A New We Community

[PaladinValer]

Indulge me, please, just for a few minutes.

Drop the Is please: the I hurt, the I am confused, the I am leaving, even the I am staying.

STR never truly was much of a community in the last one to one and a half years. We had people trying to schism the forum, we had people bash-festing TEC while ignoring the ACoC, we had people just post a few links and then walk away, etc. On the other hand, we also had people thinking that the actions of certain provinces should never be questioned and we had people who thought so little of the Anglican Church that they didn't care anymore what the future held.

Evidence?

Where is AveMaria?
Where is September (except all so recently)?
Where is everyone else? Go back; you'll see their names; former regulars now gone
Where are our old Old Catholic friends? RevSmith? Even FatherRick. We welcomed them in open arms, and they receive a feud. Great welcome!So I suppse it is very easy to say "I" instead of "we" since this place was never really unified, and I dare someone to say that it was. Years ago when pmcleanj was staff here, I asked her if a intraSTR council could be formed, to which fell right through the cracks. I blame no one for that except perhaps a general lack of interest for such an idea, even though Pam seemed to think it a good idea. I wanted a we community; a place where we could work out differences. It was a no go.

However, and this will never change, I am still of the early STR mindset. My heart is still in the origins of STR, where liberal and conservative, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical, and high church and low church actually got along. I got along with pmcleanj. I got along with SirTimothy. I got along with tomuea (remember that, TomUK?). I differed with each of these three, but we got along. I still consider them good aquaintances, despite our differences. And I'm sure there are other Is that can join me to make a we out of all those Is.

That is the STR that I/we hope and pray will return. We who will stay, I hope and pray, will revitalize STR and return her to her shining past self. We will do God's work here. We will increase the fold.

Now if some of you Is wish to leave because it is God's Calling, peace be with you and with your spirit; please come back when you wish, and we'll welcome you back, I'm sure with Pam's cookies and my always imaginative fictional gifts like private islands, world cruises, and complete libraries of patristics. But if you are going to leave, just say so and depart in peace. I for one honestly wish those who leave peace, goodwill, fortune, and grace.

However, and I think I speak for those who wish to stay, if you want to stay, then let's actually invoke the spirit of STR's glory days and bring it back. Here's a fresh start. Brand new canvas. STR's been baptized. Pick whatever imagry you want. You want the chance to truly minister? There is nothing more ministerly like starting something from stratch again.

As you all may have guessed by now, I am staying, and I'd like to know who else is going to as well. Who are the we people here? Who here is willing to form a we community? STR will never be the same, nor will CF. But instead of complaining about what has been lost, how about we look to the new opportunity that lies before us?

I'm a we person, and we are staying. Who else is a part of we? Give me a we!

[Secundulus]

However, and I think I speak for those who wish to stay, if you want to stay, then let's actually invoke the spirit of STR's glory days and bring it back. Here's a fresh start. Brand new canvas. STR's been baptized. Pick whatever imagry you want. You want the chance to truly minister? There is nothing more ministerly like starting something from stratch again.

From a new guy's perspective: In the words of the earliest Christians,

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

[PaladinValer]

Amen! I assume that you're a we? :)

[Secundulus]

Amen! I assume that you're a we? :)

I am a we.

[PaladinValer]

Then let's wii :P

[TomUK]

There once was an Englishman , an Irishman and a Scotsman. One day the three men stumbled upon a magic slide and there were told that whatever they wished for as they were sliding down the slide would be granted to them. The englishman went down and said gold! and got some gold. The Irishman said silver and the irish man got some silver. Unfortunately the Scotsman got a little carried away with the experience and simply shouted out WEEEEEE....

[PaladinValer]

:D

I assume that's our third we? Excellent! :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Of course, I am a we. :)

[PaladinValer]

Wha-hoo! Our first broad-churcher we! Three cheers! :clap: :clap: :clap:

:thumbsup: Karen! :amen:

[No Swansong]

I am a we kind of person that is why I am leaving.

[TomUK]

I'm sorry to say this John but i'm going to have to put my foot down here. You are most definitely not leaving. Myself and the rest of STR will simply not allow it!

[longhair75]

I will not be leaving. I have always been a "we" type of person.

I stand firmly with STR and all of our factions. I am sad to see anyone leave.

[PaladinValer]

Numbers keep growing and growing! :clap:

[ChaliceThunder]

I is a we.
PV - thank you!
:hug:

[Colabomb]

I am a we person, that is why I am angry.

Brother, the only unity we are offered is unity WITH EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD.

Catholics and atheists, and Pentecostals, and Mormons will be free to debate Anglicanism.

We is out the window. We are all now one big happy body with no barriers.

It sounds great until its actually put into practice.

[PaladinValer]

Cola, I would appreciate it if you did not disrupt my thread.

The old rules are not dead yet plus it sounds like STR will be allowed to vote on its own rules.

That being said, please do not prove my initial post correct. If you are a we as defined by my above, then that is wonderful. Otherwise, peace, goodwill, and a safe journey, but please do not leave mud on the floor before you depart.

[No Swansong]

There is no personal "ownership" of threads. It is not "Yours".

[LivingWordUnity]

There is no personal "ownership" of threads. It is not "Yours".That wasn't the attitude that you had when I posted in the thread that you started.

[No Swansong]

That wasn't the attitude that you had when I posted in the thread that you started.
Your right it wasn't

[PaladinValer]

Forgive me, but the new policy is not quite yet in effect.

And under the still-current policy, I believe I have the right, as the OP of this thread, to have a say in how I would like it conducted. If I were to ask people not to debate in it, and someone were to, according to the still-current rules, I have every right to appeal to staff and ask them to stop the person for disrupting the thread if they do not stop after I ask. It is rule 2.8, and since these rules are still in effect, and since I am very sure that specific one will be carried over, I ask that people respect my direction of this thread.

I realize that you are extremely upset by the new policy. I have my own reservations, because as much as I see potential gains, I see a lot of potential grevious and potent problems. My questions I asked of Erwin were not yet asked. However, I am going to give it a go and see what happens, and so have the others in STR who have responded positively to this thread.

Like I said, if you wish to depart, go in peace and I wish you all the best. However, do not make it more difficult, please, for those who choose to stay.

[No Swansong]

Forgive me, but the new policy is not quite yet in effect.

And under the still-current policy, I believe I have the right, as the OP of this thread, to have a say in how I would like it conducted. If I were to ask people not to debate in it, and someone were to, according to the still-current rules, I have every right to appeal to staff and ask them to stop the person for disrupting the thread if they do not stop after I ask. It is rule 2.8, and since these rules are still in effect, and since I am very sure that specific one will be carried over, I ask that people respect my direction of this thread.

I realize that you are extremely upset by the new policy. I have my own reservations, because as much as I see potential gains, I see a lot of potential grevious and potent problems. My questions I asked of Erwin were not yet asked. However, I am going to give it a go and see what happens, and so have the others in STR who have responded positively to this thread.

Like I said, if you wish to depart, go in peace and I wish you all the best. However, do not make it more difficult, please, for those who choose to stay.
Actually you have never had that right. OP's have not ever owned threads. You can of course request it to be closed and you can report for off topic however Cola's post does not really seem to be off-topic. There are no rules in effect that grant ownership of threads as a matter of fact it was a topic of much staff conversation a while back and what was passed down to us is that Original Posters do not have special privileges in threads of any kind.

[bellantara]

Ummmm. . . .not to interrupt the argument, but I would like to be a We! :)

[PaladinValer]

Wonderful! Glad you interrupted the digression anyway :)

[bellantara]

My opinion is the same as that of Dr. Benjamin Franklin after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when someone observed that "We must all hang together now." Dr. Franklin's response? "Indeed, we must hang together else we shall all hang separately." :wink:

It seems to me that it is very difficult to defend the Church from outside attacks when we attack each other.

[PaladinValer]

Iowa, if you want to reply, please do so! (I see you peeking there ;))

[Aymn27]

Indulge me, please, just for a few minutes.

Drop the Is please: the I hurt, the I am confused, the I am leaving, even the I am staying.

STR never truly was much of a community in the last one to one and a half years. We had people trying to schism the forum, we had people bash-festing TEC while ignoring the ACoC, we had people just post a few links and then walk away, etc. On the other hand, we also had people thinking that the actions of certain provinces should never be questioned and we had people who thought so little of the Anglican Church that they didn't care anymore what the future held.

Evidence?

Where is AveMaria?
Where is September (except all so recently)?
Where is everyone else? Go back; you'll see their names; former regulars now gone
Where are our old Old Catholic friends? RevSmith? Even FatherRick. We welcomed them in open arms, and they receive a feud. Great welcome!So I suppse it is very easy to say "I" instead of "we" since this place was never really unified, and I dare someone to say that it was. Years ago when pmcleanj was staff here, I asked her if a intraSTR council could be formed, to which fell right through the cracks. I blame no one for that except perhaps a general lack of interest for such an idea, even though Pam seemed to think it a good idea. I wanted a we community; a place where we could work out differences. It was a no go.

However, and this will never change, I am still of the early STR mindset. My heart is still in the origins of STR, where liberal and conservative, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical, and high church and low church actually got along. I got along with pmcleanj. I got along with SirTimothy. I got along with tomuea (remember that, TomUK?). I differed with each of these three, but we got along. I still consider them good aquaintances, despite our differences. And I'm sure there are other Is that can join me to make a we out of all those Is.

That is the STR that I/we hope and pray will return. We who will stay, I hope and pray, will revitalize STR and return her to her shining past self. We will do God's work here. We will increase the fold.

Now if some of you Is wish to leave because it is God's Calling, peace be with you and with your spirit; please come back when you wish, and we'll welcome you back, I'm sure with Pam's cookies and my always imaginative fictional gifts like private islands, world cruises, and complete libraries of patristics. But if you are going to leave, just say so and depart in peace. I for one honestly wish those who leave peace, goodwill, fortune, and grace.

However, and I think I speak for those who wish to stay, if you want to stay, then let's actually invoke the spirit of STR's glory days and bring it back. Here's a fresh start. Brand new canvas. STR's been baptized. Pick whatever imagry you want. You want the chance to truly minister? There is nothing more ministerly like starting something from stratch again.

As you all may have guessed by now, I am staying, and I'd like to know who else is going to as well. Who are the we people here? Who here is willing to form a we community? STR will never be the same, nor will CF. But instead of complaining about what has been lost, how about we look to the new opportunity that lies before us?

I'm a we person, and we are staying. Who else is a part of we? Give me a we!
You sure use a lot of "I's" in a "we" proposal....

I will be a "we", when "we" reflect an Anglicanism that is faithful to the faith once delievered...

PS - the "glory days" posts are tiring- all stripes of folks have left..move on...

[PaladinValer]

You are in the minority so far, Aymn32.

[Aymn27]

You are in the minority so far, Aymn32.
awesome - that's exactly where Jesus was Palinunderwear...(lol...what's up with 32? I'm 34 or properly 27)...

[PaladinValer]

And when did you decide to take it upon yourself to "plan" everything?

That's an I. Everyone here who have positively acknowledged my call is a we.

And votes matter now in CF, don't forget. We want to work out STR together; you've simply decided to call shot ("Conservative Anglican Subforum! Come on down! Let's schism this place up!") in, I dare say, the reason why STR went right down the tubes.

We want to avoid that mistake this time.

[ProdigalSeeker]

I'm still the new guy... but the Lutheran forum seems to be ok with the elca and the missouri synod. In fact, the problems start when one "crosses" over in to the other.

[Aymn27]

And when did you decide to take it upon yourself to "plan" everything?

That's an I. Everyone here who have positively acknowledged my call is a we.

And votes matter now in CF, don't forget. We want to work out STR together; you've simply decided to call shot ("Conservative Anglican Subforum! Come on down! Let's schism this place up!") in, I dare say, the reason why STR went right down the tubes.

We want to avoid that mistake this time.
Your message is muddlled...lay off the koolaid dude :P

"I" have said for some time now that "I" am NOT in communion with a number of "you and/or we" here in STR because of "your" stance on certain issues - however this forum is designed to accept a large swash of Anglicans and Old Catholics...."I" am not sure what "your" vision of STR is for the future - but be assured that "I" will NOT sell my beliefs and convictions for "your" version of Anglicanism. If "you" don't like the idea of a subform, fine, "I" could care less...but don't expect things to go "your" way because the rules are changing..."we" (as in us conservatives who will not bow to the homoerotic/unitarian agenda) are as much Anglican as "you" are....comprend?

[PaladinValer]

"I" have said for some time now that "I" am NOT in communion with a number of "you and/or we" here in STR because of "your" stance on certain issues

I think it is then very clear that you do not have an interest in working as a we then, do I get you correctly? You wish to disrupt preemptively any new unity that we might wish to enjoy, correct?

If yes to even one of those, I'm sure many here will take that under consideration.

however this forum is designed to accept a large swash of Anglicans and Old Catholics...."I" am not sure what "your" vision of STR is for the future - but be assured that "I" will NOT sell my beliefs and convictions for "your" version of Anglicanism.

Then perhaps you should ask for an entirely new congregational forum, since you have completely contradicted yourself.

And it isn't what I want but what we want. That's something you need to understand.

If "you" don't like the idea of a subform, fine, "I" could care less...but don't expect things to go "your" way because the rules are changing..."we" (as in us conservatives who will not bow to the homoerotic/unitarian agenda) are as much Anglican as "you" are....comprend?

Like you said before, a lot of the conservatives were against your idea initially. Many of them have already said they aren't even planning to stay. And with the return of many who will more than likely be rather opposed to that idea, I don't think that your idea is of the majority's liking, especially since the wes here have want to work together, not make preemptive moves and motions. We don't want to be rash; we want to think carefully and work together as a cohesive unity of democracy. That is, after all, what the new policy is about.

Let me put it this way: we put it to a vote, and your idea is rejected. What will you do then?

[Aymn27]

I'm still the new guy... but the Lutheran forum seems to be ok with the elca and the missouri synod. In fact, the problems start when one "crosses" over in to the other.
sigh...yes, inclusive folks just aren't inclusive anymore..:)

Hey...that holden village thing looks awesome..will you be staffing?

[AveMaria]

Oui!

[PaladinValer]

AveMaria's back! :clap: :clap: :clap:

**Points his wand at her**

Immobulous!

Now you cannot leave! :P

[ProdigalSeeker]

Yepper. Going to be washing dishes for Jesus.

Hey got a joke for y'all... How do christians multiply? By dividing. (separate forums) ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[ProdigalSeeker]

AveMaria... where did you get that avatar? Too cool.

[AveMaria]

Uhoh. I seem to be stuck.

Just don't expect me to do a Patronus charm until I've had some chocolate.

[Colabomb]

Seems to me that paladin is setting up an Us Vs them situation.

Ironic really, as that is what we are accused of.

[ProdigalSeeker]

It takes both conservatives and liberals, working in unity, to make something work the way it's supposed to. Take a flower. It requires both the sun and the rain. While somethings in life are truly us vs. them, I truly hope this can be an us and them situation-- even it is separate forums.

[Colabomb]

YOu know what paladin, I'll lay it down for you.

We had the best unity we were ever going to get. Frankly Most of us were fairly happy with the way it was. We respectfully disagreed. We, the mod team, did a good job of making sure that everyone here acted civilly to one another.

And now, after Erwin breaks a perfectly good system, you are all "WE"ey.

Where was WE, when in the Creationist thread, you were tearing down and mocking creationism as stupid. Where were WE, when you and Glen push the boundaries of the rules by calling evangelicals essentially watered down Christians?

It seems to me that you want a forum made in your own image, rather than a true working unity, which is what we had.

[Colabomb]

Frankly I'll be honest, I have been personally disgusted at the way our Brother AV 1611 has been treated on this board. I have sent him Personal messages of encouragement in the past because of how he was hounded.

Think about that before you go on your high and mighty WE kick.

[Aymn27]

Ugh..just lost my page long response to PV...in short..I'm not retyping..not worth my time...

Any "we" that includes sodomy, etc does not include this "I"

If a seperate forum is what it takes - I'm there

For now..I still say an STR with a conservative and liberal subforum...

And Cola..you are spot on...that is the liberal way "We" only means "me" and those who agree with "me"..

[PaladinValer]

Seems to me that paladin is setting up an Us Vs them situation.

Ironic really, as that is what we are accused of.

I don't see a them. I see one person who seems to have decided to take matters into his own hands. All I've done is call out to see who wants to start afresh. I think there's a difference between the two.

YOu know what paladin, I'll lay it down for you.

We had the best unity we were ever going to get. Frankly Most of us were fairly happy with the way it was. We respectfully disagreed. We, the mod team, did a good job of making sure that everyone here acted civilly to one another.

Most? Why did so many leave then? They did it because they were not happy.

And why were so many unhappy that they tried to literally schism STR into two subforums? Everyone was unhappy: those who wanted to do it and those who were unhappy because of the mere thought.

So who is the most?

As for the mod teams, we in STR have had several mods come and go. And yes, I daresay they've all done a job to the best of their ability. However, what does that honestly have to do with what is being said here?

And now, after Erwin breaks a perfectly good system, you are all "WE"ey.

1. I'm glad you've recognized implicitly that I'm not the only one.
2. Take a look at those who have: you have conservatives, moderates, and liberals. You have Anglo-Catholics and Middle-of-the Roads. You have high churchers, low churchers, and broad churchers. That seems to nearly cover all the bases.
3. Read again my opening post. It is about starting STR afresh and to recall the days in which it truly was a friendly environment for all.
4. What do you think my opinion is of the change? What evidence do you have of my opinion of it? I could tell you, if you ask me to, what I think, and you might be surprised.

Where was WE, when in the Creationist thread, you were tearing down and mocking creationism as stupid.

I never said it was stupid. And even if I did, that isn't the same as calling the Creationist stupid. That was Glen using that word, not I. I don't think Creationism is stupid to be totally frank.

Where were WE, when you and Glen push the boundaries of the rules by calling evangelicals essentially watered down Christians?

Why don't you ask SirTimothy whether I think that actually?

It seems to me that you want a forum made in your own image, rather than a true working unity, which is what we had.

If I wanted to do that, I would be posting something like "Liberal Anglo-Catholic High-Church Episcopalian subforum." (Of course, I wouldn't want any subforums; its just an example of what I could do if I did want what you wrongly suggest me of) But no; I want to work this out democratically. I don't want any glory; I don't want any self-intiative. Otherwise, why would I invite people to say "we?"

[ProdigalSeeker]

Any "we" that includes sodomy, etc does not include this "I"

Uh uh... no way. Sodomy also entails heterosexual oral sex.... no way I am giving that up (next time I'm in a committed relationship of course).

While I agree with 2 forums, it would not be the conservative one (nothing wrong with you guys). I just don't want to feel like I am writing posts for people that are not even going to listen to my side (although I will miss the dissenting opinions). I am positive that conservatives feel the same way about me (neither lib or cons.) and liberals.

As for AV. He is one of the dissenting opinions. If I've done anything to mistreat him, my apologies. We are on two totally different pages (books?) when it comes to many issues. And, that's ok.

Because,
I'm good enough
I'm smart enough
And GOSH DARNIT-- CF Likes me!

[Aymn27]

Any "we" that includes sodomy, etc does not include this "I"

Uh uh... no way. Sodomy also entails heterosexual oral sex.... no way I am giving that up (next time I'm in a committed relationship of course).

While I agree with 2 forums, it would not be the conservative one (nothing wrong with you guys). I just don't want to feel like I am writing posts for people that are not even going to listen to my side (although I will miss the dissenting opinions). I am positive that conservatives feel the same way about me (neither lib or cons.) and liberals.

As for AV. He is one of the dissenting opinions. If I've done anything to mistreat him, my apologies. We are on two totally different pages (books?) when it comes to many issues. And, that's ok.

Because,
I'm good enough
I'm smart enough
And GOSH DARNIT-- CF Likes me!
Brother Prodigal,
I can certainly find room for discussion with you..always charitable, and usually jovial....thanks for the smiles...

btw - I was referring to sodomy in the "biblical" sense...and didn't wanna upset anyone with talk of anal sex (after all, Karen has a youngin on here)...

[ProdigalSeeker]

and didn't wanna upset anyone with talk of anal sex (after all, Karen has a youngin on here)...

Yet you just mentioned it... ^_^ ^_^ :swoon:

Oh Shoot! I just repeated it!!! AAARGH - Sorry Karen's young'in.

[Aymn27]

I don't see a them. I see one person who seems to have decided to take matters into his own hands. All I've done is call out to see who wants to start afresh. I think there's a difference between the two.



Most? Why did so many leave then? They did it because they were not happy.

And why were so many unhappy that they tried to literally schism STR into two subforums? Everyone was unhappy: those who wanted to do it and those who were unhappy because of the mere thought.

So who is the most?

As for the mod teams, we in STR have had several mods come and go. And yes, I daresay they've all done a job to the best of their ability. However, what does that honestly have to do with what is being said here?



1. I'm glad you've recognized implicitly that I'm not the only one.
2. Take a look at those who have: you have conservatives, moderates, and liberals. You have Anglo-Catholics and Middle-of-the Roads. You have high churchers, low churchers, and broad churchers. That seems to nearly cover all the bases.
3. Read again my opening post. It is about starting STR afresh and to recall the days in which it truly was a friendly environment for all.
4. What do you think my opinion is of the change? What evidence do you have of my opinion of it? I could tell you, if you ask me to, what I think, and you might be surprised.



I never said it was stupid. And even if I did, that isn't the same as calling the Creationist stupid. That was Glen using that word, not I. I don't think Creationism is stupid to be totally frank.



Why don't you ask SirTimothy whether I think that actually?



If I wanted to do that, I would be posting something like "Liberal Anglo-Catholic High-Church Episcopalian subforum." (Of course, I wouldn't want any subforums; its just an example of what I could do if I did want what you wrongly suggest me of) But no; I want to work this out democratically. I don't want any glory; I don't want any self-intiative. Otherwise, why would I invite people to say "we?"
deleted...

[Aymn27]

I don't see a them. I see one person who seems to have decided to take matters into his own hands. All I've done is call out to see who wants to start afresh. I think there's a difference between the two.



Most? Why did so many leave then? They did it because they were not happy.

And why were so many unhappy that they tried to literally schism STR into two subforums? Everyone was unhappy: those who wanted to do it and those who were unhappy because of the mere thought.

So who is the most?

As for the mod teams, we in STR have had several mods come and go. And yes, I daresay they've all done a job to the best of their ability. However, what does that honestly have to do with what is being said here?



1. I'm glad you've recognized implicitly that I'm not the only one.
2. Take a look at those who have: you have conservatives, moderates, and liberals. You have Anglo-Catholics and Middle-of-the Roads. You have high churchers, low churchers, and broad churchers. That seems to nearly cover all the bases.
3. Read again my opening post. It is about starting STR afresh and to recall the days in which it truly was a friendly environment for all.
4. What do you think my opinion is of the change? What evidence do you have of my opinion of it? I could tell you, if you ask me to, what I think, and you might be surprised.



I never said it was stupid. And even if I did, that isn't the same as calling the Creationist stupid. That was Glen using that word, not I. I don't think Creationism is stupid to be totally frank.



Why don't you ask SirTimothy whether I think that actually?



If I wanted to do that, I would be posting something like "Liberal Anglo-Catholic High-Church Episcopalian subforum." (Of course, I wouldn't want any subforums; its just an example of what I could do if I did want what you wrongly suggest me of) But no; I want to work this out democratically. I don't want any glory; I don't want any self-intiative. Otherwise, why would I invite people to say "we?"
and another thing...this whole "the way it used to be" is totally crap to me...that's right..crap..

when I showed up any conservative statment against TEC, VGR, etc etc was immediately deleted and an warning issued...it was horrible back then..maybe not for you since you are pro-TEC, but in all honesty this forum did NOT reflect the diversity of Anglicanism in anyway - conservatives and continuers were not welcomed - they were silenced..time and again...I even know of people who were banned because they refused to shut up about female priests and pro-homosexual actions...

so save it for some other argument..

[AveMaria]

Folks, can we get back to trying to focus on the positive and figuring out where the heck we go from here, please?

Don't make me squirt everyone with chocolate syrup until y'all are on too much of a sugar-high to do anything but giggle manically. . .

[Colabomb]

Cute. But the pain and betrayal, the hypocrisy is not going to go away with hershey's syrup.

[Aymn27]

Folks, can we get back to trying to focus on the positive and figuring out where the heck we go from here, please?

Don't make me squirt everyone with chocolate syrup until y'all are on too much of a sugar-high to do anything but giggle manically. . .
just had a flashback of that def leppard (sp?) song.."pour some sugar on me"...rofl...of course I mean that only in the plutonic sense..:)

[PaladinValer]

Folks, can we get back to trying to focus on the positive and figuring out where the heck we go from here, please?

Don't make me squirt everyone with chocolate syrup until y'all are on too much of a sugar-high to do anything but giggle manically. . .

Can I have it with whipped cream? :yum:

[RadixLecti]

:d

[Aymn27]

ok...PV...sorry to have hijacked your thread....my apologies...I'm over my tyraid now...back to your regularly scheduled programming..:)

[karen freeinchristman]

(after all, Karen has a youngin on here)...
Sorry, just one more digression - since it was brought up, I would like to reassure everyone that my daughter is not allowed to surf CF without my being right there next to her, and I only allow her on threads I know are '11-year-old friendly'.

[EvAng]

I am sure that all in STR are "We" people. I am also sure that we all know the blessing that a room can give us after we have a row with a friend or family member...we run off to be on our own to cool off.

Hence why subforums would help greatly in providing safe havens. PalinVader can go off to his Anglo-Catholic subforum knowing that I will not be there and I can go off to an evangelican Anglican subforum to fellowship with other likeminded Anglicans knowing that PV will not be there attacking sola Scriptura.

Then we can both fellowship in a main STR forum cooled off and find some common ground, if any can be found. :)

[No Swansong]

and another thing...this whole "the way it used to be" is totally crap to me...that's right..crap..

when I showed up any conservative statment against TEC, VGR, etc etc was immediately deleted and an warning issued...it was horrible back then..maybe not for you since you are pro-TEC, but in all honesty this forum did NOT reflect the diversity of Anglicanism in anyway - conservatives and continuers were not welcomed - they were silenced..time and again...I even know of people who were banned because they refused to shut up about female priests and pro-homosexual actions...

so save it for some other argument..
This couldn't be more true. I remember being accused by some of the more "respectable" members of CF as not being truly Anglican because we attended an REC Church.

And PV I don't know what you said to Timothy but I do know as far as Evangelicalism goes you have made the statement before that you would prefer one be a buddhist than a Baptist because they are closer to having the Gospel correct.

[No Swansong]

I am sure that all in STR are "We" people. I am also sure that we all know the blessing that a room can give us after we have a row with a friend or family member...we run off to be on our own to cool off.

Hence why subforums would help greatly in providing safe havens. PalinVader can go off to his Anglo-Catholic subforum knowing that I will not be there and I can go off to an evangelican Anglican subforum to fellowship with other likeminded Anglicans knowing that PV will not be there attacking sola Scriptura.

Then we can both fellowship in a main STR forum cooled off and find some common ground, if any can be found. :)
Well unfortunately now that Mob Rules are being implemented this possibility is less and less likely.

[Naomi4Christ]

I'm in on a single, diverse STR forum. I have no time for subforums.

[Colabomb]

It was diverse Friday Naomi. This new "Diversity" of erwin is driving away that diversity in droves.

If it ain't broke, dont' fix it.

[karen freeinchristman]

I find the lack of faith in our STR community and all the negativity to be really disheartening. :sigh:

[No Swansong]

I find the lack of faith in our STR community and all the negativity to be really disheartening. :sigh:
Except it isn't just the STR community anymore. What's going to happen when Roman Catholics start flooding STR with debate (RC's just used as an example0 What about Nation of Islam members? Jehovah's Witness? What happens when your threads are flooded by Atheists? There is no such thing as a safe haven or a Congregational Forum anymore. The space will still be here, the name will still be here but it will be PRE everywhere.

It is being assumed that the Congregational areas will remain intact and what I am trying to point out is that it doesn't matter anymore what the name on the forum says EVERYONE will be permitted to post EVERYWHERE.

I know that some here were here when we lobbied for Congregational Fora and when we lobbied for STR. Do you remember why we did so?

[ContraMundum]

I don't think the OP is terribly fair or accurate.

I have always felt that STR was a good community- despite it's occasional in-fighting.

It's always been a "we".

Some people see a donut, some people see a hole.

[karen freeinchristman]

Except it isn't just the STR community anymore. What's going to happen when Roman Catholics start flooding STR with debate (RC's just used as an example0 What about Nation of Islam members? Jehovah's Witness? What happens when your threads are flooded by Atheists? There is no such thing as a safe haven or a Congregational Forum anymore. The space will still be here, the name will still be here but it will be PRE everywhere.

It is being assumed that the Congregational areas will remain intact and what I am trying to point out is that it doesn't matter anymore what the name on the forum says EVERYONE will be permitted to post EVERYWHERE.

I know that some here were here when we lobbied for Congregational Fora and when we lobbied for STR. Do you remember why we did so?The scenario you are painting won't happen because we will be able to make STR rules that prohibit those things from happening.

I have always felt that STR was a good community- despite it's occasional in-fighting.

It's always been a "we".

I agree.

[No Swansong]

Actually Karen no you won't you will be able to make rules but you will not be able to exclude who posts in the forums. So if you allow debate ALL will be allowed to debate, if you disallow debate NONE will be allowed to debate. You will be allowed to make your own rules as long as they don't violate the rules that Erwin has set forth.

[karen freeinchristman]

Actually Karen no you won't you will be able to make rules but you will not be able to exclude who posts in the forums. So if you allow debate ALL will be allowed to debate, if you disallow debate NONE will be allowed to debate. You will be allowed to make your own rules as long as they don't violate the rules that Erwin has set forth.
Where has this information come from? I wasn't aware that these things have been detailed yet.

[EvAng]

The scenario you are painting won't happen because we will be able to make STR rules that prohibit those things from happening.

In order for that to happen a majority must want it. Hence the more of us that stay the more likely the senario jtbdad believes will happen (and which I fear will happen) will not occur.

[PaladinValer]

And PV I don't know what you said to Timothy but I do know as far as Evangelicalism goes you have made the statement before that you would prefer one be a buddhist than a Baptist because they are closer to having the Gospel correct.

1. I've also been noted to differentiate Evangelical Protestantism with Evangelical Anglicanism. I don't equivocate the two. That would make your example, if were true, invalid.
2. Most Baptists I daresay are Christians. I knew a rather excellent one in college. So, would you mind quoting me saying such?

I'm in on a single, diverse STR forum. I have no time for subforums.

We agree on something! Praise God! :amen:

I find the lack of faith in our STR community and all the negativity to be really disheartening. :sigh:

I don't lack faith in the community. I simply lack faith in people who advocate a "gungho" and preemptive mindset. We haven't been given the wiki yet, and people are already saying "sign here for our subforum so we don't have to associate with X, Y, and Z."

My thread here is different. I believe, as it seems a good number of people also believe, that we would like to have honest discussion of the possibilities fairly and squarely. As far as I can see, a clean slate means everything's on the table (including subforums [gasp!]). That being said, if we want to work things out so that at least most people are happy (no one is going to walk away 100% pleased; I almost guarrantee that), then we cannot just jump off the deep end. We need to have a cooperative mindset and established, agreed-upon equitable solutions and rubrics in order to adapt STR into what you could call CF 2.0.

That is all is meant by "we."

Except it isn't just the STR community anymore. What's going to happen when Roman Catholics start flooding STR with debate (RC's just used as an example0 What about Nation of Islam members? Jehovah's Witness? What happens when your threads are flooded by Atheists? There is no such thing as a safe haven or a Congregational Forum anymore. The space will still be here, the name will still be here but it will be PRE everywhere.

As far as I can see, individual congregational forums will be able to form specific rules within their boarders to at least some degree. I don't see a huge problem, and I don't have any problem welcoming the Vatican Catholic, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Jehovah's Witness, the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu, the Wiccan, or the Atheist here.

It is being assumed that the Congregational areas will remain intact and what I am trying to point out is that it doesn't matter anymore what the name on the forum says EVERYONE will be permitted to post EVERYWHERE.

Post everywhere. Not necessarily much else by what the new policy seems to advocate

If we want to keep things as close to what they've been for since STR was established, then we need to come together and not act upon out own pet interests.

I know that some here were here when we lobbied for Congregational Fora and when we lobbied for STR. Do you remember why we did so?

Being one of those lobbiests, I remember exactly why: because no one was happy in PRE because it was little more than a bloodbath without any real community, or at least that is the reason why I voiced in my pro-STR vote.

I don't think the OP is terribly fair or accurate.

I have always felt that STR was a good community- despite it's occasional in-fighting.

Occasional?

Some people see a donut, some people see a hole.

And both would technically be correct, no?

Where has this information come from? I wasn't aware that these things have been detailed yet.

From what I've read, congregational forums will have the ability to have specific rules and guidelines for within their immediate boarders, but what cannot change is the fact that everything is open to all, Christian and non-Christian.

[Colabomb]

The way I am coming to understand it, is that erwin doens't know what he's talking bout. He's changing these new reforms as soon as he annoucnes them.

I'm willing to play along with a new setup, although I have little fiath that community will come from this.

We were a community. Why do we change what already worked?

[longhair75]

The way I am coming to understand it, is that erwin doens't know what he's talking bout. He's changing these new reforms as soon as he annoucnes them.

I'm willing to play along with a new setup, although I have little fiath that community will come from this.

We were a community. Why do we change what already worked?
Friend Colabomb,

It is possible that we will not be able to build a community from the new setup. If we work together, we will have a better chance. If all we do is continue to bicker among ourselves, we won't succeed

[PaladinValer]

We have no idea what Erwin's entire grand plan even is yet. Some people have simply assumed chaos when the policy hasn't even been inacted!

[Colabomb]

He's talking about a conversation I had in IM.

And he misquoted it.

Paladin said he'd rather someone be a wiccan than an evangelical protestant.

I'm only posting this because dad asked me to clarify the misunderstanding. I do not usually betray my conversations in IM.

[higgs2]

Actually Karen no you won't you will be able to make rules but you will not be able to exclude who posts in the forums. So if you allow debate ALL will be allowed to debate, if you disallow debate NONE will be allowed to debate. You will be allowed to make your own rules as long as they don't violate the rules that Erwin has set forth.

I don't believe this is necessarily correct. We need to wait and see and get clarification. But my understanding is that we will be able to control who may debate in what congregational forum. My understanding is also that all of the members will have input as to what the new rules will be. Let's wait and see.