How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, I just want you to know I continue to be totally devoted to you and your concept of this board.

Amen, and amen.

THANK YOU, HARMONY! Yet another reason why I love you so much. :-)

Shades is obviously not overly concerned with the fact that Kevin's behavior drives you and others to distraction.

That's right. Considering all the PMs I've received over the past year and a half, it's safe to say that everybody bothers somebody.

Shades might naturally be sympathetic with Kevin, but given the fact that he doesn't rein in Coggins7, rcrocket, and other posters who litter this board, Shades is not being especially egregious in not taking Kevin to task.

YES!! You just hit the nail on the head!! Thank you!

Now, marg, although I know that you've already expressed the concern that this is the Celestial Forum and therefore should be held to a higher standard than what takes place in the "lower" forums that Coggins7, rcrocket, etc. inhabit, let me also say that, at the end of the day, Kevin is very knowledgeable about the topics he argues. He debates from a position of knowledge and study, not ignorance. That alone goes a long way toward qualifying his posts as worthy of the Celestial Forum. Were he to just throw out the comments about which you complain without bringing anything else to the table, then you'd be right about everything you've been saying.

I didn't focus on Kevin, my focus was always on moderation. . . And if this thread is truly all about improving the Celestial, making it a place for productive discussions, then what Shades should be focussing on is not us, we were not the problem, he should be focussing on curtailing ad homs.

If your complaints aren't about Kevin, then who is the one--or who are the ones--making the ad hominems that you say should be curtailed?

[_marg]

2. JAK did misrepresent the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. When it was pointed out to him that he was in error, he did
ignore the correction.

I already acknowledged that Jersey Girl, in that thread. This thread though isn't about "immaculate conception" nor is it about whether or not JAK understood it.

[_marg]

Now, marg, although I know that you've already expressed the concern that this is the Celestial Forum and therefore should be held to a higher standard than what takes place in the "lower" forums that Coggins7, rcrocket, etc. inhabit, let me also say that, at the end of the day, Kevin is very knowledgeable about the topics he argues. He debates from a position of knowledge and study, not ignorance. That alone goes a long way toward qualifying his posts as worthy of the Celestial Forum. Were he to just throw out the comments about which you complain without bringing anything else to the table, then you'd be right about everything you've been saying.

I could say lots about how Kevin argues and his knowledge level, but I appreciate I'd then end up going off on a tangent regarding him and I'd rather spend my time doing something else.

I didn't focus on Kevin, my focus was always on moderation. . . And if this thread is truly all about improving the Celestial, making it a place for productive discussions, then what Shades should be focussing on is not us, we were not the problem, he should be focussing on curtailing ad homs.

If your complaints aren't about Kevin, then who is the one--or who are the ones--making the ad hominems that you say should be curtailed?

Do you remember going into the thread "logic in theology and science" and taking out 2 words of JAK's after Moniker months after the fact pointed them out to you? I mentioned on the board that if you were going to moderate for that there was lots more from C.C. in the thread as well as a few from Gad. When you didn't respond on the board I pm'd you and pointed out the same information to you. You replied that if I gave you the information you'd look into it, and I replied back don't bother, it's over and done with , not worth it. From that point on I thought you were interested in fallacious ad homs. I know silly me. Then another thread developed in the Celestial, and in that thread I wrote a post pointing out that kevin was going over-board with regards to fall. ad homs and I asked mods to do something about it, I then pm'd you with that same message. by the way, at this point in time kevin was intent on harassing in the Terrestial, and I thought that the Celestial was a place he could be curtailed. But what did you do about it? You moved the thread. At which point I posted on the board that what you did, didn't do anything to curtail ad homs it only served to exasperate things. I believe I pm'd you with the same message. You agreed with me. In the first instance the excessive fall. ad homs were from C.C., a few from Gad. In the second instance at a time I thought you were interested in curtailing ad homs, because not only had you gone into a thread to take out a few words of JAKs, but you also appeared to be willing to look at that thread at my request, Kevin happened to be the one involved. It could have been anyone.

Now forward to Evidence for Jesus thread, I'm not complaining, JAK's not complaining, GoodK's not complaining, but it gets moved and it turns out that was suggested to Liz by Kevin. So once, again, the problem is exasperated not curtailed.

Now you set up this thread, on How to make the Celestial a better place. So what do you do? In your opening post, you essentially attack, claim we are all making mistakes and tell others to learn from it or something to that effect. Is your post to try to get people to argue honestly, to focus on topic? No it is not.
With regards to those mistakes you say we made which warranted a post and a sticky one at that, Kevin does not resort to direct offensive words in the Celestial on a frequent significant basis to warrant your mention of it as if it is a major problem, that suggestion to him was a joke, I wasn't focused on Kevin in pm's to you, it was on disagreeing with moving threads and wanting to know why the last one was moved, your interpreted that my focus was kevin, he was the one involved but not my main focus. As far as JAK goes, he didn't appreciate you wish him to lay off challenging religious assumptions. And, by the way, while I agree with you, out of etiquette to leave religious individuals to discuss to their heart's content without challenge of assumptions, that's not exactly the position of the board, apparently people don't want religious assumptions to be considered off limits.

So in answer to your question, who are the ones using ad homs, well in the thread logic and evidence, which is over and done with CC resorted to excessive use of fall. ad homs, Gad over did it, that is he didn't enter the thread to discuss the topic but rather to attack. Kevin of course is another culprit. Mickey in a post did as well. And so, if your interest is on how to improve the Celestial, ..rather than what you suggest in your opening post, a suggestion which would actually improve the Celestial, is a zero policy of ad homs for anyone who resorts to their use. If you have no interest in improving it, or it is just too much work, then obviously ignore my suggestion. But in the meantime your opening post is offensive and I take exception to it. I also take exception to your implication that I did something wrong in that thread.

[_marg]

You have an agenda Kevin and it's constant, I won't be responding to you.

Doesn't everyone have an agenda?

Even if its only a personal one made up of opinions we all have agendas.

And what is yours, with your post?

[_Bond...James Bond]

You have an agenda Kevin and it's constant, I won't be responding to you.

Doesn't everyone have an agenda?

Even if its only a personal one made up of opinions we all have agendas.

And what is yours, with your post?

Just to point out that everyone has an agenda. That's right. My agenda is pointing out that others have agendas.

[_Yoda]

I have purposely stayed out of this thread for the most part, hoping that after Shades made his wishes known that things would die down a bit.

Since that hasn't seemed to happen, I will clarify a couple of points.

First of all, Marg has accused me several times on this thread of showing favoritism toward Kevin on the "Evidence for Jesus" thread based on the fact that I was interested in using his message board.

This is patently UNTRUE. One request had NOTHING to do with the other. And, frankly, if I HAD moved the thread based on that, I would hope that Shades would remove my Mod status, because that would have been a completely unethical thing to do.

The string of events happened like this:

I had PM'd Kevin a while ago when he had mentioned he was back in the States. I asked him how long he was going to be here. Kevin responded to me, and, in his response PM, mentioned that things were getting heated on the "Evidence for Jesus" thread. He said that JAK had called him a liar, and that one of the Mods might want to think about moving the thread to Terrestrial based on overall tone.

Prior to Kevin's PM, there had been a discussion among the Mods about the overall tone of the thread. Shades had received several PM's, and Jersey Girl was also concerned. Jersey Girl did not feel comfortable making any type of moderation decision on that thread because she was heavily involved in the actual discussion.

The thread, at that point, was, I believe, about 8 pages long. I did NOT comb through the entire thread. Based on the PM from Kevin and the prior conversation that had existed among the Mods, I moved the thread.

Richard, who had originated the thread, requested it be moved back. I moved it back based on his request.

What I don't understand about all of this, Marg, is that this has been hashed and re-hashed. I admitted to you, God, and everyone, in a public setting, that I was perhaps hasty about moving the thread because I hadn't read all of it. I also clearly stated that I moved the thread based on PM's, one of them being from Kevin. None of this was covert! It has all been out in the open from the get-go!

As far as my asking Kevin to use his board----I was discouraged because of all of the fighting that had been happening on the board, and was looking for another outlet. I am a co-Site Administrator on Kevin's board, and have been, since its' inception. Yes, I approached Kevin about reactivating that message board as a courtesy. That request happened AT LEAST a week after the whole "Evidence for Jesus" fiasco occurred.

One had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

Do you really want to know what your mistake in all of this is, Marg? It is in your incessant need to argue your "rightness" to the point of no return.

You got what you wanted. The thread was moved back.

As far as Shades' current requests about making the Celestial Forum better...the bottom line is this. Shades is the owner of this board. He has the right to create and enforce rules to the board as he sees fit.

Either abide by them, or find a new sandbox to play in.

[_marg]

And what is yours, with your post?

Just to point out that everyone has an agenda. That's right. My agenda is pointing out that others have agendas.

No your agenda is not just to point out that everyone has an agenda, you pointed out the obvious something which did not need to be said. Your real agenda if you are going to be honest, was to challenge my address to Kevin, to be a pain in the 'you know what' to me. My address was to Kevin not tp you or anyone else, I can either ignore his post or I can let him know I won't be responding, I chose the latter. And I'm fairly certain he would understand what I mean by "his agenda" and if by chance he doesn't he can always ask.

You want me to spell it out for you? I won't respond to him when his posts are attacks or for harrassment purposes.

[_marg]

Either abide by them, or find a new sandbox to play in.

Why don't you play somewhere else Liz, if you don't like my posts. Why are you complaining in this thread?

And just what am I supposed to abide by Liz? I've written a post and explained my focus was never on Kevin, it was the moderation of moving threads. I find Shade's opening post does nothing to raise the level of the Celestial, it is an attack post, unwarranted. I find it offensive and I take exception to it. You have a problem with me voicing that, tough.

[_Bond...James Bond]

No your agenda is not just to point out that everyone has an agenda, you pointed out the obvious something which did not need to be said. Your real agenda if you are going to be honest, was to challenge my address to Kevin, to be a pain in the 'you know what' to me.

Well you'd know. Being a similar pain to everyone on this board.

[_marg]

Well you'd know. Being a similar pain to everyone on this board.

Thanks, Bond so now you are being honest with your agenda in this thread. You've been talking with Liz by the way, in pm's about this thread and complaining about it by any chance? Why play dishonest games and pretend your post was just an innocent one, about pointing out everyone has an agenda.

You see this is the problem with the Celestial, people can and do focus on harassment, it is ad hominem when they do and fallacious when off-topic. Harassment is as much an ad hominem and just as offensive often times even more so, plus a deterrent to good discussion, not to mention time wasting than just a few offensive direct words like stupid or idiot, which by the way are rare in the Celestial anyhow.

Of course this thread Shades started was set up as ad hom to start with.