Kimberly and Skippy are freaking out in hyperbole mode. I didn't advocate any of that nonsense. But it should be taken for granted that some people have no business being in the celestial. Polygamy Porter and mercury come to mind. I know this will never be implemented, I was just commenting on a remark by marg about restrictions that she would support.
God, you are such a douchebag. Of course, Mormons who leave for evangelical christianity are inherently douchey.
Wow.
You all take this board FAR to seriously. Holy smokes. Give the idea a chance. 9 pages for this?? Sheesh merc and dart. Chilll!
by the way, Merc is dart an EV now? Dart? If so you have come full circle if I recall your history. Just curious.
liz3564 wrote:Since the main guff everyone has seemed to have with this rule is the choice of the word, "challenge", I have removed it from the sticky.
Happy everyone? Probably not. At this point, I really don't give a sh*t.
hey liz
Nice job in attempting to implement a new idea. People really need to lighten up.
Alright...I don't want to read 9 pages worth of crap. The only thing I have to say is that Dr. Shades' original rules said "rules are stupid". Let's follow that logic and scrap this dumb rule. Nobody will stick to it anyway. The first time an atheist gets a bee in their bonnet they aren't going to let a little disclaimer stop them. They'll post and we'll be back at the same problem, only that the mods will have moved one step closer to actually moderating (a job I for one certainly want to avoid).
Just my thoughts,
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
GoodK wrote:I think this was a good idea in theory, just not practical. If someone really wanted to post about matters of faith without argument, you think they would be here?
Again, where are you getting that disagreement and argument is not allowed??
We are simply trying to allow posters the ability to set a pre-defined framework on which discussion can move forth.
What kind of framework? That you have to accept the Bible as the infallible word of God?
That would mean disagreement and argument is not allowed. Maybe people can use the chat room function for like-minded discussion instead of the Forums?
Exactly!
Take my first example. Will the guy on the cross that defended Jesus be saved?
Now, normally, this would very quickly degrade to a debate on whether the Bible was true or not. Or whether Jesus was the savior or just a man.
As the originator of this thread, the LAST thing I want to do is debate these things. They have been debated to death already! I want to debate the subject at hand!
Feel free to disagree with anything I say on that thread WITHIN THE PARAMETERS I'VE OUTLINED!
If I say, "Christ, as the Messiah forgave the the man on the cross without repentance on his part", you might come back with, "Actually, Christ looked into his heart and saw her true intent, therefore it's quite possible that he DID repent!"
What is NOT allowed is, "He wasn't forgiven because Christ wasn't the Savior anyways! CFR on a single scholar that claims that Christ even lived, let alone was the savior of the world!!!"
Do you see how this completely stifles the OP?
Ya I see your point now. Changing the subject is the issue... right?
No, derailment is the issue. Which is different than a natural flow of a thread.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Bond...James Bond wrote:Alright...I don't want to read 9 pages worth of crap. The only thing I have to say is that Dr. Shades' original rules said "rules are stupid". Let's follow that logic and scrap this dumb rule. Nobody will stick to it anyway. The first time an atheist gets a bee in their bonnet they aren't going to let a little disclaimer stop them. They'll post and we'll be back at the same problem, only that the mods will have moved one step closer to actually moderating (a job I for one certainly want to avoid).
Just my thoughts,
A voice of reason from the superspy.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Bond...James Bond wrote:Alright...I don't want to read 9 pages worth of crap. The only thing I have to say is that Dr. Shades' original rules said "rules are stupid". Let's follow that logic and scrap this dumb rule. Nobody will stick to it anyway. The first time an atheist gets a bee in their bonnet they aren't going to let a little disclaimer stop them. They'll post and we'll be back at the same problem, only that the mods will have moved one step closer to actually moderating (a job I for one certainly want to avoid).
Just my thoughts,
That would be great if people could moderate themselves. But, apparently they can't, therefore we need rules.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Bond...James Bond wrote:Alright...I don't want to read 9 pages worth of crap. The only thing I have to say is that Dr. Shades' original rules said "rules are stupid". Let's follow that logic and scrap this dumb rule. Nobody will stick to it anyway. The first time an atheist gets a bee in their bonnet they aren't going to let a little disclaimer stop them. They'll post and we'll be back at the same problem, only that the mods will have moved one step closer to actually moderating (a job I for one certainly want to avoid).
Just my thoughts,
That would be great if people could moderate themselves. But, apparently they can't, therefore we need rules.
What's the point of rules if we can't enforce them? How exactly are we going to enforce this? I mean we can split a post, but the poster can go right back and do it again on the same thread or the next thread. Heck if we're going to get rules I guess we should get some way of enforcing them. Chastizing the posters obviously doesn't work. Asking and begging don't work. So basically it'll be a useless rule that ends up making the mods look even weaker because they can't even enforce their tiny number of rules. Very concrete rules like no "S's" and "F's" are easy to control. Temple content is easy to do. Language can be edited, but do you really think you can keep atheists from taking a knock at faith based threads just by asking them? Yeah right.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Bond...James Bond wrote:Alright...I don't want to read 9 pages worth of crap. The only thing I have to say is that Dr. Shades' original rules said "rules are stupid". Let's follow that logic and scrap this dumb rule. Nobody will stick to it anyway. The first time an atheist gets a bee in their bonnet they aren't going to let a little disclaimer stop them. They'll post and we'll be back at the same problem, only that the mods will have moved one step closer to actually moderating (a job I for one certainly want to avoid).
Just my thoughts,
That would be great if people could moderate themselves. But, apparently they can't, therefore we need rules.
What's the point of rules if we can't enforce them? How exactly are we going to enforce this? I mean we can split a post, but the poster can go right back and do it again on the same thread or the next thread. Heck if we're going to get rules I guess we should get some way of enforcing them. Chastizing the posters obviously doesn't work. Asking and begging don't work. So basically it'll be a useless rule that ends up making the mods look even weaker because they can't even enforce their tiny number of rules. Very concrete rules like no "S's" and "F's" are easy to control. Temple content is easy to do. Language can be edited, but do you really think you can keep atheists from taking a knock at faith based threads just by asking them? Yeah right.
The ultimate problem, Bond, is that there are no consequences involved. The only consequence is that the post in question would be relocated. Who does that consequence? Moderators.
It goes around in circles, doesn't it? Still, we need to function within the parameters of this board. There are no easy solutions here.
Jersey Girl wrote:The ultimate problem, Bond, is that there are no consequences involved. The only consequence is that the post in question would be relocated. Who does that consequence? Moderators.
It goes around in circles, doesn't it? Still, we need to function within the parameters of this board. There are no easy solutions here.
Precisely. Damn perhaps we should get the sticks out, cause carrots don't work.
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
liz3564 wrote:Since the main guff everyone has seemed to have with this rule is the choice of the word, "challenge", I have removed it from the sticky.
Happy everyone? Probably not. At this point, I really don't give a sh*t.
hey liz
Nice job in attempting to implement a new idea. People really need to lighten up.
