All the more reason why the moderator is the rule. "Authority" is God's way. It is His idea. Again - if honor was to be paid to Rome, surely we can and should agree that -- in the Lord - we have no choice but to accept the ruling of the moderator on a given rules' application? this "does not work" ONLY if you those in the group who refuse to "do it God's way" and obey the one in charge.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Moderators change, so the rules change, thus just one more bit O Objectivity to it.
PTL the current moderator is not a lib!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The moderator is the rule. If we cannot figure out or agree on a particular "ad hom," he solves the problem. David M, CPL - is this not true?JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
It is FOOLISH upon it's face!All that I have observered is a flurry of posts whenever the Spectre is raisedSome on this side some on that but never any clear application.Is there any example where this has worked in real application on TT posts in the past?Everyone on TT has a perception of who is on what side.This includes the moderator, who would interpret & apply the rule.
ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I think it was foolish for Perry to have to apologize (although sweet of
him), as it was a pretty innocuous "ad hom attack". But I understand he
wishes to raise the bar in this area. Izzy
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
Kevin wrote:
> I meant the foolishness of the AD Hom rule since
> there is no human way to frame it by use of an
> objective test.
Even if this were true, it would not disqualify the idea of having an ad
hominem rule. Subjective tests are just fine.
We a ttempt to frame the rule objectively in the following way: write on the
subject being discussed and do not attack the other poster's character.
We enforce the rule in a subjective way: The moderator determines when
someone is crossing the line and causing the discussion to detour because of
personal attacks.
What is foolish about this?
Peace be with you.
David Miller
----------
"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.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
