dialogue about dialogue

[lunamoth]

I feel bad speaking out against the lib forum when I know that some treasured members and good friends here have found a home there, but for the reasons I've stated that forum has always rubbed me the wrong way.

However, I think the folks who have spoken up in favor of the forum make a very good point...it does add an important space to CR.

I propose that we change the name to Alternative Christian and put it under the main Christianity forum. In fact, I'm going to start a poll in the Christianity forum.

luna

Here's the link to the poll: Christianity Subforum Poll

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think it's the case that when we speak as individuals we can only represent ourselves - I don't believe anyone here holds themselves to be the definitive speaker for any faith group.

True ...but that statement hangs on a single word, what if you were to replace it with representative?

TE

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by InLove

Thanks for reading. (And if you skimmed it, you should go back and read it all because I spent a lot of time writing it. )
InPeace,
InLove

Hey no, I had to send out for pizza but I got through it. Yep, good points.

s.

[InLove]

That was actually just a mini-rant. Thanks to those who endured it, though. If I ever decide to write something longer, I'l let you guys know so you can get the two-for-one deal on the pizzas.

Lunamoth, you shouldn't feel bad about speaking up. I know exactly how you feel. I am just still undecided about what I think is the best way to do things. As much as I really want to merge the gap, I'm just not sure it would work. I will post on the poll a bit later today. I may have to just toss a coin or something....

China Cat--just wanted to say that since I actually was absent at the time, my memories of what went down aren't any more valid than anyone else's. I certainly don't have the only vantage point, nor the best. I missed a lot.

This thread was a good idea, BB. Thanks. Threads surely do take their twists and turns sometimes, don't they? Sometimes that is what makes them so interesting. I appreciate reading the well-thought out responses from everyone on this one.

Oh, and thanks, I, Brian for letting us go on about things. I appreciate this little house you built, and all those who help keep it up.

InPeace,
InLove

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

True ...but that statement hangs on a single word, what if you were to replace it with representative?

TE

When you speak as Tao Equus, you represent Tao Equus only - I would not even begin to expect that you represented all people in Edinburgh, all people in Scotland, or all people in the UK. Same for everyone here.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by InLove

That was actually just a mini-rant.
InPeace,
InLove

<phew>

......we got off lightly then............

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

When you speak as Tao Equus, you represent Tao Equus only - I would not even begin to expect that you represented all people in Edinburgh, all people in Scotland, or all people in the UK. Same for everyone here.

lol... ok Brian

Nobody here speaks representatively!!! I get it now..... honest!!

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I too was suffering from anxieties brought about by things far extraneous to this forum. I'm a progressive Democrat. A Liberal. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning out of conscience. I endured almost five years of being verbally abused by my friends and coworkers for being against the war. I watched my country go to hell, lose it's prestige in the world, and lose it's sense of right and wrong. It hurt. It hurts to be called a traitor, especially when you're ex-military. I've been a peacemaker my whole life, willing to take a punch to stop a fight. I just got to the point where I was so angry that I couldn't take it anymore. Maybe you can understand how the idea that somehow Liberal Christians aren't real Christians kinda rings my pavlovian bell.


Chris

Yeah I understand this especially how you put it to me.. but can you understand that there are just some things in life you cant compromise on? I could compromise on the war.. I could compromise on whether Bush is the anti-christ I could compromise on mostly everything in this life.. but I cannot compromise on my faith. I went the other road.. I compromised on Jesus and I couldnt handle life I couldnt handle anything I was lost and He found me and taught me that there is no compromise.

Im learning here.. Im learning how to be gentle. Im learning how to love people to the Lord.. I make mistakes and I am so sorry if I ever made someone feel they couldnt be on Christianity because of me. I can look back in my posts and see arrogance and pride.. but dang ya'll Im nothing.. Im nobody and I have no right to call myself a Christian either but for the grace of God. Thats not me that prideful thing..

but I will not compromise on Jesus ever again. I will allow people to say anything except when it contradicts the message of salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ then I have to speak up. But thats because I have so much love for everyone here and dang I want everyone to go where Im going. I dont do it for any other reason.. Im not a confrontational person really Im not.. I get nervous and my stomach cramps up and my heart starts pounding.

China you and I have had a couple of rough spots but Ive always loved your humor and your smart assed comments that cut to the quick. I just hated being the target


Donna

[China Cat Sunflower]

China you and I have had a couple of rough spots but Ive always loved your humor and your smart assed comments that cut to the quick. I just hated being the target

It was never personal Donna. And I like that you're willing to go to bat for what you believe.

Hey, speaking of learning things, I've been teaching myself to play the piano! I'm still mostly on the white keys, but I'm starting to understand it. Instead of Go Tell Aunt Rhodie I'm working on Hey Jude!

Chris

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But In Time Everything will Measure Equivocally, and Praise Unto The Zadokkim!

Was this my anger and hatred... or yours? Do you think I caused it? It seems to me that Niranjan was banned for responding after you called him a prejudiced monster.

My point was simply that there are many prejudices expressed on forums, and I would place any that Niranjan expressed on equal or better footing than some big ones expressed by others and apparently ignored or unjustly overlooked. I submit that expressing prejudices is a good thing due to their exposure, and responding to them appropriately is even better... but banning someone for reacting to your words paid no service to anyone that I know of. Certainly not me. Niranjan is still out there.

I have found that incivility exists only in the absence of truthful dialogue. In that light, thank you for expressing your feelings.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Was this my anger and hatred... or yours?

Neither, it is my frustrated exasperation letting you know that what goes around, comes around. Not by my hand, either. The wheel in the sky takes care of things all by itself.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

It seems to me that Niranjan was banned for responding after you called him a prejudiced monster.

I guess that shows how limited your omniscience is. Not that it is any of your concern, I never at any time advocated the dismissal of niranjan. Come to think of it, I am the one that tried in what turned out to be a futile attempt to engage him civilly...unlike present company.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

My point was simply that there are many prejudices expressed on forums, and I would place any that Niranjan expressed on equal or better footing than some big ones expressed by others and apparently ignored or unjustly overlooked. I submit that expressing prejudices is a good thing due to their exposure, and responding to them appropriately is even better... but banning someone for reacting to your words paid no service to anyone that I know of. Certainly not me. Niranjan is still out there.

Your prejudices included? Seems to me exposing your prejudicial and unfounded presumptions has done little to persuade you otherwise, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I have found that incivility exists only in the absence of truthful dialogue. In that light, thank you for expressing your feelings.

In light of the couple of times you have quoted me out of context in order to falsely attribute things to me in order to make absurd accusations, I can only find this statement ironic at best and oxymoronic at worst. But hey, at this point we all know your feelings on the matter too, don't we? Even if we disagree...

Freedom of Speech is nothing without the Freedom to choose which voices I prefer to hear, and the Freedom to mute those voices I find counter to my chosen moral aesthetic. It is not up to you or any other to tell me what or who I *must* listen to. I have the Freedom to choose not to listen to anybody at all I choose not to. Just like others have the choice not to listen to me. But that is just me, within the context of my own life. Perhaps you enjoy others telling you what to believe, what to think, who to listen to?

Because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean that I, or any staff, immediately run to "ban" someone. Otherwise, would you not already be banned by now, a long time ago? That fact alone should help put your "feelings" into a more proper and realistic context, instead of leveling accusations about the inner workings of something you actually know little about, and have no need to know.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Civility, I think is an essential requirement of interfaith dialogue.

I'd place it dead last... that way I can talk with people from entirely different countries and civilizations. Here, what is left is mostly Western thinking folks and walled gardens... it really is not too much interfaith at all.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

However, I absolutely draw the line at people who want to turn CR into their own personal marketing channel. It serves the interests of a minority, and the internet allows these people to set up their own marketing in their own space, under their own rules.

I've noticed advertisements up in the banner... what gives? Why not let someone sell / talk about their book? I'd pay for the bandwidth if that were a concern. Make a thousand forums if necessary. It is like being at a wedding and the organ player or the photographer hands his business card to the next young couple. Good for them.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

If I'm in a pub or restaurant, and someone starts shouting at the clients and won't calm down and generally acts disruptive, I expect that they will be ejected from the premises - else I'll be the one to leave and not return. If the behaviour is tolerated, how many people will care to visit such a place? Who will be motivated most to visit it if aggressive behaviour is openly accpeted?

At a pub or restaurant the social gatherings or conversations are private and personal. They are not public. Here, anything said is available to every computer on the internet wherein you or someone else has not blocked it. Nobody has lungs to yell that loudly that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I apply a similar thinking to CR - most people don't need moderater attention because they can already accept basic norms of social behaviour. If not, I will usually try and work it out with them, but there comes a point when it needs stating that enough is enough.

Niranjan's social behavior is a basic norm and it thus required less moderator attention. I found that it was upon the moderator attention that a problem really arrived, per your definition of civility.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's never an easy call to make, but to be honest, the only reason such objections to these decisions is made is because - despite seeing people as trouble-makers from the start - I gave them tolerance enough to try and adapt to the basic acceptable norms that CR runs on. As a forum admin, I should remove trouble-makers the moment they appear, but it's precisely because I am trying to be so tolerant in what is allowed that such situations develop long enough that the resulting decisions come under scrunity.

I submit that is not true. What I see is a lack of definition for your 'civility' or 'acceptable norms'. Those are in the eye of the beholder... you. If you can define them then rebuke people when you see that cross your line and do so justly and with words that provide definition for comparison. Upon that rebuke, people can compare the language and get a feel for what you are talking about. Contrary to your belief, I submit that it is not tolerance to say NOTHING to someone like Niranjan or Juantoo3... or whoever else took part in the rant that got him expelled. Personally I think someone should have asked him to stop quoting dead people so often, but then we'd all be guilty of that on a religion forum wouldn't we. Maybe it was the unrelated Einstein quotes while trying to discuss Islam... I don't know. But whatever you don't like, it is not tolerance to ignore it. It is intolerance though to ban it, which is fine but I'm not clear at all what Niranjan said that someone like Juantoo3 hasn't said already.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

A point about Bobby's writing column - I knew him from other sites a long time ago, and thought that a series of writing columns on CR offering different faith positions would be interesting to run. He writes from a moderate Christian perspective I find interesting, and think stories such as Big Buddy have a wide appeal.

I personally think it adds... I thought Niranjan's viewpoint or the peace prophet added too though.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

On that note - there's a software upgrade coming to the forums over the summer that should allow people to have their own blog sections on the forums. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, and whether it proves useful for people.

I agree that will be interesting to see what happens.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'll admit - I don't like the decisions I make being called into question or scrutiny, and on a personal level it I don't like it. But as a forum admin, I figure it's my responsility to allow such questions to be raised, and to be accountable for them. Ultimately, CR is only as strong as the community it develops. My priority therefore has to be to try and look after the majority interest community as I see it, to allow it to continue to grow and stregthen.

I suggest that distaste occurs in the review of many trades and social situations. I embrace it now. If a person loves me then they will judge me with words for what they believe is true and rightful. Likewise I clearly do the same.

I would say that comparing religion (CR) is only as strong as the diversity and quantity of individuals who make comparisons within their own minds. I see no community because you retain full control and because only words are exchanged across the forum. If people had discussed the fate of Niranjan before he was banned, or if people helped pay for and maintain the forum, then maybe I'd start to see a community. As it is, I think people are seriously fooling themselves by calling it a community. A community is much more than sharing viewpoints. So... interesting website but you didn't serve me anything by banning any of the people mentioned. Who here claims that it served them anything? As I see it, it served no purpose but to end a dispute between a few members who maybe couldn't end it for themselves. I wasn't one of them so maybe I just lack that vigor to have wanted anyone banned.

I find that there are a few elected governments that seem to have overlooked that the majority interest is how the majority sees it. You are opposed to rule by the people (community?) here so that is out. So I might continue to lightly press for a little more definition of civility, more rebukes from you prior to banning someone, and then mercy for the Silas or Niranjan who allegedly crosses the line. If they won't say sorry, then ban them.

-Thanks.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Neither, it is my frustrated exasperation letting you know that what goes around, comes around. Not by my hand, either. The wheel in the sky takes care of things all by itself.

As that wheel turns I hope you are not banned from higher places over mere words. However, what will put an end to these repeated bouts of frustrated exasperations? Am I next to be banned?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In light of the couple of times you have quoted me out of context in order to falsely attribute things to me in order to make absurd accusations, I can only find this statement ironic at best and oxymoronic at worst. But hey, at this point we all know your feelings on the matter too, don't we? Even if we disagree...

If I quoted you across threads due to them being closed, or if I quoted only a portion for the sake of brevity, then I hope that I provided a link so that people can see your words in their true context. I only raise the issue of comparative dialogue in defense of those who were banned. It was not about your feelings. It was about the person being banned... the method, the reasoning, the justice and mercy of it. I like to review the past conversations because the mind might see things in a different light and learn from them. I think you should go back and read those threads where you had dialogue with both Silas and Niranjan.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Freedom of Speech is nothing without the Freedom to choose which voices I prefer to hear, and the Freedom to mute those voices I find counter to my chosen moral aesthetic. It is not up to you or any other to tell me what or who I *must* listen to. I have the Freedom to choose not to listen to anybody at all I choose not to. Just like others have the choice not to listen to me. But that is just me, within the context of my own life. Perhaps you enjoy others telling you what to believe, what to think, who to listen to?

I'm clearly lost... were you exercising freedom of choice and ignoring Silas or Niranjan? It looked to me that you were involved in a flame with each of them before they were banned. I think you are onto something better if you were to choose to ignore rather than to ban... or better than you calling the other person names, and then they get banned.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean that I, or any staff, immediately run to "ban" someone. Otherwise, would you not already be banned by now, a long time ago? That fact alone should help put your "feelings" into a more proper and realistic context, instead of leveling accusations about the inner workings of something you actually know little about, and have no need to know.

Inner workings? Is this not a public forum for comparing religion? Ban if you please... no skin off my nose. I'm just that huckleberry who painfully says why it is bad to do so. Maybe its that wheel in the sky. The outer words reveal the inner workings... when someone is being called a prejudiced monsters, an idiot, or a Putz... what am I to think? Nothing? I forgive you, but then who here was willing to forgive Silas or Niranjan for any of their ill-chosen words?

[I, Brian]

cyberpi, online communities set their own standards of what is and is not acceptable. We make it clear at CR that it isn't a free-for-all forum, and that a basic degree of civil behaviour is required.

I really don't know why you won't let the subjet lie. There are lots of other forums on the internet - moderated and unmoderated - where you can enjoy more extreme forms of opinion allowed and discussed. If CR is so disappointing to you, why not go to the usenet alt.binary groups where everything is allowed, and there's little danger of there being anything held back?

I'm making a big effort to allow CR to be as accepting and tolerant as possible, but like most every other moderated forum, there are basic rules of participation. Members can decide to accept or reject that remit as they wish.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

cyberpi, online communities set their own standards of what is and is not acceptable. We make it clear at CR that it isn't a free-for-all forum, and that a basic degree of civil behaviour is required.

I really don't know why you won't let the subjet lie. There are lots of other forums on the internet - moderated and unmoderated - where you can enjoy more extreme forms of opinion allowed and discussed. If CR is so disappointing to you, why not go to the usenet alt.binary groups where everything is allowed, and there's little danger of there being anything held back?

I'm making a big effort to allow CR to be as accepting and tolerant as possible, but like most every other moderated forum, there are basic rules of participation. Members can decide to accept or reject that remit as they wish.

Brian,
I have been travelling so I was responding to your former comments.

You might as well call Silas, Niranjan, and Paganprophet serial rapists because that would have as much meaning and clout with me as your claim that any of them lacked any degree of civil behavior. Neither of the three demonstrated what I recognize as uncivil behavior. Did any of the three call for someone else to be banned? Did any of the three willingly disobey a rule that others adhere to? If you asked something of them kindly and without being a hypocrite, I bet they would have obeyed your wishes... but you didn't. Your behavior appears to me as uncivil. I have tried to explain to you why and I will continue to do so, but you don't see it. Maybe I am incapable of showing you. Your behavior appears to me as more uncivil than those three people that you have banned and have publicly deemed as being uncivil.

So, I am simply asking for clearer definition of what you think civil behavior is. Upon having that understanding I am happy to conform to it, encourage others to conform to it, to hold you to it, the moderators, and to even help others understand that this is Brian's sandbox instead of a public forum for comparative religion. Or not, if you wish. I will also certainly take your advice and check out this alt.religion, or more public forums.

In the meantime, I will continue to painfully point out that if you don't like it when someone like Niranjan calls someone an idiot, as neither do I, then you can't allow anyone else including moderators to use similar language with him. If you do allow that behavior then you are an unjust hypocrit, and as I have gotten to know you and this website I believe that you really don't wish to be. You wish to be fair with people, tolerant, and yet demanding some sort of civil behavior... whatever that is. I do too but I recognize that there are other methods available that are not being utilized here. As I try to utilize them with you, I suspect you will wish to ban me. Why do I suspect that? Well, I'm purposely being a little uncomfortable... would you agree?