modcat5

I don't see where he wants to "take over" GSC. I will therefore chastise Rocky in a manner proportionate to his infraction by making him read this post until the very end. Let that be a lesson to you.

Ok, here's the deal: I just spent WAY more time than I wanted to reviewing this thread and watching the videos. I commend everyone on the amount of restraint you have shown in replying to this utter nonsense. I am obliged to ask you all to please restrict your comments to the argument, and not say things like "it's hard to take so-and-so seriously," which may not be namecalling, but resides in the same zip code. It is fair game to call the topic of this thread B.S. It is not fair game to call the person who posted it a.... an artist. I did not watch the full freemasonry video because I just had lunch. If someone would like to draw a link between the existence of freemasons and his or her own propensity to believe and promote nonsense, feel free to do so. No one is compelled to read it. No one is compelled to take it seriously. No one is compelled to respond to it. Each of us is free to discern the quality of a post or argument. That is not namecalling and is not a personal attack. As moderators, we are not going to take action against threads or topics just because we find them laughably preposterous on their face. The slippery slope, if we were to adopt such a policy, would be way too real.

I've finally lost track of everything but Flash. Will have to catch up in two months on Netflix. Pity. {Oops. Forgot to put my Raf hat back on}.

I am trying to take as much of a hands off approach as possible. Modgellan and I both have lives. There is a difference between attacking someone's position and attacking the person. If you don't know where the line is, take a few steps back until you know for a fact you haven't crossed it. I just deleted a string of comments that began with a flagrant example of namecalling. That does not mean we have examined everything or signed off on other violations in other posts. Frankly, we're waiting for the grown-up gene to kick in so that we have to intervene as little as possible. I don't know that we've had to deal with a conspiracy theory type of thread in the past, and I'm pretty sure there's no rule governing them, so the mods have to discuss whether to intervene and, if so, how. For the record: There is no pedopjhile ring being run out of a pizza shop in D.C. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. This planet it a sphere (not perfectly spherical, but as distinguished from being a flat disk covered by a dome). Vaccines don't cause autism. Obama was born in Hawaii. To an American citizen. And is Christian (nominally). 9/11 was not an inside job. Burning jet fuel does not need to melt steel to compromise the structural integrity of a building. A plane crashed into the Pentagon. There were people on it. They are dead now. Show some respect. If you want to post a conspiracy theory, people are entitled to laugh at you. It comes with the territory. There's a fine line between attacking a person and attacking the absolute nonsense that the person believes and promotes. But calling it absolute nonsense is not a personal attack. For those who have forgotten, I am in the media in south Florida. I do not have time to police your squabbles. I spent Wednesday afternoon trying to describe the heartbreak on the faces of a dozen or more family members who came face to face for the first time with the maniac who decided to shatter their lives by gunning down schoolchildren on Valentine's Day. THEY are hurting. You guys are irritated by a pest whose face you may never see. And for what? I apologize for playing the dead kids card, but this squabble has overtaken GSC and has jumped across multiple threads. If you can't play nice, take a break. If you think the OTHER guy is not playing nice, take a break. Put him on ignore. It's not hard. But stop derailing threads, and stop participating in threads whose content you find ridiculous. End rant.

It's a fine line between moderating and micromanaging. I'd like to keep Ruffles up just for the sake of an example we can all see. Speaking for myself, apologies aren't necessary, I don't think. But I'm confident my fellow active mods (hahahahahahahahaha I used the plural, as if, hahahahha) are reading along. If they felt an apology was in order the post would be gone. That leaves GS to accept if he (assuming he) is so inclined. Be excellent to each other.

For the record, GoldStar is not the only one whose posts are being hidden (not deleted... moderators tend to leave these posts visible to each other so that if we disagree, we can discuss and decide whether to restore them. This transparency minute brought to you by Saran Wrap). Quite simply, if you're not talking about Billy Graham, your post got hidden, just like I said it would. Socrates: your "Ruffles" post is not exactly called for. We left it up, I think, because it makes a good point. You could have been a little nicer about it. Yeah, like I'm never guilty of THAT. But still. GS: I am talking to one of the other moderators and trying to get up to speed on all that's been taking place here. I want you to feel welcome to speak your mind while remembering that the person receiving your message is a person. Challenging the basis of your opinions is fair game. Attacking you personally is not. Sometimes we need to figure out the difference. (Personally, I think the Ruffles thing was a bit much). We can discuss offline (private messages), but I wanted to say a few things publicly, partly for clarity, partly for transparency, and partly so that I say the same things privately that I say publicly. I'm not any more in charge than any other moderator except Pawtucket, but he's busy usually. Moderators tend to feel better when we know we are like-minded. I feel like showering after I said that. But it's true: we like agreeing with each other, but we're often busy. Now, one more time: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BILLY GRAHAM. You CAN write a post that doesn't mention him and still be on topic (I recognize that, or more posts would be deleted), but it's VERY easy to get off topic that way. So try not to do it.

Gentlepeople: Stick to the topic. COME ON!

Next comment that does not mention Billy Graham gets deleted without warning.

This forum is About the Way This topic/question is About Mike. It's About Mike in a way that other topics are already about Mike's thesis. What is Christianity? What is not Christianity? Answer either of those questions and you're in doctrinal, no? Folks. we don't start new threads to call people out. This thread calls Mike out. Mike interprets that as being pushed around. He's got a point. This thread is an offshoot of another thread that doesn't appear to need any more offshoots. Feel free to return to that thread to continue that discussion. Peace.

I am far more guilty of that behavior than you. That's how I recognized it. ;)

Not singling anyone out, but if the shoe fits: There is a specific rule against the following: distorting another poster's name to insult or ridicule I was probably more guilty of this than anyone. Nonetheless, there you have it. It's happening here. It stops now.

More like residue.

I get what you were thinking, and that's cool. The implication in "Questioning Faith" is that a wiseguy like myself would have a green light to say "this is all nonsense invented by charlatans to blah blah blah...." I got the distinct sense that this wasn't the conversation you wanted to have or expected to start, so I moved it. All forum participants are welcome to weigh in on all threads, including this one. But cordoning off the "atheist" threads is a concession to the fact that people sometimes want to discuss doctrine without having to defend the basis for faith. It's delicate, but we can all be gentlepersons about it.

This topic was moved from "Questioning Faith" to the main doctrinal section. While anyone is free to comment on any topic (as long as those comments are on topic), the "Questioning Faith" subforum is explicitly intended to house conversations that call religion and faith into question. We may change the name of it to make that a little more clear in the future. Nonetheless, this topic does not seem to be questioning faith so much as it's exploring faith. Doctrinal's main section is the more appropriate setting. This was a little more challenging than a similar comment I posted on a different (also moved) thread, because I suspect atheists, agnostics and skeptics have a LOT to say about this. Nonetheless, I based my decision to move the thread on the content of the posts, none of which appear to be "questioning faith" as intended by the naming of the subforum. I get that "Questioning Faith" means more than one thing. My attempt to be clear in naming it appears to have fallen a bit short. Such is life.

This topic was moved from "Questioning Faith" to the main doctrinal section. While anyone is free to comment on any topic (as long as those comments are on topic), the "Questioning Faith" subforum is explicitly intended to house conversations that call religion and faith into question. We may change the name of it to make that a little more clear in the future. Nonetheless, this topic does not seem to be questioning faith so much as it's exploring faith. Doctrinal's main section is the more appropriate setting.

Hang in there, George. --Raf

Thank you Jaydee! You'll be hearing privately from Pawtucket!

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.

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.

To be continued...

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.

What are you talking about? ;)

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.

Moved from "Questioning Faith" after consultation with original poster. Enjoy.

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.