Some changes afoot

[Revbert]

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.

[Richard Johnson]

Um,, I think you mean Scott, right?

[TravisW]

Um,, I think you mean Scott, right?

That's right, Peter.   

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Evangel]

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?      

[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.

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!)

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!

[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+

  

Let's try this again.

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

Pax, Zippy+
(a pinhead)

[Rev. Kevin Scheuller]

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

[Chuck]

I suspect Fran wouldn't let either Charles or George get away with the nonsense they pull here!

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.

[Charles_Austin]

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.

[Paula Murray]

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

[J. Thomas Shelley]

You will see me back off in participating in this forum. Let the cheering begin.

No cheers here. Check your PM box.

[Mel Harris]

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

[Scott6]

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."

[Charles_Austin]

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.