Restrictions on Posts

[Gregory Matthews]

I have decided to review our restrictions on posts in this forum, which generally fall into two (2) categories:

Type I

*  There is an expectation that people posting here will engage in civil discussions.  With the exception of one specific place where we have allowed a greater degree of freedom to post, we expect a level of civil discussion throughout this forum. 

*  Other than the above,  we do not have a civil code which people are expected to follow.

*  Violations of this type may be moved to a place where most people on this forum can not read them.  They may be hidden from the view of most people reading the posts in this forum, but remain in view of a few.   The thread may be locked, but all can still read. 

*  This process allows a person to appeal the restriction and the offending post can be returned to the place where it was posted. 

*  As a matter of policy, I do not edit the posts that another person has made.  However, on occasion, when requested to edit a post, by the person who posted it, I have done so.

*  I do not normally insert a comment into the post of another person.  However, I have done so a few times.  On every time, I enclose my material in [   ]s and add my name, so that there is no confusion.

*  Please restrict the length of your posts to a reasonable level.  I recently had to deal with a post that went for 25 typed pages.   If you want to post at that length, get your own forum. 

Type II

*  These posts are totally removed.  After they have been removed, no one is able to view them.  They can not be restored to the place where they were posted.

*  I believe that women are the creation of God and good for us.  However, if you post an unrestricted view of  women, your post will be immediately totally removed.  This forum is not a place for such.  NOTE:  In recent ties this has not been a problem.  However, it was a problem some time in the past.

*  This is not a forum for you to sell your services.  If you install roofs on homes  in san Jose, California, do not post an ad for such here.  [NOTE:  We have had to deal with actual people who wanted to install a roof on your home.]  In addition, do not place your announcement in the Theology section.  (Yes this has happened.) NOTE:  This is a current problem.  If you want to sell your products, get your own forum.

 

  

[B/W Photodude]

On 2/25/2021 at 1:40 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

I have decided to review our restrictions on posts in this forum, which generally fall into two (2) categories:

Type I

*  There is an expectation that people posting here will engage in civil discussions.  With the exception of one specific place where we have allowed a greater degree of freedom to post, we expect a level of civil discussion throughout this forum. 

*  This process allows a person to appeal the restriction and the offending post can be returned to the place where it was posted. 

Civility has been lacking here for some time and many posts are being allowed to remain that should be prohibited as attacks on another forum member. So, when will posts that appear to look into someone and proclaim them such and such as the following quotes did become unacceptable and removed from public view? I can remember a time when such a post would have led to banning of a person and I have been labeled with abusive behavior for far less.

Quote

stinsonmarri wrote (in separate posts):

Boy are you so full of hate and it shows with you lack of knowledge.

Hate witH you is like clothing, it surrounds you and eats you up alive. 

Sadly, these type of posts gather to them "likes"!

Quote

Type II

*  I believe that women are the creation of God and good for us.  However, if you post an unrestricted view of  women, your post will be immediately totally removed.  This forum is not a place for such.

So, what exactly does "an unrestricted view of women" mean? Does that mean we can no longer question such issues as women's ordination? Many other issues would seem to be at risk. Are we to become the new Twitter of the religious forums and cancel unwanted viewpoints?

[Gregory Matthews]

Than you for your comments and questions:

1) Civil discussion:  I agree.  I have raised this issue with Stan, the owner of this forum.  He will act on this issue.  After he acts, I expect to re-open the section that I have closed.

2)  Unrestrictive view of women:  My comment was directed to a previous time when someone posted a number of photos of females  who would not be considered to be dressed in any manner. That is not what this forum is about.