Leaderboard

(N) Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

For what it's worth, I agree with this policy. Those who have issues with Spectrum, AToday, or Fulcrum 7, Advindicate, and others should discuss those issues on those boards. Unfortunately, those boards are known to ban people who don't subscribe to, for example, the "queering" of Adventism or extreme views in other directions. Definitely a "my way or the highway" attitude. What I don't understand is why links on this website often lead to Spectrum or AToday but not to Fulcrum7. Obviously that is perceived as an endorsement of the "woke" perspective and disapproval of the conservative one. Whatever the reasons, I still respect the decisions made here.

This part does not seem to follow, By posting a link or someone in a thread posting a link how does that equate to duplication of its posts? Do you think by posting an Adventist Today or Spectrum link you are duplicating their website posts? I can't imagine any of their authors being upset about a link to their article posted here even if in the thread people were critical of the article. If it is of interest to Adventists it seems to fit in the parameters of this group. Most anyone who publishes a website article does so that it can be read. If someone tears it apart with good comments it should be a learning opportunity for those involved. For instance, Loren Seibold just posted an article on AToday that I will take apart later. I think that can be done with accurate comments and that it is worthy of consideration by those pro Seibold or pro Finley. Ultimately when we restrict what is linked to we restrict the conversation, if the goal is a search for truth we simply can't do that. If someone is kind enough to offer a source for some additional info it seems it should be appreciated and not denigrated. The reader can always see where the link goes and decide if it is an informative site or not. If they are not some kind of spam or hack site I don't see a problem with the link. If someone is just trying to keep their click count down that seems an unworthy goal. If someone is just trying to post F7 articles here without comments regarding the articles I would think that was out of place. I would always prefer some kind of substantive comment but I know you are hoping to get some kind of discussion going and as the moderator, I think that makes it perfectly acceptable, whereas if I just posted a link and said good article read this I think that would be less appropriate unless it was someone related to comments I had spelled out. It seems we could easily modify the current rules in a way that encourages comments and does not muddy this site.

>>Translation - Conservatives tend to have lower IQ.<< The above is politic, egregiously so. It begs a directed response; however, the censor abides only the extreme which oils his own cognition. Talking “about” politics, “to“ talking politics? That is indeed a crafted point and commendable were it not so much bulldust. It puts one to mind - a chintz cozy covering a cracked pot. Not an ad hominem. My observaton.

This is total trash. I've been on this forum a long time - and have not had to say that before - but this takes the cake. Oh course a moderator can set the tone of his little place on earth and that clearly has been done.

Sir Sidney Poitier, just came on the stage. He is such a class act. I did not know he was a Bahamian!