David, It seems to me that when a man is repeatedly calling a woman a "whore" on this list it should be two strikes and you're out. I believe that men should be gentlemen even if they are Christians. I believe that real men are not threatened by being considered "feminized" by gentlemanly gallantry. I appreciated the fact that at least our "pagan" felt that way. So shoot me. :-) Izzy
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] No limits on TT Izzy wrote: > TPW, Well I sure appreciate that you came to my rescue > in a way, unlike our Moderator who seems to have no > limits to the way the women here are being abused and > the vile language allowed on this site. (Perhaps he > prefers that the ladies to leave? How long should we > tolerate this?) I'd rather be rescued by a French- > speaking "Pagan Wolf" than not be rescued at all. :-) Izzy, I hope you do not misunderstand me, but speech like this tends to push me over toward Elsman's side of thinking that TruthTalk perhaps ought to be men only. What I mean is that it seems like you are asking for the list to be feminized. Let me give you an example using children. You know how children only understand so much. Suppose we had our children around us all the time, and when we had a church service, for example, we did not allow any sermons that children could not readily grasp. Suppose we did songs that the children were especially responsive toward. You know, songs like "Father Abraham" with all the hand motions and stuff like that. Anyway, if we "chidrenized" the meetings, that would not be a good thing. Many subjects would be off limits for study, because they would be too advanced for the children. Talk like you offer above seems to suggest that we must be sure not to allow any kind of out of order speech or aggressive behavior that might offend the ladies. I think you know that I agree very well with you that language needs to be clean and that the particular speech you are talking about was out of order for men of God. Nevertheless, if our interest is in protecting the women on the list and making sure that none of them are in the least bit troubled, then aren't we kind of feminizing the list and making it something that cannot rise above what women would allow it to be? Wouldn't this be a violation of the order that God set down in Torah, that man would rule over woman? Aren't you kind of proving the point of men like Daniel and Elsman when you insist on being protected? It seems to me that the very instruction of "let the women be silent" is directly toward this kind of situation. In other words, when the speech gets rough, don't kick out the women to protect them (men only list), neither silence the men lest the women be offended, but rather let the women be silent and let the men hash it out. The women can raise their objections or questions at home with their husbands in such situations. What do you think? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
