolf's responses to Pr. Austin's participation in the "Argus" thread.  Changing the subject or proffering false equivalencies is a major factor in conversation break-down.  Thread drift is not bad when it's organic to the discussion.  Red herrings are not organic.

Mea culpa, I too often find my participation here reactionary;  I am guilty of feeding the troll on occasion, for my own personal satisfaction or in a vain attempt to offer my own community moderation.  My theory is that if such trigger posts were nipped in the bud, much of the off-subject rancor would swiftly decrease.  Worth every penny you paid, YMMV.

Sterling Spatz


We do not have to choose between. We may disagree with both. We may agree with both. We may agree with one and disagree with the other. This is a free forum.

That means not everyone will agree with me. (Unfortunately   ;D .) Thank you for your kind words.


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: janielou13 on April 09, 2011, 12:27:29 PM
It would be a goodly thing all round to invite Charles to join the band of moderators.  Good things come in unexpected packages, and Charles would be a needed leaven for the moderatorial loaf.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 09, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
The problems with Charles have nothing to do with his views on the ELCA. They have everything to do with his defending the ELCA not by speaking well of it but by attacking, belittling, and otherwise changing the subject every time someone else criticizes the ELCA. As I said, we have other ELCA defenders here who do not get in incessant flame wars with everyone else, but Charles seems incapable. If, say, someone says the latest issue of The Lutheran was terrible, Charles does not respond by saying what he thought was really good about it and leave it at that; he responds by saying how rotten it is that the first poster said that, or that they didn't do their homework, or that they have a bad attitude, or or any number of other things that deflect the topic to the validity of the first poster's post without saying anything at all about the topic.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on April 09, 2011, 01:45:51 PM
    The thing I have noticed recently is how Charles and George go after each other.  At times it feels like the zingers are happening on every thread, though of course it is not.  On this it is my judgment that George is slightly more aggressive than Charles, in that I have seen George go out of his way to use derogatory and personally insulting language about Charles, including doing so when others ask George to back off of the gratuitous insults.  It is apparent that Charles, for whatever reason, cannot resist a comeback (at times an excruciatingly detailed and lengthy comeback!), after which George cries foul and berates the moderaters for failing to penalize Charles.  

   Frankly, I am tired of that whole routine.  If this was an episode of "The Nanny" both would be sent to the naughty chair for a time-out.  That may not be appropriate here, as it does seem that one is slightly more guilty of repeatedly setting a trip-wire for the other's (predictable and inevitable) reaction.  Still, no matter which one starts it, both are responsible for the resulting degradation of a number of topic threads and much of this online discussion board.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 09, 2011, 04:39:49 PM
Peter writes:
If, say, someone says the latest issue of The Lutheran was terrible, Charles does not respond by saying what he thought was really good about it and leave it at that; he responds by saying how rotten it is that the first poster said that, or that they didn't do their homework, or that they have a bad attitude, or or any number of other things that deflect the topic to the validity of the first poster's post without saying anything at all about the topic.
I muse:
And if, Peter, if the first poster did not do his homework or has a bad attitude, what then? In sensible discussion there are any number of things that affect the validity of a comment. You have before posited this cold, hyper-rational, disconnected-from-human-reality platform for discussion. I find that unrealistic and a little creepy.
You (and some others here) and I "draw the lines" in different places. That is one reason I do not think "high-level" theological (or human) dialogue will work between us. Hence, despite what is alleged, I limit my participation here. I believe I would have no problem sitting down with Steven or Erma or Richard and "going at it" about the situation in our part of the church. With you and some others.... don't think it would be good.
Oh, and if I did not "have my views on the ELCA," the situation here would be quite different.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on April 09, 2011, 05:08:07 PM
Peter says"

The problems with Charles ..... he responds by saying how rotten it is that the first poster said that, or that they didn't do their homework, or that they have a bad attitude, or or any number of other things that deflect the topic to the validity of the first poster's post without saying anything at all about the topic.

Charles responds:

You have before posited this cold, hyper-rational, disconnected-from-human-reality platform for discussion. I find that unrealistic and a little creepy.

Janielou13 suggests:

It would be a goodly thing all round to invite Charles to join the band of moderators.  Good things come in unexpected packages, and Charles would be a needed leaven for the moderatorial loaf.

I muse:

You have got to be kidding
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: GalRev83 on April 09, 2011, 06:00:36 PM
   The thing I have noticed recently is how Charles and George go after each other.  At times it feels like the zingers are happening on every thread, though of course it is not.  On this it is my judgment that George is slightly more aggressive than Charles, in that I have seen George go out of his way to use derogatory and personally insulting language about Charles, including doing so when others ask George to back off of the gratuitous insults.  It is apparent that Charles, for whatever reason, cannot resist a comeback (at times an excruciatingly detailed and lengthy comeback!), after which George cries foul and berates the moderaters for failing to penalize Charles.  

   Frankly, I am tired of that whole routine.  If this was an episode of "The Nanny" both would be sent to the naughty chair for a time-out.  That may not be appropriate here, as it does seem that one is slightly more guilty of repeatedly setting a trip-wire for the other's (predictable and inevitable) reaction.  Still, no matter which one starts it, both are responsible for the resulting degradation of a number of topic threads and much of this online discussion board.

If this was an episode of The Nanny, it would actually be funny.  ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Evangel on April 09, 2011, 06:10:34 PM
   The thing I have noticed recently is how Charles and George go after each other.  At times it feels like the zingers are happening on every thread, though of course it is not.  On this it is my judgment that George is slightly more aggressive than Charles, in that I have seen George go out of his way to use derogatory and personally insulting language about Charles, including doing so when others ask George to back off of the gratuitous insults.  It is apparent that Charles, for whatever reason, cannot resist a comeback (at times an excruciatingly detailed and lengthy comeback!), after which George cries foul and berates the moderaters for failing to penalize Charles.  

   Frankly, I am tired of that whole routine.  If this was an episode of "The Nanny" both would be sent to the naughty chair for a time-out.  That may not be appropriate here, as it does seem that one is slightly more guilty of repeatedly setting a trip-wire for the other's (predictable and inevitable) reaction.  Still, no matter which one starts it, both are responsible for the resulting degradation of a number of topic threads and much of this online discussion board.

If this was an episode of The Nanny, it would actually be funny.  ;)

I caught that too Donna.  My guess is Erma was referring to "Supernanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF-Ry-Wm-MM)" rather than "The Nanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrvvynJqfo&feature=related)" - though both shows can be funny.  ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 09, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
I muse:
And if, Peter, if the first poster did not do his homework or has a bad attitude, what then?
Then the forum reader compares what the first poster said about The Lutheran to what you said about the Lutheran and makes his own conclusions. As it is, you don't say anything about The Lutheran but in effect tell everyone "Don't listen to the first poster!" If the first poster gets some fact wrong, you could just say, "Actually, the circulation numbers are x." Instead, you say something like "And did you double check those numbers with the home office or are you just gleefully reporting hearsay about The Lutheran to make the ELCA look bad?" Or, on a good day, you might say "Those aren't the right numbers, and if you had even a modicum of decency and weren't willfully ignorant, you'd know that." Then those who habitually ignore you continue the discussion of The Lutheran, while those who don't ignore you get involved in another discussion of posters' attitudes until the former group get fed up trying to wade through the nonsense to discuss The Lutheran.

It is possible that someone will post something here that is unBiblical or un-Lutheran. Lots of the discussion involves precisely that-- is the historic episcopacy Biblical? Is quarterly communion un-Lutheran, etc.-- so it is in no way out of bounds or even rude to say "That is unBiblical." Such an opinion is welcome in the discussion. "You are willfully ignorant!" is a pompous personal judgment that has nothing to do with the topic and is not welcome in any serious discussion.

Again Charles, if you can't see that you, and you alone, apart from any liberal/conservative, pro- or con- ELCA position, are responsible for the incessantly antagonistic dynamic in these discussions, I'll start quoting from the literally hundreds of complaints about you (about you personally-- not your theological positions, but your insufferable discussion habits). I promise not to post more than one from any one person, but I'll still manage to posts dozens---- way more than I could post about anyone else.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: GalRev83 on April 09, 2011, 06:54:44 PM
   The thing I have noticed recently is how Charles and George go after each other.  At times it feels like the zingers are happening on every thread, though of course it is not.  On this it is my judgment that George is slightly more aggressive than Charles, in that I have seen George go out of his way to use derogatory and personally insulting language about Charles, including doing so when others ask George to back off of the gratuitous insults.  It is apparent that Charles, for whatever reason, cannot resist a comeback (at times an excruciatingly detailed and lengthy comeback!), after which George cries foul and berates the moderaters for failing to penalize Charles.  

   Frankly, I am tired of that whole routine.  If this was an episode of "The Nanny" both would be sent to the naughty chair for a time-out.  That may not be appropriate here, as it does seem that one is slightly more guilty of repeatedly setting a trip-wire for the other's (predictable and inevitable) reaction.  Still, no matter which one starts it, both are responsible for the resulting degradation of a number of topic threads and much of this online discussion board.

If this was an episode of The Nanny, it would actually be funny.  ;)

I caught that too Donna.  My guess is Erma was referring to "Supernanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF-Ry-Wm-MM)" rather than "The Nanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrvvynJqfo&feature=related)" - though both shows can be funny.  ;)

Yeah, I suspected that, too. But I also realized how often I read this forum and the first word that comes to mind is "meshuganah!!!" (Much more a Fran Fine term!) :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on April 09, 2011, 07:11:08 PM
FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.


I would miss your participation very much, Peter.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Revbert on April 09, 2011, 07:25:03 PM
FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.


I would miss your participation very much, Peter.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Steven+

Me, too, Peter. Besides, without you here, I'd probably be banned for saying things that you say, but only in less charming and Christian ways.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on April 09, 2011, 07:30:02 PM
Um,, I think you mean Scott, right?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: TravisW on April 09, 2011, 07:50:05 PM
Um,, I think you mean Scott, right?

That's right, Peter.   ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 09, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Thanks a lot, Richard. Here I am basking in the glory of being confused for Scott, and my fellow moderator has to blow it for me.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Evangel on April 09, 2011, 09:07:11 PM
Thanks a lot, Richard. Here I am basking in the glory of being confused for Scott, and my fellow moderator has to blow it for me.

Is that something like Nanny Fran Fein being confused with Nanny Jo Frost?   :P   ;D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on April 09, 2011, 09:51:33 PM
   The thing I have noticed recently is how Charles and George go after each other.  At times it feels like the zingers are happening on every thread, though of course it is not.  On this it is my judgment that George is slightly more aggressive than Charles, in that I have seen George go out of his way to use derogatory and personally insulting language about Charles, including doing so when others ask George to back off of the gratuitous insults.  It is apparent that Charles, for whatever reason, cannot resist a comeback (at times an excruciatingly detailed and lengthy comeback!), after which George cries foul and berates the moderaters for failing to penalize Charles.  

   Frankly, I am tired of that whole routine.  If this was an episode of "The Nanny" both would be sent to the naughty chair for a time-out.  That may not be appropriate here, as it does seem that one is slightly more guilty of repeatedly setting a trip-wire for the other's (predictable and inevitable) reaction.  Still, no matter which one starts it, both are responsible for the resulting degradation of a number of topic threads and much of this online discussion board.

If this was an episode of The Nanny, it would actually be funny.  ;)

I caught that too Donna.  My guess is Erma was referring to "Supernanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF-Ry-Wm-MM)" rather than "The Nanny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrvvynJqfo&feature=related)" - though both shows can be funny.  ;)

Yeah, I suspected that, too. But I also realized how often I read this forum and the first word that comes to mind is "meshuganah!!!" (Much more a Fran Fine term!) :D

I did mean SuperNanny.  But then I started thinking about a couple of the running adult characters' back-and-forth, and figured it was close enough to "Joisey" to work.  I suspect Fran wouldn't let either Charles or George get away with the nonsense they pull here! :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on April 09, 2011, 10:40:20 PM
FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.


I would miss your participation very much, Peter.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Steven+

 :-[ 

Let's try this again.

I would miss your participation very much, Scott.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Zippy+
(a pinhead)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Rev. Kevin Scheuller on April 09, 2011, 10:52:36 PM
FWIW, I'm a mouse's whisker's breadth away from deleting my account and walking away permanently from the forum.


I would miss your participation very much, Peter.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Steven+

 :-[  

Let's try this again.

I would miss your participation very much, Scott.  Among other things, I learn from you.

Pax, Zippy+
(a pinhead)
Stanley ;),
I suspect he knew what you meant (in that you meant "Scott" and not "Peter") but I'll say it again, I'd miss his contributions.  Even when I'm too tired to understand much of what's in them  ;), I eventually learn something from them when I apply myself to them.  Thank God for the breadth of the mouse whisker that keeps Scott contributing!

Your fellow servant of Christ,
Kevin
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Chuck on April 09, 2011, 11:04:05 PM
I suspect Fran wouldn't let either Charles or George get away with the nonsense they pull here! :D

Too true, Erma. I would just add one difference between them. Charles may push a lot of buttons in his arguments, but George is the one who continually resorts to the worst sort of name calling. It is really pathetic.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 09, 2011, 11:21:36 PM
You will see me back off in participating in this forum. Let the cheering begin.

But first, let me get this straight. First, Peter lays out a lampoon of how he thinks I operate here, and gets it wrong. (But attempting to correct it would be pointless.)
Then he contends that those who take what I post seriously cause others - the ones who ignore what I say - to get honked off and fed up with the discussion and leave. How does that make any sense? (Amazing power I must have. Gotta figure out how that works.)
And finally, Peter says that if I don't "get" this, he threatens to quote dozens (hundreds, even!) of complaints about my "insufferable discussion habits." Am I suppose to quiver in my boots at this threat? Or what?
Peter, if I explain in great detail how the ELCA ecumenical agreements work and what full communion means, which can be done with some precision, and then if someone continues to declare that our ecumenical agreements mean something else completely and operate quite differently, I call that "willful ignorance." But I am striving not to respond to such a one.
One person said it somewhere else. Certain people get away with things here because they are on the "right side" of what are perceived to be key issues.
I ask again: If the desire for such high-level, warm, fuzzy and oh-so-polite theological discussion is so prevalent here, why is it not taking place in those numerous threads of discussion where - as I noted above, I do not comment?
And why is it that the responses to the postings of Pastor Stoffregen run mostly along the lines of: "Are you nuts?" Or "That's typically revisionist and therefore despicable!" Or "Just ignore this!" Or "How can a Christian pastor actually say such things!" Or "There goes Brian again, off on his meaningless exegesis, and silly issues." Pastor Stoffregen is one of the most "serious" posters here, but derision rains down when he makes a comment.
As I said above: You will, I believe, find me backing off participating in this forum. (Let the cheering begin.)
If you think people tire of me, can you have any idea how I tire of the postings from pompous blowhards, bitter ex-ELCAers carrying grudges, current members of the ELCA whining about how their bishop "lets" others say nasty things about them or won't give them a call (even though they have already said they won't support the synod), LCMSers and ex-LCMSers proud that they are not like us, and people whose theological framework is so alien to anything I have known in my entire life that I - even I - wonder if we have ever been in the same church.
Backing off. Backing off.... Backing offff......
Y'all have a nice day.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Paula Murray on April 09, 2011, 11:56:37 PM
With regards to the Charles and George show, it is possible just to zip past their entries.  I don't read either one of them most of the time, except when George is putting up a new chart or new numbers in the forum about churches leaving the ELCA.  It saves a great deal of time, I get to read those who have the most to contribute, and I don't have to get involved in the constant reminders to the two individuals above to mind their manners. 

I worry that at least as much damage will be done to this forum by attempts to "control" or "manage" our bad boys as the damage the bad boys do themselves.

I'm not sure that last sentence was English, but hopefully you get my drift.

Yours in Christ,
Paula Murray
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on April 10, 2011, 12:03:37 AM
You will see me back off in participating in this forum. Let the cheering begin.

No cheers here. Check your PM box.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Mel Harris on April 10, 2011, 03:49:42 AM

Thanks a lot, Richard. Here I am basking in the glory of being confused for Scott, and my fellow moderator has to blow it for me.


I do not think I have ever confused the posts of the associate editor of Forum Letter with those of the young Ruthian.  I do however appreciate what both of them have posted, and hope that both will continue to contribute to our conversations here.

To get back to one of the original topics of this thread...  I am glad that none of the older threads have been deleted here recently, as was being considered.  I occasionally look for something I remember being posted in the past.  For example, after reading some of the recent posts in this thread I looked for, and found, something a former editor of Forum Letter posted in January 2009.  I would miss being able to do that.

Besides, with the threads that have been deleted in the past, by the moderators and by problems with the software or servers, it took me a number of years to get five stars.  I would rather not be demoted.   ;)

Mel Harris
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 10, 2011, 10:05:37 AM
You will see me back off in participating in this forum. Let the cheering begin.

But first, let me get this straight. First, Peter lays out a lampoon of how he thinks I operate here, and gets it wrong. (But attempting to correct it would be pointless.)
Then he contends that those who take what I post seriously cause others - the ones who ignore what I say - to get honked off and fed up with the discussion and leave. How does that make any sense? (Amazing power I must have. Gotta figure out how that works.)
And finally, Peter says that if I don't "get" this, he threatens to quote dozens (hundreds, even!) of complaints about my "insufferable discussion habits." Am I suppose to quiver in my boots at this threat? Or what?
Peter, if I explain in great detail how the ELCA ecumenical agreements work and what full communion means, which can be done with some precision, and then if someone continues to declare that our ecumenical agreements mean something else completely and operate quite differently, I call that "willful ignorance." But I am striving not to respond to such a one.
One person said it somewhere else. Certain people get away with things here because they are on the "right side" of what are perceived to be key issues.
I ask again: If the desire for such high-level, warm, fuzzy and oh-so-polite theological discussion is so prevalent here, why is it not taking place in those numerous threads of discussion where - as I noted above, I do not comment?
And why is it that the responses to the postings of Pastor Stoffregen run mostly along the lines of: "Are you nuts?" Or "That's typically revisionist and therefore despicable!" Or "Just ignore this!" Or "How can a Christian pastor actually say such things!" Or "There goes Brian again, off on his meaningless exegesis, and silly issues." Pastor Stoffregen is one of the most "serious" posters here, but derision rains down when he makes a comment.
As I said above: You will, I believe, find me backing off participating in this forum. (Let the cheering begin.)
If you think people tire of me, can you have any idea how I tire of the postings from pompous blowhards, bitter ex-ELCAers carrying grudges, current members of the ELCA whining about how their bishop "lets" others say nasty things about them or won't give them a call (even though they have already said they won't support the synod), LCMSers and ex-LCMSers proud that they are not like us, and people whose theological framework is so alien to anything I have known in my entire life that I - even I - wonder if we have ever been in the same church.
Backing off. Backing off.... Backing offff......
Y'all have a nice day.

I've said it many times before both publicly and in private PMs, if you would simply do the positive that you are capable of doing quite eruditely (i.e., providing helpful information about the ELCA, her ecumenical agreements and their theological justifications, for example), your posts might torque people off but for the right reasons -- they were incorrect about something substantive and now need to incorporate (or not, but there really isn't anything you can do about that and name-calling doesn't help) into their thinking.  Speaking only for myself, it is this type of contribution that I love and one of the reasons I have decided to spend so much time over the years on a pan-Lutheran forum rather than something more parochially LCMS, for example.  I enjoy challenges coming from a side I may never have considered before -- it greatly aids my own thinking (this is one of the reasons I study Islam as well, not to mention deciding to get a PhD from a state school).

The problem is, again, all the negative baggage that repeatedly shows up, which this "backing off" post exhibits so beautifully.  If you don't know the negative bits by now and why they spawn so much frustration (most folks don't go to internet forums to be continually frustrated -- rather, they simply go away as many people have over the years), I fear that there really is no hope of extricating the positive from the negative b/c the negative has been pointed out to you so many times, both publicly and privately, that I'm not sure how it could be made clearer.

This is a shame b/c the positive is quite good, but the negative is so distracting that I'd simply rather spend time somewhere else, and over the years (and quite recently) a number of others have made the same choice.

I hope you enjoy your time "backing off."
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 10, 2011, 11:16:02 AM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: A Catholic Lutheran on April 10, 2011, 12:34:29 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.

Sigh...  

As I said elsewhere:
Quote
We get it already.  "You" are so much better than the rest of humanity.  Thank God that he didn't make you like us...

I'm not cheering that anyone feels the need to absent themselves from this forum.  I have repeatedly admitted, confessed, apologized for the hurtful and ill-concieved things I have said on these pages.  I have left before because I see the deliterious effect arguing has on my own psyche, I have come back because I miss the fellowship of other knowledgable Christians and what they can offer me.  I am with Scott...  I am a whisker's breadth from cashing it in...again...on this forum because frankly I don't like being miserable...which reading this stuff makes me.

And yes, I could ignore the postings of...certain...people and I try darn hard to.  All too often I fail and rise to the bait.  But that's MY problem.

How typical...  Here I am, once again, wasting my breath when I should just say these simple words: Confess your own darn sins, Charles.  I own my own problems, they are not yours.  Confess your own darn sins, not the sins of others.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: grabau14 on April 10, 2011, 01:09:10 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.




8th Commandment, Pr. Austin.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Scott6 on April 10, 2011, 02:05:48 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.

Sorry that this was your response.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Charles_Austin on April 10, 2011, 02:09:40 PM
I am not accusing others of being sinful, Pastor Kliner; I am saying that their participation here reeks of negativity and hostility.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Michael Slusser on April 10, 2011, 02:39:40 PM
I've been trying to figure out what goes wrong (when it goes wrong) on this Forum which I have come to value. Oddly, since this is a Lutheran forum, the leading disrupter of conversation seems to me to be
     self-justification,
     accompanied by its fraternal twin, (self-justification by) showing the other poster's faults,
     and abetted by a step-brother, challenging others to justify themselves.
That having been said, I find that one can without too much difficulty avoid making the situation worse if one avoids the urge to leap into thread disruptions of that nature.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 10, 2011, 02:48:31 PM
The reason that I have not posted in here has nothing to do with my not having an opinion on this topic.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Tom Senge on April 10, 2011, 03:22:02 PM
Dear brothers and sisters, there is a simple solution to all of this.  When I did more youth work I would set up scenarios, and they almost always degenerated to hostile positions.  In fact, when I stepped in to take part in the scenario, the youth did not know how to handle the situation!

Somehow we became creatures who like conflict.  I don't know why, but here is my solution.  When you read a post (no matter who it's from), do 3 things:
1) Realize that no one is trying to take away your birthday....it's an opinion for cryin' out loud.
2) If you must, type a response and vent.....then
3) Read your response a couple of times, and truly ask if your response is appropriate, or just adds fuel to the fire.

There, problem solved.

There are lots of times when I have typed responses and deleted them.  Why, because they would not positively add to the discussion.  Oh, sometimes a little snark might seep through, but not often, and not very venomous, but I try.

Also, one final thing, lest any of us feel so puffed up, realize that we are just small players in a much bigger scheme, and that we are all God's children and bound servants to His word.

Now, let us all offer the sign of our Lord's peace.....Peace be with you!

Tom
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 10, 2011, 04:22:45 PM
I suspect Fran wouldn't let either Charles or George get away with the nonsense they pull here! :D

Too true, Erma. I would just add one difference between them. Charles may push a lot of buttons in his arguments, but George is the one who continually resorts to the worst sort of name calling. It is really pathetic.

This post as troubled me ever since I read it. I would appreciate being enlightened about just when I used an epithet to address another member of this forum. If you will point out specific instances when I used an epithet to address someone (which is, after all, what "name calling" means), that will educate me as to something I wasn't aware that I was doing. When I am shown quotes from my posts in which I addressed anyone by an epithet, I promise that I will apologize, and I will stop addressing people with epithets. I am genuinely not aware of having ever addressed anyone in here by an epithet, but I'll admit to having done so if you will simply provide some quotes of the times I "continually" resorted to the worst sort of name calling, so that I can understand what you are referring to.

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on April 10, 2011, 05:40:11 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.



And you're not succeeding. Didn't your mother ever tell you that when you point fingers at someone, there are four pointing back at you? I'm pretty close to fed up with this childish behavior on the part of a handful here.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Darrell Wacker on April 10, 2011, 10:37:11 PM
Nicely said, Pr. Johnson.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: revklak on April 11, 2011, 04:08:18 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.



And you're not succeeding. Didn't your mother ever tell you that when you point fingers at someone, there are four pointing back at you? I'm pretty close to fed up with this childish behavior on the part of a handful here.

Except for the fact that actually only 3 fingers point back at you, becuase the thumb, even if you want to call it a finger, holds the other 3 down and points forward in the process of doing so.

That's why I point with my whole hand - all finger-point!  8)  ;)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Richard Johnson on April 11, 2011, 04:18:55 PM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.



And you're not succeeding. Didn't your mother ever tell you that when you point fingers at someone, there are four pointing back at you? I'm pretty close to fed up with this childish behavior on the part of a handful here.

Except for the fact that actually only 3 fingers point back at you, becuase the thumb, even if you want to call it a finger, holds the other 3 down and points forward in the process of doing so.

That's why I point with my whole hand - all finger-point!  8)  ;)

No, see, my mother was talking about hitch-hiking.  8)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 11, 2011, 04:30:35 PM
No, see, my mother was talking about hitch-hiking.  8)

You know, that's the devil's mode of transportation, or so I was told.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: mariemeyer on April 11, 2011, 05:25:16 PM
I've been trying to figure out what goes wrong (when it goes wrong) on this Forum which I have come to value. Oddly, since this is a Lutheran forum, the leading disrupter of conversation seems to me to be self-justification, accompanied by its fraternal twin, (self-justification by) showing the other poster's faults, and abetted by a step-brother, challenging others to justify themselves.
That having been said, I find that one can without too much difficulty avoid making the situation worse if one avoids the urge to leap into thread disruptions of that nature.

Peace,
Michael

IMO the above is worth pondering. Brother Michael speaks with discernng wisdom to his Lutherean brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether it is named self-justification, self-deception or self-defense, his words are a reminder that we are by nature persons blind to the degree we will go to be in the right.

Marie
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 11, 2011, 05:30:58 PM
I've been trying to figure out what goes wrong (when it goes wrong) on this Forum which I have come to value. Oddly, since this is a Lutheran forum, the leading disrupter of conversation seems to me to be self-justification, accompanied by its fraternal twin, (self-justification by) showing the other poster's faults, and abetted by a step-brother, challenging others to justify themselves.
That having been said, I find that one can without too much difficulty avoid making the situation worse if one avoids the urge to leap into thread disruptions of that nature.

Peace,
Michael

IMO the above is worth pondering. Brother Michael speaks with discernng wisdom to his Lutherean brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether it is named self-justification, self-deception or self-defense, his words are a reminder that we are by nature persons blind to the degree we will go to be in the right.

Marie

It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.

It's not really so much a question of being convinced that one is right about anything, it's a matter of believing that there is such a thing as "right". Once one rejects the idea of the existence of "right", then one will never be tempted to want to persuade others that one is right.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: mariemeyer on April 11, 2011, 07:55:09 PM
It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.



George, there is more than one topic about which I care deeply. I also believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and disagree with the idea that every opinion is as good and valid as any other opinion.   This does not mean that I can ever stop guarding against my natural inclination to justify and defend myself as well as the degree to which I am prone to self-deception.  Think about it!

Marie
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 11, 2011, 10:51:11 PM
Quote
It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.


George, there is more than one topic about which I care deeply. I also believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and disagree with the idea that every opinion is as good and valid as any other opinion.   This does not mean that I can ever stop guarding against my natural inclination to justify and defend myself as well as the degree to which I am prone to self-deception.  Think about it!

Marie

I have thought about it, long and hard. Maybe some people can care about something deeply, yet not feel inclined to speak up about it. I'm not one of those people. The only things I can restrain myself from expressing (and defending) an opinion are things I don't care about. And so, I've decided to stop caring.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Coach-Rev on April 12, 2011, 08:32:27 AM
I'm attempting to back off, Scott, I am attempting. But get a little perspective.
You want negative?
Read Mr. Erdner. Read Pastor Uttenreither. Read Pastor Buechler. Read Coach/Rev. Read Pastor Kliner. Read Lutherman. Read Pastor Bohler. Read Pastor Copeck. Read the others who wallow in the "misery," either their own or that of the church.
Pastor Fienen and Mr. Gehlhausen aren't totally negative, but they ain't a bucket of sunshine, either, and I generally come away feeling the slap on my face.
Pastor Awtry smiles and smiles and smiles (as in Hamlet Act I, scene v) but I still see what the young Dane saw.
And such is the response to my "helpful corrections."
You think only folks who disagree with me have left this forum? Think again.
Attempting. I am attempting.



Glad I made the cut, Charles.  I have never whined about my soon to be former synodical affiliation.  I have faithfully attempted to pull it back from what I believe to be the wrong direction for 20 years now, to no avail, and I have pointed out what I believe to be that wrong direction.  But as I believe has been pointed out here by others, you have continually failed to not only see that, but challenge my (or any other's) arguments.

Now, as to the complaints against Charles, though I would never even call him to fill in on pulpit supply based on my experiences with him here,  I have never once complained to the moderators about him, or anyone on this forum, for that matter.  We're all adults, even when we (I include myself in this as well) sometimes don't act like it, and I do not feel the need to "tattle" on others.  I have, however,  commented publicly a couple of times on what I perceived to be his insulting and derogatory attitude. (which, FWIW, is the Biblical response to perceived conflict)

I for one would love to see a new thread entitled "excerpts from complaints to the moderators about Charles."  I would find it thoroughly entertaining.   :D
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: dkeener on April 12, 2011, 08:41:49 AM
Quote
It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.


George, there is more than one topic about which I care deeply. I also believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and disagree with the idea that every opinion is as good and valid as any other opinion.   This does not mean that I can ever stop guarding against my natural inclination to justify and defend myself as well as the degree to which I am prone to self-deception.  Think about it!

Marie

I have thought about it, long and hard. Maybe some people can care about something deeply, yet not feel inclined to speak up about it. I'm not one of those people. The only things I can restrain myself from expressing (and defending) an opinion are things I don't care about. And so, I've decided to stop caring.


I think the point is that sometimes our priorities shift in the heat of the discussion. We may start off "caring" about the particular topic of a thread but may discover that in the give and take our goal has shifted and we now "care" more about winning the argument, or getting the other persons goat, then we do in stating a clear case. This is the self deception Marie is talking about. We focus so much on the speck in others eye that we do not see the log in our own.  That log can keep us from seeing (or even entertaining the notion) that we may at times be wrong. A good indication of when this is happening is to look at the tone of a post as well as it's content. So the solution is not to "Stop Caring" but rather to care enough to be honest in ourselves.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Coach-Rev on April 12, 2011, 10:46:38 AM
It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.

It's not really so much a question of being convinced that one is right about anything, it's a matter of believing that there is such a thing as "right". Once one rejects the idea of the existence of "right", then one will never be tempted to want to persuade others that one is right.

I thought you were being sarcastic or making commentary on the sad state of affairs among protestantism in general, but after your followup post, was I wrong?
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 12, 2011, 01:12:04 PM
It's actually very easy to resist the temptation to engage in excess zeal in presenting your own opinion or take on a subject. Just stop caring. Stop telling yourself that any of this matters. Stop believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. Just embrace the idea that there are no absolutes, every opinion is just as good and valid as every other, and that nothing at all really matters.

It's not really so much a question of being convinced that one is right about anything, it's a matter of believing that there is such a thing as "right". Once one rejects the idea of the existence of "right", then one will never be tempted to want to persuade others that one is right.

I thought you were being sarcastic or making commentary on the sad state of affairs among protestantism in general, but after your followup post, was I wrong?

I was not intentionally being sarcastic. Given the number of people who regard being wishy-washy as a virtue, and who kvetch about those of us who have strongly held convictions that we care about as being "disruptive", and the near total lack of defense of letting one's strongly held conviction guide their communication, I've decided that I should change my mind about having strongly held convictions. I am making a deliberate effort to not care about things one way or another.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peterm on April 13, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
I want to jump in and say here, that as one of those whom George has at times catagorized as wishy washy, I need to point out to George, Charles and the rest of us as well that it is not so much WHAT you say as it is HOW you say what you say and the tone that comes across to the one you are addressing.  Yes I know your "zeal for the Lord of Hosts" is strong, but if this is a place where we are to be in conversation, and I hope that it is I have learned much here; We ALL need to be a little more careful about how we respond to eachother and not be so quick to jump on our respective bandwagons all the time.  (my .02)
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on April 13, 2011, 12:06:58 PM
I want to jump in and say here, that as one of those whom George has at times catagorized as wishy washy, I need to point out to George, Charles and the rest of us as well that it is not so much WHAT you say as it is HOW you say what you say and the tone that comes across to the one you are addressing.  Yes I know your "zeal for the Lord of Hosts" is strong, but if this is a place where we are to be in conversation, and I hope that it is I have learned much here; We ALL need to be a little more careful about how we respond to eachother and not be so quick to jump on our respective bandwagons all the time.  (my .02)

Good words.

For my own part, I tend to end up interacting at the same level of rhetoric.

If someone is involved in a discussion who will answer questions and give considered analysis, then I'll take a more laid-back inquisitive approach.

But if no one like that is around, then it often seems like I need to react and refute silliness that is put out there in hopes a more civilized post emerges in the mix to latch on to.

Even if that more civilized post takes me to task for the poor attitude of my discussion.  :-[

Mike
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 13, 2011, 04:42:40 PM
I want to jump in and say here, that as one of those whom George has at times catagorized as wishy washy, I need to point out to George, Charles and the rest of us as well that it is not so much WHAT you say as it is HOW you say what you say and the tone that comes across to the one you are addressing.  Yes I know your "zeal for the Lord of Hosts" is strong, but if this is a place where we are to be in conversation, and I hope that it is I have learned much here; We ALL need to be a little more careful about how we respond to eachother and not be so quick to jump on our respective bandwagons all the time.  (my .02)

When people kvetch about how things are said rather than what is said, but cannot point to specific examples, I tend to just ignore the kvetching.

For example, in this thread, someone kvetched about me "name calling", so I asked for him (or anyone else, since all posts in here are to everyone, regardless of who is being replied to), and there was no response. So, you can kvetch about HOW I say what I say, but since I do not agree that how I say what I say is so over-the-top that anyone other than someone who is excessively thin-skinned might be offended, in the absence of further explanation and/or examples, I'm not even sure what it is that you are kvetching about.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peter_speckhard on April 13, 2011, 04:44:19 PM
Go back and delete all of your posts that include the word "kvetch" and you'll have come a long way toward understanding what people appreciate and what they don't about your posts.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: peterm on April 13, 2011, 05:27:12 PM
George...if you want specific examples go back and look at the "stay of leave" threads from earlier this year, and last, but even here your response to my two cents proves my point.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 13, 2011, 05:33:21 PM
Go back and delete all of your posts that include the word "kvetch" and you'll have come a long way toward understanding what people appreciate and what they don't about your posts.

Are you saying that by using that friendly, non-pretentious slang term for "complain", that renders the rest of what I say invalid? Are you saying that being casual and informal makes my comments unacceptable?

Please don't anyone say that I'm "rejecting" an answer that I do not like. I genuinely don't see how using "kvetch" instead of complain should cause anyone heartburn. Maybe it's so obvious to everyone else that they think I'm playing some sort of game. I'm not. I do not see how using the word "kvetch" should offend anyone.

George...if you want specific examples go back and look at the "stay of leave" threads from earlier this year, and last, but even here your response to my two cents proves my point.

Sorry, but you've lost me.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: Rev. Kevin Scheuller on April 13, 2011, 06:07:14 PM
Oy vey!  I do miss the days when people recognized the good humor and humility that is normally evident in the use of Yiddish. 

Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: James Gustafson on April 13, 2011, 08:20:56 PM
Go back and delete all of your posts that include the word "kvetch" and you'll have come a long way toward understanding what people appreciate and what they don't about your posts.

Are you saying that by using that friendly, non-pretentious slang term for "complain", that renders the rest of what I say invalid? Are you saying that being casual and informal makes my comments unacceptable?

Please don't anyone say that I'm "rejecting" an answer that I do not like. I genuinely don't see how using "kvetch" instead of complain should cause anyone heartburn. Maybe it's so obvious to everyone else that they think I'm playing some sort of game. I'm not. I do not see how using the word "kvetch" should offend anyone.

I think it's not the word Kvetch itself, its the type of sentence, and topic of said sentence, where the word kvetch is used when the situation presents itself.   If that word is being used its more than likely that the topic of the sentence is not pleasant.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: George Erdner on April 13, 2011, 08:27:01 PM
Go back and delete all of your posts that include the word "kvetch" and you'll have come a long way toward understanding what people appreciate and what they don't about your posts.

Are you saying that by using that friendly, non-pretentious slang term for "complain", that renders the rest of what I say invalid? Are you saying that being casual and informal makes my comments unacceptable?

Please don't anyone say that I'm "rejecting" an answer that I do not like. I genuinely don't see how using "kvetch" instead of complain should cause anyone heartburn. Maybe it's so obvious to everyone else that they think I'm playing some sort of game. I'm not. I do not see how using the word "kvetch" should offend anyone.

I think it's not the word Kvetch itself, its the type of sentence, and topic of said sentence, where the word kvetch is used when the situation presents itself.   If that word is being used its more than likely that the topic of the sentence is not pleasant.


You are correct. Responding to vague complaints about subjective things like "tone" is not pleasant.
Title: Re: Some changes afoot
Post by: GalRev83 on April 15, 2011, 04:50:11 PM
Reading responses in this and also recent comments/give and take/diatribes elsewhere leads me to believe this thread should actually be entitled

"Some changes? My foot!"
 ;) ::)