wicklunds Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 Quote: Gregory Matthews said: Yesterday, I removed one sentence from a post that Dennis had made. It was a very inappropriate sentence, and a hurtful personal attack on another person. I left the rest of the post, because it was quite fine. This resulted in a series of PMs between Dennis and I. In his final message to me yesterday, Dennis stated that he would no longer "pollute" in areas where I moderate. At least I think that is what he said. This morning morning I had to remove an entire post that Dennis had made. It was a personal attack that went well beyond what I allow. I did not find anything in it that I could retain, so I deleted the entire post. Dennis feels that I am editing/deleting his posts due to what he sees as a disagreement with his theology. As many here know, I allow others to post theolgoical positions with which I disagree. But, there is a point where I draw the line on personal attacks. Dennis has crossed that line. In the last message that I have read from him this morning, he has asked me not to send him any more messages. I assume that means that he will not read any that I send him. As a result, I am posting this publicly: Dennis, I am NOT preventing you from posting here. You can contnue to post messages that are within the bounds that I have drawn. But, when you cross over in the area of personal attacks, as you have done, I will either edit, or remove, them. Gregory, It seems that you allow others to go on the offensive and censor my responses to them. This is the only misjudgment on your part that concerns me. When you delete entire posts that have made no personal references, but brought to light issues that lie under the surface of human emotion, you have hidden the treasure under the mire of censor. When will you wake up and smell the manna? Dennis It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dennis: So, you imply that heavenly manna smells! <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/coolhello.gif" alt="" /> So, you do not understand why I removed your entire response to Dr. Ben. Send it back to me and I wills send you a PM (if you will read it) telling you item by item why I deleted it. Do you really claim that your response to Dr. Ben did nto have any personal references? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicklunds Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 Quote: benherndon said: Oh! so it's the likes of YOU who has the sole right to quote 'the writings'??? Excuse me, show me the paper that gives you the right and not anybody else that wishes to quote 'the writings'. Do you have some 'ownership' or personal 'dispensation' others don't have? No, But the point I made was that it would be disingenuous, well- nigh heretical, for a 28 fundamental belief believing SDA to first of all, deny the gift of prophecy given by the Lord through EW to His saints, and then once he has rejected them, to quote from them to prove his philosophy. If I saw that a link was defective, I wouldnt go ahead and include that in a chain would I? It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicklunds Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 Quote: Gregory Matthews said: Dennis: So, you imply that heavenly manna smells! So, you do not understand why I removed your entire response to Dr. Ben. Send it back to me and I wills send you a PM (if you will read it) telling you item by item why I deleted it. Do you really claim that your response to Dr. Ben did nto have any personal references? How could I reference it now since it has been blasted into cyber dust? I claim that my response was no more personal than Ben's response to me Greg. Help me understand why I am not seeing that what you are doing is justifiable. Dennis It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 How can your reference it? Dennis, in a post still posted here you said: "Send me a private message and the truth will be told." That statement sure sounds to me like you are telling people that you have maintained a copy, and will use your maintained copy to prove your point. If you will send it back to me, I will show you line by line, how it made personal attacks on Dr. Ben that went beyond what I allow. Now, if you do not have a copy, I am uncertain as to how you will be able to tell the truth. In this case, I guess that I really do not know what you meant when you invited people to enter into a private conversation with you. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dennis: The fundamental issue is this: We expect that people who post here will exercise some degree of civil behavior. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicklunds Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 and thereby you imply that my behavior is uncivil and others' transcendent. Why the judgment? You havent even attempted to answer my question. You are skirting, and avoiding the issue. Why anyone would ask you to moderate I have no clue. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicklunds Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 Quote: Gregory Matthews said: How can your reference it? Dennis, in a post still posted here you said: "Send me a private message and the truth will be told." That statement sure sounds to me like you are telling people that you have maintained a copy, and will use your maintained copy to prove your point. If you will send it back to me, I will show you line by line, how it made personal attacks on Dr. Ben that went beyond what I allow. Now, if you do not have a copy, I am uncertain as to how you will be able to tell the truth. In this case, I guess that I really do not know what you meant when you invited people to enter into a private conversation with you. Your indiscriminate deleting and editing of my posts without even communicating the issues reeks of the authoritarian Catholicism your ideology vilifies. Are you confused? You seem to be. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dennis: You tell me that you response was no more personal than was Dr. Ben's response to you. Dr. Ben responded to a direct question that you asked him. Here is your question: "But Ben, do you even believe in the testimony of grace? It would seem out of place for you to quote from "the writings" if you didn't." Dennis, I allowed your question to stand. As such, I have a responsibility to allow his response to you to stand. Yes, both your direct question to him, and his resposne was personal. But, neither violated the bounds that I have established for personnal attacks. NOTE: "attacks". We allow robust dialogue here in CA. You, Dr. Ben, and many others have been allowed such by me, and other Moderators. But, we askfor civil discussion. As recent post, you (not asked of Dr. Ben) inquired dirctly of another person as to the medication that they might or might not have taken that mornning. That is a non-civil comment that I am not going to allow. We have people here who take daily medication. It is not for you to publiclly inquire about such, under circumstances where the individual has not immediately publicly referenced such. The implications of your question go far beyond what I consider to be civil and allowed here. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dennis: I do not imply that your behavior here is uncivil. I state that it is uncivil, and that is why I have edited/deleted it. You may gbe clueless as to why I moderate here. I accept that as a statement of fact, as to where your are. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 Re: "Your indiscriminate deleting and editing of my posts without even communicating the issues reeks of the authoritarian Catholicism your ideology vilifies." 1) You really do not have any idea as to what my theology is. 2) Communicating the issues: Each will make their own evaulation of me. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted June 18, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2005 For now, I am closing this thread. It has gone far enough. Dennis, have a happy Sabbath, and to the rest of you also. Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts