Long Threads & Lurkers

[Dr. Shane]

Heated discussion in this forum often results in threads becoming very long, very quickly. There are a number of lurkers that just surf in and out of threads, reading them like a magazine article or a book. When threads are short there isn't as much to read. When they become too long too quick they are less likely to be read by anyone other than those participating in the thread itself.

I have been one that has contributed to such threads becoming so long so quickly. Having given this considerable thought, I plan not to respond to any posts in this section until the following day after the post has been posted. This will allow those that surf in and out to be able to follow the threads that interest them without having them get so long so fast they can't (or don't want to) keep up with them.

Heated discussion has its place even among believers. Many of us disagree on such things as Ellen White, Adventist media, and various doctrines. As mature Christians we can discuss anything while maintaining mutual respect for each others rights to disagree.

[Bravus]

Agreed, on all points (sorry, no heat this time!)

Great points, Shane, thanks - I'll try to emulate your plan too.

[there buster]

Gentelemen,

This is not addressed to you personally, but to the subject of this thread.

The problem is not passionate discussion. The problem is that the moderators don't know the difference between disagreement with someone's ideas, and an attack on that person's motives or intelligence.

I say that not only because the moderators do not act to limit ad hominem attacks, but sometimes engage in them.

Only once have I seen a moderator intervene, and then only after another poster had acted strongly. As a point of information, this did not involve an attack against me.

Rather than dealing with these people, I was once warned not to reply to someone because he "does not back down," and "everyone knows" how abusive he is.

In a dysfunctional environment, where abuse becomes "normal," true health is diagnosed as illness. A twisted ethos grows up to fill the ethical void, making serious discussion virtually impossible.

There are many ways in which a basic code of courtesy could be delineated and maintained. In it's absence, you see a sort of Darwinian survival of the meanest. A few dominant individuals beat away on dead horses, and abuse anyone who happens innocently to become involved.

After a while, people become so accustomed to the status quo that they consider any efforts to change it abusive.

So, like the vast majority of the 1600+ registered users, I come here and "lurk," looking for any interesting news, and doing my best to avoid attracting attention.

No doubt, someone will want to explain to me why I'm the problem. Go right ahead. I'll read it, probably, but long since learned not to waste my energy replying. Meanwhile, I'll get PM's explaining how others agree with me, but who understandably don't want to go public.

And this thread won't grow long rapidly because of me.

[there buster]

Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York at least partially by pouncing on petty crimes. There are many reasons why this works.

Dealing with a gratuitous and ill-informed smear such as found here:

#177141

could help people think you were serious about making things better.

Yes, it's a small thing, but it goes on a lot, and degrades the environment.

[Clio]

Ed...

I can see most of your points until you point out the post I put up regarding a bill being introduced to repeal the 22nd amendment of our Constitution.

It was introduced in January of this year, and is still under consideration. I firmly believe that repealing the amendment that limits presidents to serving two years can lead us down a path of a dictatorship whether we recognize it as such or not.

How is that an ill-informed and gratuitous smear campaign? I'd really like to understand why you feel it to be one. If it is, then I have missed something important, because it certainly wasn't intended to be a smear campaign of anyone. It was meant to be a notice that things we take for granted, may not be taken as such any more.

Clio

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Hmmmmmm.... who wants to be a dictator?

---

Who did you have in mind?

[Clio]

No one Ed. It doesn't really matter who is elected president once the two term limit amendment to the US Constitution is repealed.

Anyone could potentially become an "elected" official that stays and stays and stays, consolidating power to the point of becoming, in effect if not in name, a dictator.

There was nothing aimed at anyone here or even currently in office. I was commenting on the potentials for abuse if the 22nd amendment were repealed.

This resolution still isn't killed. In April it was referred to the Sub-Committee on the Constitution, and continues to be legislation liable to be debated and potentially enacted.

You jumped the gun and landed on me with both feet. Why?

clio

[there buster]

"Hmmmmmmm. ... who wants to be dictator?"

"I have no idea, I just thought I'd throw it out."

So apparently you're attributing that motive to every politician? Every President? Or just to the ones who ran for a third term? That's gratuitous.

Do you know when the 22nd amendment was enacted?

Do you know the process for amending the Constitution?

Do you have any idea how long the process takes?

Do you know what political party Steny Hoyer belongs to?

Do you know who the co-sponsors are?

Do you know what party each one belongs to?

Do you know to whom the amendment would apply?

Do you know when this idea was brought up before?

Was it a well-informed comment?

[NormF]

Dear Ed,

I like you; I think you're a reasonable and informed guy. Usually, I find your posts lucid and easy to understand. We're not always on the same side of the fence, but that's OK. I don't mind.

Had that one (the one I'm replying to) been your only post on this thread, I would have walked away again, saying to myself, well said. But I see these other posts in your name, located chronologically between that one and this one.

You wrote then:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And this thread won't grow long rapidly because of me.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I know, sometimes, the simplest things are the most complex--things like, "what is 'is'?" And so now I am puzzled.

Which meaning of "won't" did you mean? Or did I miss something here? Please enlighten me. Tomorrow.

Regards,

Norm

[Clio]

Ed, yes... I do know all those answers... but what you seem to be missing... is that in spite of all the truth of those answers at least one elected politician thinks it would be a good idea to repeal that amendment.

If the process runs to completion, and against my desire to see it otherwise, the 22nd amendment is repealed... it opens a long shut door to potential abuse.

Clio

[there buster]

My bad, Norm. Call it the triumph of hope over experience. I should have known better.

Like the politician in Chicago said, "This town ain't ready for reform."