Some Words From the Mod

They are not:

• a difference of opinion.

• a difference of interpretation of facts.

For example, I am a Republican in more or less the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. My father (who grew up on a farm during the Depression) is a New Deal Democrat. We have differences of opinion and interpretations of facts. Neither one of us thinks the other is a liar.


Slander (from the American Heritage Dictionary):

• Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
• A false and malicious statement or report about a person.

Further, Slander is verbal\oral. Libel involves defamation in other forms of communication, for example: the written word, images, or here on the Board.

So, Slander is not:

• Asking for proof of a statement.
• Asking how an opinion was arrived at.
• Responding to a comment based on a poster's previous posts on the same or other relevant threads.

Please consider this from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

In my experience, truth like chlorine bleach is the best for dealing with the stain of libel or slander.

 

The following is not up for debate or discussion. The temperature of this forum will be lowered by all sides of these issues.

It would do all well to remember forests of trees and bajillions of electrons have given their lives to this debate. So, writing that the opposing side are a bunch of (politely said) heretical apposates will not change anyones' opinion or beliefs.

 

FYI, don't be afraid of reporting a post from either direction. I view my job in the same light as them speaker of the House of Commons. Further, as the topic has little interest to me, I won't be reading all posts. So, letting me know early on in a thread you have a question about is a good thing.

 

If y'all haven't figured it out by now, the chances (I speak as a man) are pretty good; nobody is going to really change anybody else's basic position. The best that writers can hope for is a clarification of certain points. Neither side should expect nor should they become exasperated when nobody crosses the aisle.

 

Why the mysterious closed threads?

I'm giveing over three page threads at least 12 hours without a new post and most of the time 24 hours before closing it. Why? From what I've seen long threads wander from the OP and tend to raise the tempurature of the rhetoric. Three pages is not a hard limit; it's only after that that I keep an eye on the clock. Threads closed on this basis are closed without prejudice. So, feel free to pen up a new on on the same topic. If nothing else, it means readers won't have to slog through 123 posts.

 

Tonight, I closed 2 "Yes or no have you stopped beating your wife?" threads. By this, I mean threads which put respondents from the opposite side of the aisle into an unwarrented bind.

 

From now on I will view remarks like:

as hitting. I will be handing out infractions accordingly.

 

This is not the place to make accusations, in particular about trolling and multiple accounts on this Board.
If you feel the need to accuse somepne report the post. You will be asked for evidence beyond a mere assusation.

 

For those interested RipponWV\satuneptune has been banned from Baptist Board.

 

Bumpty, bump, bump.

 

Please read and head from the Posting Rules:

This applies to all sides of a question.

 

I trust you've noticed I have adapted this position.
Now, I don't start to be concerned until a thread gets 100 posts. And I don't take any action until there's been no activity for 24 hours.

 

I trust you've noticed I have adapted this position.
Now, I don't start to be concerned until a thread gets 100 posts. And I don't take any action until there's been no activity for 24 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squire Robertsson
I'm giving over three page threads at least 12 hours without a new post and most of the time 24 hours before closing it. Why? From what I've seen long threads wander from the OP and tend to raise the tempurature of the rhetoric. Three pages is not a hard limit; it's only after that that I keep an eye on the clock. Threads closed on this basis are closed without prejudice. So, feel free to pen up a new on on the same topic. If nothing else, it means readers won't have to slog through 123 posts.

 

It has come to my attention, that some here are taking offense with DHK for his remarks on a thread and with me by extension.

1. Just because DHK is a Mod he doesn't get a pass. He doesn't mod this forum so he's just another member to me.
2. His position is not unique. He does not take a full on Calvinist postion and that offends some here.

 

For What It's Worth,

• I do not monitor this forum 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Please keep this in mind when bringing a post to my attention. Consequently, don't expect an instantaneous response.
• I live in the Pacific Time Zone. So, please give me some time in the morning to respond to a reported post. In Other Words, if you are in the Eastern Time Zone and you report a post at 9am local time, that's 6am for me. I probably won't even see your report until 9am my time which would be 12pm Eastern (a seeming 3 hour delay).
• I have minimal interest in debating the subjects under discussion in this Forum. So, I do not track each and very thread or post, in real time.
• Please save me some time, don't quote a post you report. I really don't want to delete the reported post and the posts quoting it.

 

From another thread, some more definitions.

TCassidy replied:
"What is commonly (but wrongly) called "Calvinism" can be divided into several categories.

1. Hyper-Calvinism believes God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only be preached to the elect. Anti-missionary. Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation. Supralapsarian.​

2. Ultra High Calvinism believes that the elect are in some sense eternally justified. They deny the common call of the Gospel, Common Grace, and God having any love for the non-elect.​

3. High Calvinism believes that God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the legitimate Gospel offer. Supralapsarian​

4. Calvinism believes that God does, in some sense, desire to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian. Accepts, in some form, Common Grace.​

5. Low Calvinism believes that Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the legitimate Gospel offer and Common Grace.​

Quoted from Rev Jonathan James Goundry.

I would, for the most part, be a 4, but also accept that Christ died for all, but not necessarily in a legal sense. More likely in a practical sense so He can bless the lost with Common Grace of the former and latter rains, etc."

 

In the spirit of Colossians 4:6

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

This admonition goes for all sides.