Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
.
|
Don,
I closed your thread on
1 Corinthians 11 and your Instinct View for a reason. That reason was as follows: you spammed your own thread with pages and pages and pages and pages of rehashed material.
Thx for providing this as an explanation.
Perhaps your use of the word 'spammed' isn't the right word to use. But regardless, I would not deny that much material presented was re-hashed. By re-hashed I mean I re-presented by re-wording the same points. I did so purposely: sometimes thoughts not caught are not because of the wording, which any re-wording may then overcome. This was my reasoning behind re-hashing.
I was not aware that this rehashing violated any AFF rule which would result in the closing of a thread. Am I mistaken to believe there is no such rule?
Plz do not think my asking represents a challenge to your authority. It doesn't. I only seek clarification. You characterize me as a rule breaker and I don't see the rule.
You then immediately proceeded to create another thread about
Romans 14, but used your Instinct View as the basis for the discussion. I let it slide, but before long, it was clear, no matter how much you insisted the thread was about something else, it ended up being about your Instinct View.
This is your interpretation of why I had opened the Discrepancy in Church Practice thread. Your interpretation does not represent my explanation. You have the ability to believe what you want to believe about my motivations, even if they are wrong.
Now, you have completely highjacked someone else's thread
I fail to see how what I did would be classified as 'complete hijacking'. I was just providing comments on the topic. to continue teaching your Instinct View, when the thread in question, while dealing with the same NT passage, is quite different in scope and purpose. You even admitted to high-jacking the thread to try and teach something about baptism on page #1, so you know you know you are doing it.
In my defence: I would agree that comments about water baptism did not fit the thread, though appropriate as a response to Dom in post 3, where he was the first to mention off-topic 'baptism'. I responded, noting that they were off-topic, and kept the comments short for this reason. We both were off-topic, wouldn't you agree?
I remember Esaias and Dom going on about boxing/gyms in a thread not at all about either and no one said boo about it then. Apparently then, every occurrence of going off-topic does not warrant censure.
And I have trouble forgetting that your asking, votivesoul, for personal info about me in post 113 of Discrepancy in Church Practice was also quite far off-topic. Yet, here we are, me getting censured when others aren't. Double standards are poking up here and there.
And my response to this as an Admin is this:
You are hereby censured from further discussing your Instinct View in this thread. If you bring it up again, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you. If you make a new thread to discuss your Instinct View of
1 Corinthians 11:1-16, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you.
I will comply. I must. For, I am a guest in AFF and a benefitter of others' generosity in their purchase of its service. I had assumed I had the same rights as other members. And will note that what you've said is seen by me to be censorship, singling out myself or this topic, as unfit for Bible discussion. Is it too much to ask for an explanation as to why? Readers will want to know why also. From you, giving an explanation would also be a teaching-session, so all can do it better the next time.
This is your only warning. If you want people to be able to read about your Instinct View, you can put the link for either your Google Docs or the thread you started in your profile as a signature.
Compassionate advice! Thank you for this gracious gesture.
Otherwise, no more. If you cannot live within the boundaries of this rebuke, say so now, and I will relieve you of your membership. If you want to make an appeal, send it to me via PM.
Could it be asked for here? Almost every other detail is out in the open here.
To other members, please refrain from engaging with Don about his Instinct View in this thread. Please keep it on topic.
PS. I also expect you to publicly apologize to Costeon in this thread, for high-jacking it.
Costeon has expressed z-e-r-o indication of displeasure of my comments in his thread. Do you have communication from him indicating this need to apologize? Why have you taken this unusual step, seemingly doing so but not as his authorized agent? What gives? What provides motivation for doing so since he has expressed no displeasure with my comments?
votivesoul, you are an admin with admin powers. If you are the only admin then no one will challenge your role or any abuse of powers should you do so. Our hopes, my presumed speaking for all posters, is that you will not abuse your extensive powers, but use them justly.
I can't help being suspicious of your motivation for this censure, while saying it is entirely possible for me to be wrong. I can't read your mind. We talk of Bible doctrine, as one Apostolic to another, but I suspect your distaste for my presentation of evidence, which disqualifies a view long held by you, is the reason behind this censure. I say this in hopes you will contradict my thoughts and show my suspicions wrong, leading me to the true understanding.
Threaded Mode
