|
IFO have thought of DaveH as one of the more discrimitating contributors to
TT. Should he be invited back with an accompanying apology and full
complicity?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 17, 2005 16:10
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
How come you kicked DaveH off? What he was saying was
true. (See red
below) Am I going next?
Blainerb
That is unexcusable behavior in my
opinion.
???
unexcusable behavior..........what's that mean? Perhaps
you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior as being
unexcusable.
FWIW........Not only do I
consider your behavior to be less than stellar as well, your opinion as
an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot to me, Perry. You are simply too
biased against Mormonism to have valid argument worthy of consideration.
Furthermore, you've made a public statement
announcing that you are going to grind your ax against
Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise.
But as the moderator of TT, you are
correct.....I should be more respectful of your wishes when you request that I
take the discussion off-line. And for that, I owe you an
apology.......but am not sure why, as one of your two posts yesterday simply
asked me if we could take the discussion off-line. (And no....I did not
want to take it or this one off-line either.) The post below however,
firmly requested such. It's just a little difficult for me to do so
when you post whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the
same. I don't know if you have
noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've treated me.
You just happen to hold the big
stick.
So..........IF you have rules
to be obeyed on TT.....post them, and when I feel you are violating them, I'll
just pitch it back to you. If on the other hand, I violate them first,
then bring it to my attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a
crybaby over this.....that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back
what you send my way. So far, I've
only heard of one firm rule....no ad-homs.....and your request
to take the sexual threads off-Forum a month or so ago.....which I did.
I think your action on that one was a bit too restrictive, as you publicly
made some false accusations that were not resolved. Which is why I
violated your desire to keep this last one private. You have made false
accusations and refused to back them up with factual quotes to support your
position. Then before the topic can be properly discussed, you ban
further posts.
Do
you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not.......is the ad-hom
rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue banning discussions
for no other reason than you think they are
disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't
seemed to trouble you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home,
you seem to be a little overly sensitive to them
though.
The question is why do you feel the need to
ban topics if there are no complaints of ad-homs?
BTW........I'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be curious as to
what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as an LDS TTer, I think
there is some pertinence to him in this exchange.......I hope that is OK with
you. I suspect a few other TTers would also like to know what's going
on, but you've pretty well eliminated that possibility, Perry.
In a message dated 12/15/2005 7:26:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
Blaine,
Try reading through the NT and replace
every occurrence of the word
"cross" with "star". The text becomes
meaningless. The cross is a MAJOR part
of the Chrsitian landscape,
directly from scripture. It has meaning and
value beyond merely an
instrument of death, and is the VERY symbol of our
freedom in Christ.
The star does not.
The atonement did not happen in
Gethsemane, it did not happen at the
resurrection. It happened on the
cross. Our Lord cried out "it is finished"
at the moment the debt we can
never pay was paid by Him. To deny or to try
to change that is to deny
scripture.
Perry
|
