Deleting A Poster Akin To DF'ing? (page 8)

Englishman

This time, E-man, we have paid for your party with our dearest blood. Was it worth it?

Whatever.

Englishman.

ThiChi

HS:

You were twisting my words. And I stand by my statements and replies. You have a talent for placing things were they dont belong, IMHO.

The comparisons were toward the persons who use that mantra, remember? As stated before, I believe I have never heard Simon make this claim. Understand? See the difference between what was asked and what was said? (Take your time on this one, please.). I am sure the persons that use this mantra (like you), fit my example to a tee..

Since we are in a demanding mood, please answer my question put to you much earlier:

""How do you feel about all the list members that have flamed Fred to the point that they too should be kicked out of your house, but have not? I feel that Fred was baited. However, he was wrong. Yet, two wrongs don't make a right, do they? ""

(Hhaaa, the real issue at hand!)

E-man

"whatever" LOL

Edited by - thichi on 22 August 2002 14:34:46

Pathofthorns

I think we have to ask ourselves if the WT really was justified in many or even most cases where they disfellowshipped people for not following their rules.

We all signed up and accepted the terms of membership the same as we did here. When we no longer wished to abide by the terms we agreed to , we had to go elsewhere. After all, it wasn't our organization so who were we to insist that we could break the rules and stay?

Should not the WT be able to protect it's members from the corrupting and unwholesome and upsetting influence of others who don't agree with the rules and insist upon breaking them?

In all honesty, i do think the WT was justified in disfellowshipping many people. Not the shunning but the excommunication. Those were the terms we accepted. Disfellowshipping is not what it once was, but the result of a natural progression from minimal rules and penalties to a multitude of rules and harsher penalties.

Sure Simon can set the rules and the penalties. Sure we can go elsewhere (but where else would we go? lol) I just think it should always be kept in mind the natural progression rules and censorship leads to. It leads to more rules and less freedom and ultimately everything we disliked about the WT.

The WT eventually stopped trusting in people and began viewing them with suspicion, that basically they would do bad if they could. They were viewed as people needing to be controlled through rules since without rules it would be a free-for-all. I just hope this place doesn't stop trusting in people.

Path

ThiChi

""

As you were the chief proponent in keeping the party going, perhaps you should be asking yourself this question.

Best - HS""

Thank you. I cannot let you guys rewrite history, now can I?

And of course, that is if we ignore your posts!

You guys can sure dish it out, but you can't take it!

Edited by - thichi on 22 August 2002 14:38:57

Edited by - thichi on 22 August 2002 14:40:56

hillary_step

""How do you feel about all the list members that have flamed Fred to the point that they too should be kicked out of your house, but have not? I feel that Fred was baited. However, he was wrong. Yet, two wrongs don't make a right, do they? ""

If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I did indeed answer this point. Please re-read them.

Attacking me does not strengthen your arguments, which are muddled and contradictory to say the least, and now a matter of public record. I anybody wishes to see them and reach their own conclusions they may scroll through this thread an make up their own minds as to whom can take it and who cannot!

And of course, that is if we igore your posts! You guys can sure dish it out, but you can't take it!

I presume I am one of the guys that you allude to? I can take it and will be the first to acknowledge a well thought out argument and point of view, I can alos give it if I disagree with points that are being made. This is the joy of an open forum.

You have a talent for placing things were they dont belong, IMHO.

Well, we only have your word for that because you most certainly have not proved that in your arguments on this thread.

Best regards - HS

Edited by - hillary_step on 22 August 2002 14:47:53

Simon

I don't want to see this become a fight.

Two wrongs don't make a right but sometimes action has to be taken and it would be infeasable to trace back every reply that everyone made to everyone else to decide who is 'guilty' (for want of a better word).

Just look at it from each point of view - they are both 'right' because it's not an exact and simple, clear cut issue.

hillary_step

Path,

I happen to agree with your point of view, as ever succinctly put, however nobody seems to be able to address the issue of how the run JW.com without the 'rules' being laid down. The reason that they surfaced in the first place is that posts that were offensive to the majority were being made, and many it must be remembered clamored for their censure.

We all know what is wrong, but not what is right.

JanH is in fact one of the very few that even made a suggestion as to how to go about moderating a Board without producing a 'clergy laiety class'. Many just seem to want to question the modus of the Board's owners while offering no workable alternative. Griping at the establishment is very easy, attacking Simon and his methodology is even easier, getting out of your seat and doing something about it seems to be less desirable. At least BBoy had the courage of his convictions and started his own Board, which is not entirely un-moderated.

Simon is a reasonable young man, who has worked hard to provide a forum for us to meet. It pains me that he has to put up with those who do not understand the concept of Board ownership as opposed to Board subscriber, day after day.

It seems to me that the issue of 'consistency' in moderative behavior is the only valid one here, and perhaps it is one that may need to be addressed as time goes on.

Best regards - HS

LB

Two wrongs don't make a right

Isn't that supposed to be Two Thongs make it all right?

ISP

Re. disfellowshipping there is a scriptural basis for it. The WTS can be justified in excommunicating people. I disagree that this has to be an everlasting shunning that has to be adopted by all. It is the churches view of the 'wrongdoer' and thats it. It does not have to be your/my view.

Any way as far as the board is concerned, if a poster is 'banned' it is a step that Simon considers closely.....but I wouldn't push it! He is very very busy. Don't expect him to go into your last 100 posts to see what you are like. If you get banned...the way is open for you to make amends. I suspect it would be a matter of emailing Simon. I suspect that it may not feel good to some...the idea of being excluded. I understand that. But don't go abusing others etc.

ISP

hillary_step

Wise words ISP.

Thank you - HS

Deleting A Poster Akin To DF'ing?

Share this