• Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.
    • pawtucket

      Document Section   08/11/2016

      With the upgrade to the new server, we ran into problems with the software managing the document section.  While this is being remedied, the domain is redirected to the forums. 


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About modcat5

  • Rank
    Avoid the cone of Modcat5

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Thank you Jaydee! You'll be hearing privately from Pawtucket!
  2. How much you give is up to you. If you can spare $5, great. $25, better. $100, even better. More? I'm not gonna stop you. I am going to thank you though.
  3. Folks, Last year a bunch of us came together to demonstrate our appreciation for GSC by making a contribution to the cost of maintaining the site. We set a goal of $1,500 to cover the cost of upgrading the server and covering the hosting fees for the year (about $100 a month). We came pretty close, and we are grateful for your support. We're coming back to you, hat in hand, to renew our request. Our goal this year is $1,200. That will cover the majority of the hosting expense for a full year. It is NOT tax deductible. It is NOT a requirement for participation on the forum. You don't get a special badge. You get our thanks, privately. If you'd like to make the fact that you donated public, we will acknowledge it publicly. But that's your call. And to be absolutely clear: I personally do not benefit one red cent from this. If someone came in and dropped a million dollar tip for the GSC wait staff, modcat5 and my alter-ego would not benefit from it at all not even a little. I am not asking for me. I am asking for the site's actual owner, who is not me. $1,200. Let's see if we can do it by April 30. I'll get us started. Will you join me? The donate button is on every page, upper left. Thanks.
  4. To be continued...
  5. I just went in as a moderator and tried to fix the attribution. Unfortunately, the site does not give moderators that option. Anyone who sees my original post can see from the post RIGHT ABOVE IT that you are not the originator of the quote.
  6. Gentlemen, you are off topic, as Mark has accurately pointed out. If you'd like to discuss universalism, please start a new thread. Let's leave this one for anyone who's interested in discussing the Trinity.
  7. Moved from "Questioning Faith" after consultation with original poster. Enjoy.
  8. I deleted references to the year StayQuiet was born in order to make it a little more difficult for The Way to pinpoint who he/she is. If you remember, please don't repeat it. Thx. Later edit: After further consideration, StayQuiet asked me to remove his original post. I've asked him to write a replacement and I've substituted the original post with some generic placeholder stuff. Not that we want to encourage paranoia, but I do believe that those who are still in deserve as much ID protection as we can provide.
  9. Welcome, StayQuiet. Please check your private messages.
  10. Responding publicly to a private message: I suppose one could argue that Bapsy's contribution to this thread was technically "off-topic," as it did not spring from the original post or the subsequent discussion. But I do believe, after reviewing the thread, that we're on related topics that, while not explicitly connected, can be connected without much of a mental stretch. So I'm letting the thread continue as is. Bapsy, Welcome to GSC. Please be advised that you are welcome, entitled and encouraged to start a new thread topic if you don't see a topic already being covered in an existing or recent thread topic. It helps all of us keep track of conversations. As far as newbie errors go, this one was so minor that I won't even bother correcting it. And Brainstormer, as an atheist I am keeping my mouth shut about your questions. I do think the other Christians on this board have provided effective encouragement, and I wish you well. Signed, Raf
  11. That would be "One Her Majesty's Secret Service." How do you determine who wins this round? Raf
  12. I will be reviewing the content of this thread and deleting offending posts. There will be no further action at this time, but guys, come on. Is it that hard to stay on topic? ... I've finished reviewing this thread, and I tried to take as light an approach as I could. Fixed a few obvious grammatical errors (people sow discord, they don't sew it. I suppose they can sew with this cord, but that's not the same thing). But I deleted several posts where the namecalling got out of hand. I tried to be reeeeal flexible about "on topic" v. "off topic" posts. As long as the conversation is flowing naturally and no one objects, I'm not about to go from thread to thread approving or unapproving posts on that basis. I'd be here 24/7. I don't like you guys THAT much. There are a lot of good posts on this thread in which people disagree with johniam vehemently without making the post about HIM (short quips notwithstanding). I made some ease-of-reading edits (John, is it too much to ask you to figure out how the "quote" function works. I mean, you have been here at least, what is it, 4 weeks now? Oh, LONGER? You see my point. If you need a tutorial, PM me). I tried to put notes on the bottom of posts I edited significantly or that I felt required a mod statement. Now, let's make one more thing really clear: Everyone is welcome to post here. If you think VPW was the greatest apostle since Paul, you may post here. If you think VPW was the greatest con man since Prof. Harold Hill, you may post here. If you think someone is too harsh in judging VPW, you may say so. If you think someone is too gullible in praising VPW, you may say so. But anyone can do any of that without resorting to juvenile namecalling. And I will delete, without warning, any post that crosses the line. I tried to do that in a fair manner. I think I did that in a way that does not break up the flow of this thread. The fact that I could do so (if I succeeded) is a strong indication of how off-topic those posts were. Carry on.
  13. Reading through this thread, and a couple of observations: At first, you guys were doing fine, arguing positions over personalities. That includes DWBH. TLC went after DWBH's positions, Twinky posted observations, DWBH challenged them to think through the consequences of their positions. WW weighed in substantively as well. Things start to go south with post #18. TLC went after DWBH, not his position. Post 19: DWBH responds in kind. BOTH are out of line. Post 20: I disagree with WW. I don't think DWBH "went after" Twinky. I think he challenged her position by carrying his interpretation of her position to its next logical steps (post 17). DWBH called her no names (I'm assuming Twinky is a her. Correct me if I'm mistaken). I can understand WW's concern about the tone of DWBH's posts, but on this one, I think he's misguided. Post 21: DWBH responds in kind to WW. 20 and 21 are honest reflections of how the posters feel and don't cross any lines, but neither was necessary to the subject being discussed. We're going off topic. Post 22: WW takes issue with DWBH using the words "waybrained pontificators." Reading the quote in context, I think DWBH may have been a bit harsh in his word choice, but it does go back to his post 17 and challenges the substance of TLC's and Twinky's comments. Borderline at best, and in context, he's talking (post 21) about the difference between "impartiality" and "bending over backwards" (ie, declining to address the consequences of what someone says). Again, I would have used different words, but that's me. I think WW tried to be reasonable here, but again, I think he overstates DWBH's position when he accuses him of "going after" Twinky. He went after a position she stated. 23: I agree with the beginning of what DWBH says here, but no, I don't think WW needs an emotional timeout. I might, after this post. :) 24: Twinky, you lost me. You quoted TLC and directed a post at DWBH. Did you realize that? 25: Sort of agree with Twinky. However, the comments DWBH made were specifically related to what TLTF is teaching, so I would leave it be. Yes, the content quoted is appropriate for doctrinal. But it is not necessarily inappropriate here, as long as we're still relating it back to TLTF. Twinky made none of this personal, for which I am grateful. You other guys, check yourselves. I don't see a huge issue with what anyone posted, but you're straying off topic.