Some changes afoot

[Scott6]

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.

[John_Hannah]

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

[dkeener]

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. 

[MaddogLutheran]

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

[John_Hannah]

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    .) Thank you for your kind words.


Peace, JOHN

[janielou13]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Erma S. Wolf]

    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.

[Charles_Austin]

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.

[dkeener]

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

[GalRev83]

   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. 

[Evangel]

   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" rather than "The Nanny" - though both shows can be funny. 

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[GalRev83]

   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" rather than "The Nanny" - 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!)

[Steven Tibbetts]

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+