Personal Attacks

[carolaa]

But I do not believe that discipline needs to be openly personal. We can learn by general pointing out of the rules and consistent enforcement without naming names. The personal nature should be done through a PM in accordance with Matt.18

Yes, I like that. The other forum I am on also sends out a monthly form-letter message to all, reminding them of the rules. And when needed, a general message is sent out reminding of specific rules that are not being followed.

[Bravus]

Here is my suggestion for the rules, from the great sages Bill and Ted:

1. Be excellent to each other

2. Party on, dudes!

[Amelia]

[there buster]

Quote:

But I do not believe that discipline needs to be openly personal. We can learn by general pointing out of the rules and consistent enforcement without naming names. The personal nature should be done through a PM in accordance with Matt.18

It is not always fun to follow Matt.18 but it IS the best way.

When someone acts abusively on the forum, s/he not only offends the individual, he commits an offense against the entire forum. Moderators act on behalf of the forum. So when they deal openly with an offender, that is following Matt 18.

Quote:

If someone says "Redwood ... You are a Jerk" When a moderator comes along and reads that ... A general statement like ... Just a reminder ... that rule number XXX states that we do not allow personal name calling. He would not have to address the specific offense but just has to restate the rule.

We've had these general statements, which usually take the form of "everybody quit fighting," which tars everyone with the same imprecise brush; does nothing to enlighten anyone about what specific behaviors are intended; does not distinguish between those abusing and those protesting abuse-- in general, it only makes matters worse.

It is clear from subsequent posts that many of the worst offenders do not consider themselves to have done any wrong, and that many offended are still frustrated.

General statements simply will not accomplish what needs to be done. If they did, it would have been accomplished already, and this thread would not have been started.

And, just to keep the straw man away, it doesn't need to be perfect, just consistent enough so that the message is communicated. It would require more work at first, but in the long run, it would be far easier on everyone.

[Woody]

Thanks Ich . You have made some good points to consider. I will have to digest that some more. Not that "I" matter. Just that I want to better understand the good concerns you have made.

I am not saying I agree with all you have said ... I just want to consider them.

[Lil Star]

I have a friend at work that does this to her friends so I want your opinion here.

You haven't explained yet about what would be done with those that slide the knife in your back while loving you from the front. How about those that keep pecking away on somebody,on and on and on? I'm sure we don't have that kind here but how would that be handled?

[there buster]

Actually, that's the preferred method around here.

peck, peck, peck.

block, block, block.

It's pretty commen, and can be readily dealt with.

[Lil Star]

That is how it is at work as well. I knew it goes on all the time here and since I know what to look for, I saw it at work. Funny how everyone who does it does not really care and really seem to enjoy themselves doing it. It is fun to them! It's the ones complaining all the time about getting along that keep doing the peck, peck, peck routine. They try their best with their sneaky little or big comments to dig and dig at someone. So, how is something like this stopped? Maybe this will help at work as well as on here.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

That is how it is at work as well. I knew it goes on all the time here and since I know what to look for, I saw it at work. Funny how everyone who does it does not really care and really seem to enjoy themselves doing it. It is fun to them! It's the ones complaining all the time about getting along that keep doing the peck, peck, peck routine. They try their best with their sneaky little or big comments to dig and dig at someone. So, how is something like this stopped? Maybe this will help at work as well as on here.

I'd like to know how to stop it too. And you're right, Lil Star, the comments might little or big. Either way, it hurts.

[Amelia]

I've heard alot of complaints and inuendo about the moderators and admins, but have yet to hear anything constructive about a solution. Anyone?

[Guest Male Man]

Quote:

The pastor we had years ago was one of the most fiery fire and brimstone pastor's I have heard to date. Attendence was at a all time high, even with those that grumbled when the sermon pinched their pet "sins". Children's church was not an option at that time but was not needed. He also had the undivided attention of young children. My older boys were 8,9,10 and knew when leaving what the sermon had been about. Not one dozed off during his sermons

My husband was brought into the church by the same type of no nonesense,this is what the bible says.

Straight forward and to the point is not always to be shunned in favor of touchy-feely.

Getting warmer. Seriously you are right. I'm not in favour of "we shouldn't wear jewlwery" sermons but the fervour those types of sermons are delivered with is admirable. Those preachers actually believe that stuff and have committed themselves 100%. Wrong or right or out of place, young people and men walk out of church actually thinking about it for longer. fearless preaching whether right or wrong is always remembered.

Quote:

I am sure I am in the minority but I don't see this as an attack so much on women as on men.

Hot. You are probably closer to the truth than you realise. I have said all along that converted males are the worst offenders when it comes to being "nice xians". If men would stand up and take the wheel again we will see massive change at home and at church.

Quote:

What MM suggested about contacting and educating people by PMs when they have been observed doing something like personal name calling .... would be a great approach.

Right now ... what do we have? When a moderator thinks he has seen enough .... the ENTIRE thread gets shuts down. Hardly an appropriate method. And no one learns anything.

I am a member elsewhere on a Xian Male site. The rules are simple and the moderators do not interfere too much. There is a special thread dedicated to thrashing it out called "Hell IN The Cell". People go there when they get too hot and all the mod does is come in and say, this seems to be getting overheated - take it o the cell. Only members have access to the Cell but visitors cannot see it.

Quote:

First of all there needs to be decided what we want to tolerate here on CA. Do we like name calling and "calling sinners by their name" ?

Well, I reckon it should be dealt with when someone get's personal. What this means is where the thread turns from the topic and ends up being about the posters speaking with each other. General statements should be allowed, just like I did when I hit the forum.

[bonnie]

Getting warmer. Seriously you are right. I'm not in favour of "we shouldn't wear jewlwery" sermons but the fervour those types of sermons are delivered with is admirable. Those preachers actually believe that stuff and have committed themselves 100%. Wrong or right or out of place' date=' young people and men walk out of church actually thinking about it for longer. fearless preaching whether right or wrong is always remembered

[Neil D]

Getting warmer. Seriously you are right. I'm not in favour of "we shouldn't wear jewlwery" sermons but the fervour those types of sermons are delivered with is admirable. Those preachers actually believe that stuff and have committed themselves 100%. Wrong or right or out of place, young people and men walk out of church actually thinking about it for longer. fearless preaching whether right or wrong is always remembered.

[there buster]

Quote:

constructive about a solution.

Quote:

Few rules, well considered, impartially enforced.

The rules don't have to be perfect, either, just consistently enforced.

Quote:

When someone acts abusively on the forum, s/he not only offends the individual, he commits an offense against the entire forum. Moderators act on behalf of the forum. So when they deal openly with an offender, that is following Matt 18.

Quote:

We've had these general statements, which usually take the form of "everybody quit fighting," which tars everyone with the same imprecise brush; does nothing to enlighten anyone about what specific behaviors are intended; does not distinguish between those abusing and those protesting abuse-- in general, it only makes matters worse. . . . General statements simply will not accomplish what needs to be done

[Woody]

Quote:

Getting warmer.

I think we went through this with a certain poster on the topic of Women Pastors. HE thought HE had all the answers. But HE would not share them with us. All HE did was to condemn the thoughts that the rest of us had. Is MM a clone?

What I have seen on this thread are a couple of posters that have shared what has worked for them ... I will name just two ... Dave and Ich ... others have criticized them as not having any objective ideas ... which puzzles my mind. Then we have MM who just sits back with thinking HE has the solution but he will not share the specifics.

All I have to say to this is A Hemmmmm A Hermmmm and A Himmmmm

Hope that covers them all ...

PS. Sorry I credited this quote to bonnie when it should have been MM.

[there buster]

Constructive examples? Let's start with particularly abusive post. It was not addressed to (or should I say 'at') me.

Quote:

You may think it's valid, but if you understood, you would not post what you did. It's obvious that you lack understanding in this matter. Think about Paul's point to have power onthe head or cover the head because of the angels.You have no idea what that means do you? And you have no idea why Paul is saying it is a shame for women to talk in church because it's in the law. You are clueless on these matter and that's why you connot understand what this is about. As long as you keep shutting your mind to any ideas other than culture, you won't see the beauty in this.

It's not up to me to teach you what that means, you would do well to pray that God would give you understanding and then you'd have peace with this.

Let's examine this a piece at a time.

You may think it's valid, but if you understood, you would not post what you did.

We have no idea what the topic was, because this sentence does not address the topic at all, only the 'think'ing and 'understanding' of the person being addressed.

Nor does it enlighten us as to reasons why the other poster's position is mistaken. In short, this is nothing about the topic, and totally an ad hominem attack.

next sentence:

It's obvious that you lack understanding in this matter.

Obvious it may be, but we still know nothing about the topic only another comment about the inadequcies of the one being addressed. So far topic 0, ad hominem 2

Think about Paul's point to have power onthe head or cover the head because of the angels.

Our first inkling of the topic, something about power, cover the head, and angels. Unfortunately, it begins with the insinuation that the addressee has not been thinking.

we'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt, here.

topic 0.5, ad hominem 3.

You have no idea what that means do you?

Had this been softened with "it appears to me," it would have been a statement about appearances, although still pejorative.

topic 0.5, ad hominem 4.

And you have no idea why Paul is saying it is a shame for women to talk in church because it's in the law.

another inkling about the topic, but yet another assertion about the mind of the addressee.

topic 1.0, ad hominem 5.

You are clueless on these matter and that's why you connot understand what this is about.

We get 2 for 1 here. In one sentence, the poster -- while leaving the topic unmentioned-- makes an assertion about the mind of the addressee (clueless) and then jumps to a negative conclusion (that's why you connot (sic) understand). This is pure venting.

topic 1.0, ad hominem 7.

As long as you keep shutting your mind to any ideas other than culture, you won't see the beauty in this.

A rather ironic comment. Another negative assertion (you keep shutting your mind), without any information on the topic, except the comment that the poster's position has 'beauty.' That's an invidious comparison (you're shutting your mind, my position is beautiful)-- but we'll let it go. Still for the negative assertion:topic 1.0, ad hominem 8.

It's not up to me to teach you what that means,

Once again, the irony intrudes. If the poster intended to teach about the topic, the poster has spent few words on that. Beyond that, the assumption that the poster is correct, and in a position to teach, forgetting that the addressee was engaged in discussion, and had not asked to be taught. For the assumption of superiority, expressly stated: topic 1.0, ad hominem 9.

you would do well to pray that God would give you understanding and then you'd have peace with this.

So, if one does not agree with the poster's position, it's because their Christian experience is deficient. They haven't prayed to God-- and therefore reached the poster's understanding--and they don't have peace. . . with the poster's position.

topic 1.0, ad hominem 11.

This did not draw any comment from moderators.

[Woody]

Ich ... Thank you for this instructive post. I find this very helpful and enlightening. I appreciate the time that you spent on this. I have learned much and want to apply it.

I also want to thank you that you did not use the name of the poster. I am sensitive to this factor. I think your persentation is much more able to be receptive without the name. We have all failed in our posting ... so the author of this particular post does not need to feel pointed out.

How can we best continue to point out problem posts without condemning the author? I am serious on this. I do not want to condemn the author ... but I do want to learn.

[there buster]

It depends upon what you mean by 'condemn.'

Saying the author is an arrogant person would be out of line.

Saying that this post was arrogant and out of line. . . should have been done, in direct response for all to see.

If the poster continued, s/he should have been barred for a short period of time. Doing these things in secret would not have a corrective effect on the forum.

I also didn't identify who was addressed, except to say it was not me. That's because, as I said, this was an offense against the forum, not just one individual. Everyone who saw that post-- and the lack of action on it, learned something about the forum, something damaging.

If you don't want that sort of specific response, then no progress will be made.

As Carol Cannon wrote, "Families, and churches, stay as sick as the secrets they keep." That's true of any group of people. Keeping all of the discipline secret will only keep the forum sick.

[Woody]

Thanks Ich. And I hope you don't mind me calling you that nic name ... Anyway ...

I am slowly but with resistance coming to your side.

Let me throw out an idea and see what you think of it .

Would it be of any help to have tread of examples like you have done here. Again ... the name would not be necessary. But we could learn from the example. We could list words and phrases as you have done that are not acceptable or allowed. We could have another catagory of ones that are discouraged and considered abusive or disruptive. I guess what I am after is two catagories ... one that will get you in big trouble and one that could be pointed out as not appreciated. Do you get my drift?

I would propose that we could all add to the list along with the reason. This list would have to be specific like you did here. I am really after specific words or short phrases.

Since we are all different .... we would each come with our own bias as to what is more severe than another and what catagory a word would belong. So, I would propose that the boss have total control over the catagory each would belong. He could at his discresion move a word from one place to another.

What I would propose is that we add them as we see them posted like you did and without the names attached. If anyone really wanted to know who the author is they could search it.

Once we have this list ... when we see someone using a word or phrase that is on the list ... we could simply point this out by saying ... some on this forum have agreed that this word or phrase is not allowed or appreciated. I guess we could also have some that the boss has given his stamp of approval on. That would give more crediance to it. And it would be far less threatening to do it this way ... would it not?

I would encourage it to be very objective rather than opinion and subjective. What I mean is it should be a list of words and phrases ... not simply behaviours that are objectionable.

OK. I've rambled on enough. Now you all can tear it up or add and subtract. I won't be offended. Just throwing out a start of ideas. It is by no means the best or even complete.

[nuff sed]

Quote:

I think even EGW would have had fun with some of her writings takin' out of context and applied in a humorous way to someone/situation

Personally ... I find that she is rarely used in context. There is far more misuse and abuse than correct reading of Ellen White.

People constantly use her for their personal agendas. Some are believers in HER more than her message. Her message is a good one. But few can see that through their own agenda.

Can anyone find a copy of that famous book, "Sr. White Says"? It must be Out of Print..................................

[Woody]

Does she say it is OK to use her out of context?

Does she say ... snippets are fine? Apparently the church does. Look at all the compilations. A snippet here a snippet there. And they are used to snipe at people.

[Lil Star]

What about the pretenders of love? While stabbing people in the back and those that peck and peck and peck and then they feel they need to peck some more. They can't seem to let go until they have beaten it to death and then they make sure that everyone is enjoying the show. What do we do about those?

[Woody]

I have thought about those ... but I don't think it is objective enough. It is in the eye of the beholder. My list of offenders would be different than yours. Pretty soon ... no one would be left.

But I think I will leave those people up to you and/or God.

If there is something that we can do for the more objective use of words ... then that would at least be a start.

[Guest charis]

What about the pretenders of love? While stabbing people in the back and those that peck and peck and peck and then they feel they need to peck some more. They can't seem to let go until they have beaten it to death and then they make sure that everyone is enjoying the show. What do we do about those?

I'd like to know about that too.

[Woody]

Quote:

What about the pretenders of love?

In a way Charis I think we all qualify for that list. For I fear we all fail. Each of us fall short of the glory of God. Each of us could do better. Would you suggest that we start making a list of the "pretenders"?