Politics as cult

[Charles_Austin]

I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.

[jrubyaz]

 

I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.

[ghp]

Before you go, Charles (and I can understand why you might want to take leave), would you mind my asking your opinion on the original focus/topic of the thread?

Many thanks...

-ghp

[Keith Falk]

I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.

Where in the world did Pastor Ruby say/post that?  Is it from a deleted post of his?  We have no way of knowing, since you did not use the "Quote" feature of the board.  If it was in a private message, it (his comment and your response) should've stayed private.  I realize I am not a moderator, and I will duly delete this response of mine if need be, but Pastor Austin, unless you can produce this quote done in/on the public forum... then your post is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Ruby made those comments in an open posting which he has apparently removed. Ask him. I'm done with this particular goofiness.

[jrubyaz]

Very strange comments. Very strange.

I did have a response to Charles I removed earlier, but it did have anything to do with what he wrote. That is why I went    It pertained to the Lindbergh discussion, which Charles chose to make something monumental. I am done also. Time to move on, thread off track.

Jeff Ruby

Pastor Ruby made those comments in an open posting which he has apparently removed. Ask him. I'm done with this particular goofiness.

[Charles_Austin]

There's your answer, Kenneth Falk. Pastor Ruby openly made the comments about my "faulty theology  which has been shown many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology." After I responded, he removed them. I did not quote his more offensive personal comments to me, although I could have because a message belongs to the one who receives it, not the one who sent it.

[Keith Falk]

There's your answer, Kenneth Falk. Pastor Ruby openly made the comments about my "faulty theology  which has been shown many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology." After I responded, he removed them. I did not quote his more offensive personal comments to me, although I could have because a message belongs to the one who receives it, not the one who sent it.

For one who is so insistent on both sources and accuracy, there has been a terrible failure at both.  Again, by not using the Quote feature on the board, you have no proof that what you are alleging was actually stated by Pastor Ruby - and even if he acknowledges the quote you have above, which he has not confirmed or denied, there is still the pesky matter of the other offensive quote.  So the answer is that Pastor Ruby did make a post, which you may or may not have quoted accurately and/or may or may not have quoted in context, since we cannot see his original post and you refuse to use the Quote feature which at least provides another layer so shenanigans are less likely to take place (I fully acknowledge that one can edit the quote even while using the quote feature). 

Secondly, I am continually amazed at how often a prominent journalist can fail so miserably at names.  It seems as though one might either be forced to conclude that your mistakes are deliberate and mean-spirited, or else the journalistic edge has been lost.  I'm not sure either is a good option.   Were the mistakes about names less frequent, it would be easy to chalk it up to simple mistakes... but given the frequency... let the reader take note of what is not an infrequent occurrence.

[peter_speckhard]

When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted. Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.

[Charles_Austin]

Peter Speckhard writes:
When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted.

I respond:
Who says deleting is "retracting"? Anyway, I responded before the note casting aspersions on my abilities was deleted. The confusion came after that.
     My apologies for getting a name wrong. This is not journalism; there is no editor here; I'm jet-lagged after a 15-hour flight from Hong Kong, and insomnial because of a number of things; so I shall admit that perhaps I should not try to take part.
But the comments, backed up by a personal note to me, required a response, especially because of the language used in the personal note.

Peter Speckhard writes:
Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.

I comment:
No. It is a regular part of online back-and-forth. People may want online discussion to mirror some idealistic image of genteel conversation, softly spoken while sipping tea from Dresden china, but much of the time, it doesn't.

[Layman Randy]

Seems lilke a good time to see the parallel between Politics as Cult and postings on numerous fora that occupy infest etherspace!

Snarky (informal) sarcastic and irreverent, usually out of irritation.  Often combined with ad hominems to create espescially non-literary/impolitic rhetoric. 
Often the subject of later, private prayers for forgiveness.

I'm not an expert in this arcane art, but note from scanning a few secular political sites (that are moderated by lesser talents than help maintain order at a state more sublime than "food fight" here), that there appears to be quite a chasm between postings thus ascribed herein and the true genius class of snarkers out in the world .  Blessings abound!

[swbohler]

It doesn't happen very often, but I have to speak up for Rev. Austin here.  I also read Rev. Ruby's post before it had been deleted and understood him as did Rev. Austin; I also felt that the comments were inappropriate and so am glad that Rev. Ruby deleted them.  But, as Rev. Austin points out, his response to Rev. Ruby's post came before that post was deleted.  Additionally, there obviously were some (such as me) who had read that post before it had been deleted.  Just erasing the post does not undo the damage done; if Rev. Ruby felt that the post was inappropriate and thus deleted it, it would seem proper that he apologize to Rev. Austin. 

[Layman Randy]

I'm glad I did not see the apparantly offending post, given the results of its posting and "de-posting", but read the above discussions as yet again another, sadly, escalating series of "back at you's" hardly fitting the apparant intent of the ALPB.  Frank give and take (don't mean to pick on Frank )?  Honest disagreement and passionate reply/defense of positions and information?  Great! 

This isn't tea time, but it is very embarrasing to see descent into mudwrestling (unless you like that sort of thing, then the perversion should be discussed on another site! ) among fine folk claiming to share something in common so dear as the love and grace of Christ. 

As to protocol and demeanor, would that all would work to not exacerbate, prolong, play "tit for tat" or any other escalating comments.  Much of it seems to arise from long held grudges, bitter memories or experiences, bad World Series results, vapors or, goodness, human vanity.

It is fine and necessary to speak the truth - firmly and passionately, but in kindness, including not letting irritating or inaccurate postings stand without response, but firm response in truth and with kindness (o.k., I know, now we can discuss patronization, condescension, intellectual arrogance, curriculi vitae, titles, typos, grammar and syntax, etc., etc.).

[peter_speckhard]

Peter Speckhard writes:
When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted.

I respond:
Who says deleting is "retracting"? Anyway, I responded before the note casting aspersions on my abilities was deleted. The confusion came after that.
     My apologies for getting a name wrong. This is not journalism; there is no editor here; I'm jet-lagged after a 15-hour flight from Hong Kong, and insomnial because of a number of things; so I shall admit that perhaps I should not try to take part.
But the comments, backed up by a personal note to me, required a response, especially because of the language used in the personal note.

Peter Speckhard writes:
Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.

I comment:
No. It is a regular part of online back-and-forth. People may want online discussion to mirror some idealistic image of genteel conversation, softly spoken while sipping tea from Dresden china, but much of the time, it doesn't.

As one of the moderators, I will determine what constitutes regular, online back-and-forth for this forum. The standards could possibly be higher than the comments section of a typical political blog. Surely we all love nuance and fine distinction enough to admit to some middle ground between genteel tea-sipping and childish pouting, name-calling, put-downs, and general nuisance -making. Let's see if we can't maintain our reputation as a very readable, thoughtful, and engaging online forum. Thank you all for your help.

[Steven Tibbetts]

For one who is so insistent on both sources and accuracy, there has been a terrible failure at both.  Again, by not using the Quote feature on the board, you have no proof that what you are alleging was actually stated by Pastor Ruby -

FWIW, the quote you and Pr. Austin are disputing was in a post by Pr. Ruby that I read.  That the post is no longer there suggests that the thought better of a heated, unhelpful comment, and had withdrawn it -- if not necessarily quickly enough for it to have gone unread.

pax, spt+