RW did something that warranted Admin intervention but it is getting clouded. This is not a case where a liberal has been silenced for being a liberal. This isn’t a case of someone saying something that the majority disagrees with and thus shuts down decent.
What RW did was make a personal attack against a fellow member of this board. That is all that matters. We don’t do that here. Beyond that, RW was called on it, given ample opportunity to amend and revise his statements and he didn’t. DanielA in fact, provided him a clear blueprint of how to both stand by his belief, and at the same time clarify the position by removing the personal nature of the challenge. Again, RW chose not to do so.
DanielA and Sheltidad, have both made comments in this thread that were both contrary to the majority and skeptical of the nature of the issue being discussed. BOTH were able to do this without a personal affront to the 2 ministers in question. Neither of them have received so much as a warning, nor should they.
I would like to see RW reached out to for the purpose of getting clarity on what the perception here is and giving him a chance to make things right. Banning while warranted, in this case, isn’t the thing that fixes the situation. Fixing it in my honest opinion is far more appropriate than simply being banned. Like Coonskinner, I believe there are much more important underlying issues here.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
perhaps you'd rather explain how you can say he DIDNT say something, he CLEARLY said...
he didnt say "I have a clearly defined sense of LOGIC" - he said "I HAVE A GOD GIVEN GIFT OF DISCERNMENT" AND HE ALSO SAID HE DIDNT BELIEVE THE PREACHER AND HAD DOUBTS ABOUT THE FIRST POST.
now Daniel, put a spin on the mans words...even YOU are smart enough to correctly interpret written word.....
Thank you for pointing this out also.
RW is wrong here, and Daniel obviously has an agenda or he would not continue to defend and try to spin away the clear statements the man made.
RW did something that warranted Admin intervention but it is getting clouded. This is not a case where a liberal has been silenced for being a liberal. This isn’t a case of someone saying something that the majority disagrees with and thus shuts down decent.
What RW did was make a personal attack against a fellow member of this board. That is all that matters. We don’t do that here. Beyond that, RW was called on it, given ample opportunity to amend and revise his statements and he didn’t. DanielA in fact, provided him a clear blueprint of how to both stand by his belief, and at the same time clarify the position by removing the personal nature of the challenge. Again, RW chose not to do so.
DanielA and Sheltidad, have both made comments in this thread that were both contrary to the majority and skeptical of the nature of the issue being discussed. BOTH were able to do this without a personal affront to the 2 ministers in question. Neither of them have received so much as a warning, nor should they.
I would like to see RW reached out to for the purpose of getting clarity on what the perception here is and giving him a chance to make things right. Banning while warranted, in this case, isn’t the thing that fixes the situation. Fixing it in my honest opinion is far more appropriate than simply being banned. Like Coonskinner, I believe there are much more important underlying issues here.
RW did something that warranted Admin intervention but it is getting clouded. This is not a case where a liberal has been silenced for being a liberal. This isn’t a case of someone saying something that the majority disagrees with and thus shuts down decent.
What RW did was make a personal attack against a fellow member of this board. That is all that matters. We don’t do that here. Beyond that, RW was called on it, given ample opportunity to amend and revise his statements and he didn’t. DanielA in fact, provided him a clear blueprint of how to both stand by his belief, and at the same time clarify the position by removing the personal nature of the challenge. Again, RW chose not to do so.
DanielA and Sheltidad, have both made comments in this thread that were both contrary to the majority and skeptical of the nature of the issue being discussed. BOTH were able to do this without a personal affront to the 2 ministers in question. Neither of them have received so much as a warning, nor should they.
I would like to see RW reached out to for the purpose of getting clarity on what the perception here is and giving him a chance to make things right. Banning while warranted, in this case, isn’t the thing that fixes the situation. Fixing it in my honest opinion is far more appropriate than simply being banned. Like Coonskinner, I believe there are much more important underlying issues here.
Excellent post, Ferd.
For the record, my desire was not for anyone to be banned, but rather for admin to weigh in on the issue at hand with a clear statement that such personal attacks would not be allowed.
the more I read, the more I think Dan might have spoken some truth here...
It is becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend how an intelligent person like Daniel can, with a straight face, continue to doggedly insist that RW didn't say what he very clearl said.
Logic ... at leat the kind of discernment he claims to have is evident ... never stating is a gift of the Spirit ... he explains what he thinks could be operating. Example:
Quote:
When a MAJOR tragedy happens and someone seems to magically "know" what happened, what I find more amazing then the "word of knowledge" is the fact that the guy didn't know about the tragedy ahead of time! Something as big as that impresses me about as much as someone who says "and the next card you pull from the top will be the queen of diamonds" -after being given a minute to rifle through the deck and see what order they were in. But as long as the prediction is made with authority, volume, and in a scary voice, the crowds "oooohhhhhhhssss!" at the wonderment of it all. Most are afraid to even question the validity for fear of committing blasphemy. In fact the one making the statements is protected by a house of logic that precludes the possibility of questioning.
DanielA, you have made a VERY clear and articulate argument that RW could at any point in time, taken to be his own in such a way as to both maintain his skeptisim and un-cross the personal nature of the line he crossed.
the telling thing here is that RW did NOT step up and use the path YOU provided to fix this.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Sorry.... I made the last post minutes before leaving the house and haven't gotten back on the computer till this afternoon. NOW I am leaving for the store for an hour or so and will be back a bit later.
But in the meantime there are MANY gifts of the spirit. One that I have been given (and it is as much of a curse as it is a blessing) is the gift of discernment. It is a gift that ranks right up there with "patience" when it comes to the pain of constantly being tested. Oh, how I would LOVE to be able to fall into emotional extacy over everything that cannot be immediately explained and not have little things like this bother me.... But they do.
When a MAJOR tragedy happens and someone seems to magically "know" what happened, what I find more amazing then the "word of knowledge" is the fact that the guy didn't know about the tragedy ahead of time! Something as big as that impresses me about as much as someone who says "and the next card you pull from the top will be the queen of diamonds" -after being given a minute to rifle through the deck and see what order they were in. But as long as the prediction is made with authority, volume, and in a scary voice, the crowds "oooohhhhhhhssss!" at the wonderment of it all. Most are afraid to even question the validity for fear of committing blasphemy. In fact the one making the statements is protected by a house of logic that precludes the possibility of questioning.
Again, I haven't read any of the posts since making my last and really need to run for a bit but I suspect I am in the extreme minority here, but be that as it may I sense something in Denmark and it ain't pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
TSK ... TSK ...
Logic ... at leat the kind of discernment he claims to have is evident ... never stating is a gift of the Spirit ... he explains what he thinks could be operating. Example:
Daniel, please tell me how you can say he NEVER said what he plainly DID say??
Logic ... at leat the kind of discernment he claims to have is evident ... never stating is a gift of the Spirit ... he explains what he thinks could be operating. Example:
This tactic is evident to anyone with a few functoning brain cells.
It is the tactic that says if you keep persistently repeating even a wrong statement often enough, eventually people will buy it.
Well, we aren't.
Read his words:
"...there are MANY gifts of the spirit. One that I have been given (and it is as much of a curse as it is a blessing) is the gift of discernment..."
Everyone can use logic.
He is claiming the operation of a gift of the Spirit that he, RW, has been given.
This is as plain as the nose on your face, no matter how many times you try and spin it.
Linear Mode
