modcat5

The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof. This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated. The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe. But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic. If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation. If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand. Calling someone deceitful will not be tolerated. Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated. If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it. Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so. The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber. Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game. Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game. This post will be updated as needed. Feel free to PM me or another moderator with suggestions.

I just deleted a flagrantly inappropriate post and two others that responded to it. Anyone got a problem with it, let me know and I'll get back to it next time I log in as a mod, which should be in January or so.

That's my fault. Sorry about that. I know approving the post is very little, very late. My apologies.

You are correct (too lazy to switch screen names). Good Times was a spin-off of Maude. Esther Rolle played the same character, Florida Evans, and her husband was played by the same actor, but the husband's name changed between Maude and Good Times. Also, the Evans family inexplicably moved to Chicago and apparently had always lived there, which makes one wonder how Florida could have been Maude's maid/housekeeper in new York State.

Sorry for the delay. Been a long week. But hey, good news: I'm a granddad. Well, a step-granddad, but still.

10 Things I Hate About You Only Live Twice Oops. Still logged in as my mod ID.

Moved. I hope everyone agrees that this is not an example of me moderating myself, but if anyone has a problem with it, please let me/us know. Signed, Raf

I signed in under the moderator ID to change the poll responses without affecting the results. I did not add any new poll categories, which would skew the responses, but I removed references to "lying" and removed the accusation that "only liars won't admit it," which was the cause of considerable grief. The substance of each poll response, I think, remains unchanged.

Raf is hereby suspended for 72 seconds for namecalling.

Welcome to Greasespot, LoveOneAnother. Your right to express your views is welcome here. There will be responses. There will be challenges. But we hope you stick around and enjoy the menu. Joining any Internet forum involves some growth as you learn the ropes of how this place works and the rest of us learn the ropes of how you work. We hope and trust it will be a constructive experience for everyone. Enjoy.

This post was trimmed to conform with our fair use policy. Please do not post entire articles from other sources. Thank you for providing the link.

This post was trimmed to conform with our fair use policy. Please do not post entire articles from other sources. Thank you for providing the link.

Despite the fact that this thread is pinned to the top of open, fair use appears to have been violated more than once. We'll be paying a bit closer attention from this day forward. Appreciate it if you give us nothing to do...

Well, it was rude and we didn't know you well enough to treat it the way you meant it. If you want to verbally spar, respectfully, have at it. Should be fun.

Your opening post contains an explicit threat. If you were to show up at my door or at the door of anyone on Greasespot Cafe because of comments made on this board, I assure you, you will be identified, found, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. How dare you threaten violence on posters here and then have the audacity to demand a respectful discussion?

Who are the moderators? Only our hairdressers and spouses know for sure.

Restored the thread. Apologies for the interruption.

Egad. Guys, if you KNOW we're reviewing the thread for its appropriateness and you KNOW why, is there a reason you had to resurrect the possibly offending material here? Anyway, this thread's gonna vanish and the other will be restored.

Moderators are reviewing that thread. Dooj is correct: names were being spelled out and unflattering comments made about people who are not members of GSC and are not on the BOD. Nothing's been decided permanently.

Larry, WordWolf is right. The general policy of this board is that we do not use full names of people unless they were or are on the board of trustees/directors. There have been some exceptions: usually people who were, by their participation, unusually high profile. Examples include John Lynn, John Schoenheit, Walter Cummins, Chris Geer, Ralph Dubofsky, Vince Finnegan, Donna Martindale, John Linder, Claudette Royale and a bunch of the musicians. But once you start having to explain who the person is, our practice has been to obscure the name (they may not want their association with TWI known to the general public performing a google search). Thus, you might mention Bob Stanley, but if you were to mention anyone else in Acts 29, you would blur the name (B*b S*****y). When in doubt, obscure the name unless it's a member of the BOT/BOD. [Note: Other mods, please correct me if I've misrepresented the policy].

So moved.

Touche. If you can count your take home pay in negative numbers, however...

You think this is a valid mathematical statement: 0.9x > x

Chatty, I was just about to move this to About the Way and I stopped for two reasons. 1. Paw is active in this thread and can move it if he wants to. 2. You "voted" to keep it here and not move it to About the Way. I can ask Paw privately about the first item. But why not move it to About the Way? It seems to fit there better than here. (P.S. I don't know who the poster is and haven't been able to hear the link). modcat5

As Mike pointed out, his participation on this thread is not derailing it at all. If you're re-evaluating something, you're either going to conclude that it was valuable or that it wasn't. Some people go to one extreme (none of it is valuable), some moderate (some is valuable, some isn't). Mike goes to the other extreme. To him, all of it is valuable and holy, divine, what have you. This thread will only be about Mike if everyone makes it about Mike.