Wiki: Seventh-day Adventist Rules Wiki--Take 2!

[DarylFawcett]

From many of the posts I have read, there seems to be a consensus that there NOT be permanent FSBs but rather indefinite FSBs, which is why I changed the word from permanent to indefinite to reflect this consensus.

[DarylFawcett]

I am now suggesting we see if we can blend these lists into one list before taking this to a pre-poll discussion.

[DarylFawcett]

How is this for a suggested blend?

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum) (as blended by Daryl)


6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

1) 3 warnings result from personal attacks constitute a verbal reminder of rules.
2) Every warning after that earns the person 1 week FSB.
3) If no incidents in 3 months, the sheet is wiped clean.6.2 There will be zero tolerance for creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rules violation, therefore, any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to the locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

6.3 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning will be recorded and counts towards an FSB.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:
1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB and will need to reapply. If no incidents in probationary 3 month period, the sheet is wiped clean.
5) For every three violations above twelve a one year ban will be earned.
6) Warnings/infractions are cumulative. If, after 3 months from either the last infraction or the day the last FSB ended, no added infractions have been given then 1 point will be deducted each month under the condition no more violations occur.6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be 30 days FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and an indefinite ban for the third.

6.6 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will result in an indefinite FSB under all registrations.

[Sophia7]

From many of the posts I have read, there seems to be a consensus that there NOT be permanent FSBs but rather indefinite FSBs, which is why I changed the word from permanent to indefinite to reflect this consensus.

But I thought that some people wanted shorter FSBs rather than permanent FSBs--still with a defined duration, though.

[Sophia7]

I am now suggesting we see if we can blend these lists into one list before taking this to a pre-poll discussion.

Sorry, I missed that part of what you posted earlier.

[DarylFawcett]

We may need to add under 6.4 the words in the beginning, "Other than what has been stated in 6.1 and 6.5......."

[DarylFawcett]

Perhaps we need to take another look at whether there will be "permanent" or "indefinite" FSBs.

[DarylFawcett]

I am personally leaning to "indefinite" over "permanent" as it seems several others are, however, some further research or verification would be a good idea.

[woobadooba]

Daryl, I think the rules are too complicated. Why can't we just make it more simple?

Again, for every 2 warnings a person gets he gets a 2 week FSB

For every warning a person gets, he must edit his post within 24 hours. If he doesn't do this, that too will be counted as a warning.

I think this is the simplest way to handle this.

[Sophia7]

Perhaps we need to take another look at whether there will be "permanent" or "indefinite" FSBs.

Or non-permanent, definite FSBs.

[Sophia7]

OK, so we had a poll on how many warnings it would take to result in a permanent FSB, and the poll is now closed. I know that the subject of doing away with permanent FSBs came up in that poll, but there was no option to vote against permanent FSBs. Maybe we need a new pre-poll discussion and then a poll that includes all of the options?

[NightEternal]

Keep it up woman! Your fall will come shortly!

This is absolutely unacceptable! Woob, even for you this takes the cake! Show some respect for a lady for crying out loud!!

I swear, if you would ever talk to my wife this way...

Consider yourself lucky Tall is more patient and tolerating than I am!

[NightEternal]

OK, so we had a poll on how many warnings it would take to result in a permanent FSB, and the poll is now closed. I know that the subject of doing away with permanent FSBs came up in that poll, but there was no option to vote against permanent FSBs. Maybe we need a new pre-poll discussion and then a poll that includes all of the options?

Yes, I agree with Sophia. That poll was very limited and seemed to be based on the assumption that all were in favor of banning, so it was really only a matter of duration. Wrong.

I chose the lesser of the two evils, but the fact is I am against bans of any sort and always have been. There was no option for that, which is why many of the Progs didn't even bother to vote.

In retrospect, I should have done the same and also abstained from voting. If 'against FSB's' is included in the poll, I will vote for that.

[DarylFawcett]

As I said in an earlier post, the wiki isn't the place to continue with this!

[woobadooba]

This is absolutely unacceptable! Woob, even for you this takes the cake! Show some respect for a lady for crying out loud!!

I swear, if you would ever talk to my wife this way...

Consider yourself lucky Tall is more patient and tolerating than I am!

Then rebuke her too for being nasty. I asked her not to speak to me with such words and she persisted in doing so. The Lord sees everything! And He will act accordingly.

[DarylFawcett]

As far as the blended proposed rules goes, we can take both it and the discussion on the permanent ban versus indefinite ban to the same pre-poll thread, as we can include two additional options on whether the preferred wording is permanent ban or indefinite ban. This way we will not be holding up the POLL on the proposed section of rules while waiting for the POLL results on whether the wording should be permanent ban or indefinite ban.

How does this sound?

[DarylFawcett]

Keep it up and we may lose the privilege of having this wiki, as we already received a warning here that such would happen!!!

[DarylFawcett]

If you MUST continue with this, please take it to another thread outside of the wiki!!!

[Sophia7]

Yes, I agree with Sophia. That poll was very limited and seemed to be based on the assumption that all were in favor of banning, so it was really only a matter of duration. Wrong.

I chose the lesser of the two evils, but the fact is I am against bans of any sort and always have been. There was no option for that, which is why many of the Progs didn't even bother to vote.

In retrospect, I should have done the same and also abstained from voting. If 'against FSB's' is included in the poll, I will vote for that.

I agree.

[Sophia7]

As far as the blended proposed rules goes, we can take both it and the discussion on the permanent ban versus indefinite ban to the same pre-poll thread, as we can include two additional options on whether the preferred wording is permanent ban or indefinite ban. This way we will not be holding up the POLL on the proposed section of rules while waiting for the POLL results on whether the wording should be permanent ban or indefinite ban.

How does this sound?

I think the poll needs to include an additional option, besides a choice between permanent or indefinite. It needs to include an option for an FSB that is temporary but still defined in duration. I am not in favor of either permanent or indefinite FSBs.

[NightEternal]

You know what, when people are more concerned about the process of rule-making than the feelings or reputation of a lady, I have to say so long. Talk about skewed priorities! :doh:

I have no interest in any of this. I am against all bans. This process has become so bogged down and ridiculous in it's hair-splitting and semantics it defies belief.

I'll wait for the poll and place my vote against. Until then, I'm done here.

[DarylFawcett]

From what I have read both here and in that POLL, there seemed to be a consensus that FSBs are a necessary means of dealing with violators that continue to go against the rules. All the proposed rules take FSBs as a given. Not one person proposed any rules that didn't have any FSBs attached to it.

[DarylFawcett]

I can accept a definite period for an FSB that is just short of indefinite or permanent. A one year ban is a long time for anybody to be banned. For most, it would be equavalent to a permanent ban.

[woobadooba]

I want to apologize for allowing my anger to get the best of me. Even though Sophia said some things about me that I found to be offensive and untrue, I should not have reacted like I did towards her.

I apology to Sophia, and to everyone else for my uncouth behavior.

[DarylFawcett]

Based on the latest posts here, how does this sound?

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum) (as blended and revised by Daryl)


6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

1) 3 warnings resulting from personal attacks constitute a verbal reminder of rules.
2) Every warning after that earns the person 1 week FSB.
3) If no incidents in 3 months from the end of the last violation/ban, the sheet is wiped clean.6.2 There will be zero tolerance for creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rules violation, therefore, any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to the locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

6.3 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning will be recorded and counts towards an FSB.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) For every three violations above twelve a one year ban will be earned.
6) Warnings/infractions are cumulative. If, after 3 months from either the last infraction or the day the last FSB ended, no added infractions have been given then 1 point will be deducted each month under the condition no more violations occur.6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be a one month FSB for the first offense, a three month FSB for the second offense, and a one year FSB for the third offense.

6.6 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will result in an additional one year FSB under all registrations.

[Sophia7]

I want to apologize for allowing my anger to get the best of me. Even though Sophia said some things about me that I found to be offensive and untrue, I should not have reacted like I did towards her.

I apology to Sophia, and to everyone else for my uncouth behavior.

Apology accepted. Let's all move on. :)

[DarylFawcett]

I propose we take the blended and revised list to a pre-poll topic in the SDA Main forum where more people will most likely participate prior to a list going to a POLL.

[woobadooba]

I propose we take the blended and revised list to a pre-poll topic in the SDA Main forum where more people will most likely participate prior to a list going to a POLL.

Could you put my simplified version in it?

For every two warnings a person gets he/she will get a 2 week FSB

Posts that are in violation of any one of the rules must be edited by the offender within 24 hours. That is, if the Mods determine that it should be edited rather than deleted.

If the offender does not edit the post within 24 hours, and does not have a valid reason for not editing it, such as being away from a computer during that time, then that will count as an additional warning, which will result in a 2 week FSB

Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

[sentipente]

If the offender does not edit the post within 24 hours, and does not have a valid reason for not editing it, such as being away from a computer during that time, then that will count as an additional warning, which will result in a 2 week FSB

Do you volunteer to verify that they do have a valid reason (since everyone will claim that they do)?

[woobadooba]

Do you volunteer to verify that they do have a valid reason (since everyone will claim that they do)?

The only justified reason they would have for this is that they couldn't access the website in a timely manner, in which case we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The Mods would have to use their discretion accordingly in the event that this becomes habit forming.

[TrustAndObey]

I'm sorry that I haven't been around much. School is sucking up my free time.

Is there a pre-poll discussion on the proposed FSB choices yet? If not, I'd say we should get it going like Daryl suggested because we really need it before the debate section gets opened up.

[DarylFawcett]

Could you put my simplified version in it?

For every two warnings a person gets he/she will get a 2 week FSB

Posts that are in violation of any one of the rules must be edited by the offender within 24 hours. That is, if the Mods determine that it should be edited rather than deleted.

If the offender does not edit the post within 24 hours, and does not have a valid reason for not editing it, such as being away from a computer during that time, then that will count as an additional warning, which will result in a 2 week FSB

Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.
I will see if and how it can be blended in.

In the meantime, what do the rest of you here think of woob's suggestion?

[DarylFawcett]

As woob's suggestion is entirely different from the previous ones listed, it can't be blended in, therefore, it will need to be discussed here in relation to the one in the blended list to see if his suggestion is preferred over the one in the blended list here.

[reddogs]

The only justified reason they would have for this is that they couldn't access the website in a timely manner, in which case we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The Mods would have to use their discretion accordingly in the event that this becomes habit forming.

This is the problem, you can drive the Titanic through that loophole. I dont think they need to be punished, just be asked to edit and if not done in timely manner, the moderators handle it......

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

The only justified reason they would have for this is that they couldn't access the website in a timely manner, in which case we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The Mods would have to use their discretion accordingly in the event that this becomes habit forming.
Just to point out, the Profile pages that every member has on here shows your last login. If you haven't logged in since before you were told to edit, it could be easily seen. :)

(Sorry for not being around much, either. Been dealing with some depression the last few days, so I've been reading just not feeling up to talking much)

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Based on the latest posts here, how does this sound?

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum) (as blended and revised by Daryl)


6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

1) 3 warnings resulting from personal attacks constitute a verbal reminder of rules.
2) Every warning after that earns the person 1 week FSB.
3) If no incidents in 3 months, the sheet is wiped clean.6.2 There will be zero tolerance for creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rules violation, therefore, any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to the locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

6.3 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning will be recorded and counts towards an FSB.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:


1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) For every three violations above twelve a one year ban will be earned.
6) Warnings/infractions are cumulative. If, after 3 months from either the last infraction or the day the last FSB ended, no added infractions have been given then 1 point will be deducted each month under the condition no more violations occur.6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be a one month FSB for the first offense, a three month FSB for the second offense, and a one year FSB for the third offense.

6.6 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will result in an additional one year FSB under all registrations.

This is the one I like, and am totally content with it going to pre-poll discussion. :)

Just wanna point out one thing, though:

6.1 3) should also state that the 3 months is counted from the last violation/ban end, since as Tall pointed out it could be argued that ban time counted for this 3 months.

Otherwise, wonderful job with the blending Daryl!

As woob's suggestion is entirely different from the previous ones listed, it can't be blended in, therefore, it will need to be discussed here in relation to the one in the blended list to see if his suggestion is preferred over the one in the blended list here.

As stated above, I agree with the blended version. I think that'll do fine. If a person is willing to edit their post then they should also be willing to learn from their mistakes and slowly earn their points to be reduced. :)

[DarylFawcett]

In order to move this one to the next step, I am thinking of creating a pre-poll topic in the Main SDA Forum with the blended list and woob's suggestion for the purpose of discussing it further there.

[TrustAndObey]

That's a good idea Daryl.

Maybe put both sets of suggestions up for discussion so we can decide which set we'd rather vote on?

[tall73]

Alright, I am likely confused here as I haven't had time to analyze every post.

Don't we have contradictory lists there?

If the one is for flames, and the other is for serious things, what is 6.4 relating to? Assumedly all the rest.

But shouldn't it be made plain then?

[TrustAndObey]

There would be bans for other rule violations rather than just personal attacks. I personally don't think they should be of the same caliber, but it might get really confusing to the mods if we separated them.

[TrustAndObey]

Tall is asking that the rules we voted in for the Tradtional forum be deleted from the wiki (here (http://foru.ms/t6096012-the-traditional-forum-rules-must-go-to-a-vote.html)).

I think we have several options, but I want to hear what you guys think about this.

(1) Should we just delete them, (2) start a poll that they stay in the wiki until we determine whether or not we want to keep our forum, or (3) start a poll that the same rules be universal in the Main Forum and other subforums??

What do you guys think?

[Sophia7]

This is the problem, you can drive the Titanic through that loophole. I dont think they need to be punished, just be asked to edit and if not done in timely manner, the moderators handle it......

Usually what I do when requesting an edit is to select the read-receipt option for the PM and specify that they will have 24 hours after reading the PM to comply with the edit request. If they don't, then their post can be edited by staff. That avoids some loopholes.

[DarylFawcett]

With a further edit into the last blended list, here it is again:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums (excluding the progressive sub-forum) (as blended and revised by Daryl)


6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

1) 3 warnings resulting from personal attacks constitute a verbal reminder of rules.
2) Every warning after that earns the person 1 week FSB.
3) If no incidents in 3 months from the end of the last violation/ban, the sheet is wiped clean.6.2 There will be zero tolerance for creating threads resulting from a locked thread due to a rules violation, therefore, any threads started by a person that are a continuation of a currently locked thread, or similar to the locked thread, will be deleted immediately by our moderators.

6.3 Upon a rule violation a warning will be given by one of the moderators. This warning will be recorded and counts towards an FSB.

6.4 Other than violations under 6.1 and 6.5, Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

1) After three violations, violators will receive a one week FSB.
2) After six violations, violators will receive a two week FSB.
3) After nine violations, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After twelve violations, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5) For every three violations above twelve a one year ban will be earned.
6) Warnings/infractions are cumulative. If, after 3 months from either the last infraction or the day the last FSB ended, no added infractions have been given then 1 point will be deducted each month under the condition no more violations occur.6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or variations thereof, and violations of graphic descriptions of a sexual act, there will be a one month FSB for the first offense, a three month FSB for the second offense, and a one year FSB for the third offense.

6.6 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will result in an additional one year FSB under all registrations.
This, along with woob's suggestion, is what we will take to the pre-poll discussion topic in the Main SDA Forum.

[DarylFawcett]

As long as the TSDA Sub-forum exists, the rules in the wiki that have been voted through for the TSDA Sub-forum should also exist and remain in the wiki.

[DarylFawcett]

Alright, I am likely confused here as I haven't had time to analyze every post.

Don't we have contradictory lists there?

If the one is for flames, and the other is for serious things, what is 6.4 relating to? Assumedly all the rest.

But shouldn't it be made plain then?
I noticed this also, which is why I suggested in a separate post here somewhere about adding at the front, "Other than violations under 6.1 and 6.5 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:"

I will edit the above into the list I just posted.

[DarylFawcett]

This is what woob's would look like under 6.4 in the blended list:

As suggested by woob:

6.4 Other than violations under 6.1 and 6.5, Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:
· 1) For every two warnings a person receives, he/she will receive a two week FSB.
· 2) Posts that are in violation of any one of the rules must be edited by the offender within 24 hours, if the moderators determine that it should be edited rather than deleted.
· 3) If the offender does not edit the post within 24 hours, and does not have a valid reason for not editing it, such as being away from a computer during that time, then that will count as an additional warning, which will result in a two week FSB.
· 4) Upon returning from an FSB, that forum member will start off on a clean slate.

I am assuming that woob wanted 6.4 replaced with this, however, I do not know whether it was also supposed to replace the FSBs written up in 6.1 and 6.5.

[DarylFawcett]

Until woob informs us whether his suggestion is only to replace the wording in the blend list for 6.4 or whether it is also to replace the FSB part in 6.1 and 6.5, I will hold off taking this to a pre-poll discussion topic in the Main SDA Forum.

[tall73]

As long as the TSDA Sub-forum exists, the rules in the wiki that have been voted through for the TSDA Sub-forum should also exist and remain in the wiki.They have not been voted through using the wiki process.

They are therefore not official at all.

[DarylFawcett]

They are just as official as the PSDA POLL was prior to them declaring their independence.

As their validity wasn't questioned then, why are you questioning the TSDA ones now?

[TrustAndObey]

I agree with Daryl on this one. We voted those rules in long before Letalis made the announcement about independence.

For right now we'd like to keep everything like it is, and I don't see anyone else that has a problem with it.

[DarylFawcett]

Here are the guidelines as posted in the wiki:

According to the agreement we now have an agreed upon set of guidelines for wiki editing:

1. All changes need to have discussion and consensus. To ensure this each proposed addition, or any counter-proposals, will be voted on prior to adding. After an initial discussion period to form the poll options a poll will run 4 days. Polls will be public. The votes of those who are not Seventh-day Adventist contributors will not be counted.

2. The process will begin with the big items first such as forum/sub-forum organization, who can debate, etc. and then move to specific rules.

3. Any changes made without the process outlined in point 1 will be rolled back.

Ideas from the old wiki can still be proposed and voted on, but the desire is to start the process fresh with some guidelines in place.
Unless there is a requirement elsewhere, these guidelines do not specify where the rules discussion needed to take place, nor does it say where the POLL needs to be held, therefore, what was done in the TSDA and PSDA Sub-forums would be considered valid, which they were until tall73's challenge.

[TrustAndObey]

Daryl, could you, Red or Doc maybe talk to a SuperAdmin about it? We voted in those rules for our subforum but never, ever declared independence from the Main Forum.

[DarylFawcett]

If we need to pursue this further, in other words, if tall73 is going to continue to challenge this, then it will be taken a step further.

[DarylFawcett]

In the meantime, until this is decided differently, the TSDA rules will remain in the wiki.

[TrustAndObey]

What's odd about the whole thing is we're (mainstream Adventists) constantly being accused of having an "it's us against them" mentality, but I find the opposite to be true.

What does it matter to someone if we keep things like they are right now until we make a decision about how to handle it in the future? That's really OUR business.

Nobody told the Progs to declare independence, they decided that themselves. Traditionals still have the right to want a safe haven, and we aren't breaking any rules by doing so.

[Sophia7]

One thing that we need to clarify is that the sidewide policy is that rules are not made official by virtue of being placed in the wiki. They become official when they are posted in closed stickies in the relevant forums. This can be done simply by taking snapshots occasionally of what's currently in a wiki (which is what is being done with the general forum rules and protocols), or it can be done by voting before they are stickied. What's in the wiki is not enforceable unless it is also posted in the actual forums. A wiki is not even required (rules can be made directly in the forums, bypassing the wiki process), but that is how we have chosen to do it here.

The PSDA rules are official currently. I haven't looked to see if the TSDA rules are stickied yet. If not, they are not enforceable yet, and that sub-forum is still under the temporary rules.

[DarylFawcett]

Thank you, Sophia7. :)

Then I understand that to mean that the TSDA rules in the wiki are OK simply for the fact that they were discussed in the TSDA Sub-forum and voted in a POLL there.

Also, until the voted sub-forums are actually created, we can't move from the temporary rules to the new ones, which is why they are not posted as a sticky yet in each respective forum.

[Sophia7]

OK, these are the rules for the TSDA sub-forum (quoted from the wiki):

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventists Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html).

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.If these have been voted on and approved, they can be stickied and enforced as official rules in the TSDA sub-forum, as the PSDAs have done (although until the penalty decisions are completed, the mods would probably be limited mainly to editing and/or deleting posts found to be in violation of the rules). That would not affect the status of the rules in the main forum and other pending sub-forums. The rules for the other sections would still be temporary until the other sub-forums are created.

[Sophia7]

Daryl, could you, Red or Doc maybe talk to a SuperAdmin about it? We voted in those rules for our subforum but never, ever declared independence from the Main Forum.

Here's the thing, though: by voting in your own sub-forum rules, you exercise your autonomy and separate yourselves from the main forum rules to some extent. This is all that the PSDAs have done in declaring their independence, besides limiting their rule-making process only to Progressives.

I guess the question being raised is did the TSDA sub-forum rules ever go through a vote? If not, they were not supposed to be added to the wiki.

[TrustAndObey]

The rules for the Traditional section were voted in by poll.

We have no problem adhering to the rules of the Main Forum AND the Tradtional section.

I think Tall is saying that unless we declare autonomy, everyone in the SDA forum (including Progs) get to vote on the rules in the Trad subforum?

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

The rules for the Traditional section were voted in by poll.

We have no problem adhering to the rules of the Main Forum AND the Tradtional section.

I think Tall is saying that unless we declare autonomy, everyone in the SDA forum (including Progs) get to vote on the rules in the Trad subforum?
Pretty much, sis. :(

Thing is, it makes sense. All this autonomy thingy really is is saying that you get your own rules are are different from the main section. I still don't see a problem with doing this, simply for a organized way. I don't think we'll be able to have seperate rules like we want to any other way.

For this reasons the Bible Study forum will probably be independant, too. Simply so it can have it's own structure.

(Off to dinner now, I'll try to be back later. :))

[TrustAndObey]

We really don't need separate staff for the Trad area and that'd be the only reason I can see to declare independence.

[Sophia7]

The rules for the Traditional section were voted in by poll.

Then I don't see a problem with their being listed in the wiki. They just will not be enforceable until they are stickied in the TSDA sub-forum.

[Sophia7]

I think Tall is saying that unless we declare autonomy, everyone in the SDA forum (including Progs) get to vote on the rules in the Trad subforum?
Pretty much, sis. :(

Thing is, it makes sense. All this autonomy thingy really is is saying that you get your own rules are are different from the main section. I still don't see a problem with doing this, simply for a organized way. I don't think we'll be able to have seperate rules like we want to any other way.

For this reasons the Bible Study forum will probably be independant, too. Simply so it can have it's own structure.

(Off to dinner now, I'll try to be back later. :))

That's right. Independence would be purely for organizational reasons.

[Sophia7]

We really don't need separate staff for the Trad area and that'd be the only reason I can see to declare independence.

You do have to declare independence if you want to be the only ones to vote on or have a say in the rules for your sub-forum. Otherwise, Progressives could vote, too, just like with the main rules.

[tall73]

They are just as official as the PSDA POLL was prior to them declaring their independence.

As their validity wasn't questioned then, why are you questioning the TSDA ones now?

It does say who is allowed to vote though.

And you all changed that.

They are not valid.

The whole point is that you all are making independence a theological issue when it is not.

[tall73]

What's odd about the whole thing is we're (mainstream Adventists) constantly being accused of having an "it's us against them" mentality, but I find the opposite to be true.

What does it matter to someone if we keep things like they are right now until we make a decision about how to handle it in the future? That's really OUR business.

You know why?

Because you rejoice in calling us off-shoots and saying we broke away from the church , when all we wanted was to have our own section. You all pretended it was a move away from the church which we never said.

Now if you are going to continue characterizing us that way, yes, i will challenge your invalid rules.

Daryl you led the charge in that action saying that we were breaking away from the church. We are doing no such thing.

So simply stop making your ridiculous claims and I will stop showing you the logical conclusions of your claim.



Nobody told the Progs to declare independence, they decided that themselves. Traditionals still have the right to want a safe haven, and we aren't breaking any rules by doing so.You can have it the same way we did.

If you want your own rules you have to go by your own system. If you want the Adventist rules then you have to go by their system.

[Sophia7]

It does say who is allowed to vote though.

And you all changed that.

They are not valid.

Well, if they don't want to declare independence, that's true.

The whole point is that you all are making independence a theological issue when it is not.

Exactly.

[DarylFawcett]

You do have to declare independence if you want to be the only ones to vote on or have a say in the rules for your sub-forum. Otherwise, Progressives could vote, too, just like with the main rules.
That is why those who voted in the POLL are not being challenged, just as those who also voted in the POLL for the PSDA Sub-forum are also not being challenged, seeing that their POLL was also done before this independence thing surfaced.

And once again, per my understanding of this, as far as independent sub-forums goes, topical type sub-forums, such as a Bible Study type sub-forum, can't declare independence. Only ones like PSDA and TSDA, who are identified group or people type sub-forums, can declare independence.

And as far as the TSDA Sub-forum goes, there still isn't any need or reason to declare independence at this time. In fact, after everything is up and running under the new rules with SDA Moderators in place, there may no longer be a need to even have a TSDA Sub-forum.

[tall73]

Pretty much, sis. :(

Thing is, it makes sense.

yes, it is the logical conclusion of the claims that we are separating and they are not.

[Sophia7]

That is why those who voted in the POLL are not being challenged, just as those who also voted in the POLL for the PSDA Sub-forum are also not being challenged, seeing that their POLL was also done before this independence thing surfaced.

We already had autonomy at that time, which we exercised. Letalis only confirmed it later because people were questioning it.

[tall73]

Yes, they wanted to put us under their restraints.

Therefore we clarified that they could not do that.

Now if you want to clarify, declare independence. If not, then you need to vote the rules in. Or just post a very public thread that this idea of us withdrawing from the church is not true.

Then I am fine.

[DarylFawcett]

The PSDA Sub-forum took the lead in discussing their rules in their sub-forum, which also went to a POLL in their sub-forum for Progressives only to vote in, even before this independence information about sub-forums surfaced. That is one reason why I didn't participate and vote there. The TSDA forum decided to do likewise by creating their own rules discussion thread followed by a POLL, therefore, if the TSDA one isn't valid, then, neither was the PSDA one.

If the only concern is about limiting the voting to the identified TSDA Sub-forum group, then there is no reason why another POLL with the same rules listed in the one in the TSDA Sub-forum can't be redone. Seeing that the FSB ones haven't even gone to POLL yet, and the new sub-forums are also not in place yet, it doesn't affect things any, as we are not ready to sticky any of the rules, other than the PSDA ones, that have been voted on in the wiki. I am not going to fool around with this any further, therefore, I am going to create the POLL right now in the Main SDA Forum.

[tall73]

If the only concern is about limiting the voting to the identified TSDA Sub-forum group, then there is no reason why another POLL with the same rules listed in the one in the TSDA Sub-forum can't be redone. Seeing that the FSB ones haven't even gone to POLL yet, and the new sub-forums are also not in place yet, it doesn't affect things any, as we are not ready to sticky any of the rules, other than the PSDA ones, that have been voted on in the wiki. I am not going to fool around with this any further, therefore, I am going to create the POLL right now in the Main SDA Forum.


No, the real issue is that you all are lying about us, that we are withdrawing from the church.

Unless this changes I reserve my right to vote in their forum, which is NOT independent, and falls under the wiki rules.

[TrustAndObey]

No, the real issue is that you all are lying about us, that we are withdrawing from the church.

Unless this changes I reserve my right to vote in their forum, which is NOT independent, and falls under the wiki rules.

First of all, who has said you guys are withdrawing from the church? It certainly wasn't me and I haven't seen any posts that say that.

Secondly, unless you identify yourself as Traditional (and we know that you do not) you CANNOT vote on the rules for Traditional/Mainline Adventists. None of us tried to vote in your non-traditional poll, and Daryl is absolutely right, you guys started that BEFORE you declared independence.

[TrustAndObey]

The PSDA Sub-forum took the lead in discussing their rules in their sub-forum, which also went to a POLL in their sub-forum for Progressives only to vote in, even before this independence information about sub-forums surfaced. That is one reason why I didn't participate and vote there. The TSDA forum decided to do likewise by creating their own rules discussion thread followed by a POLL, therefore, if the TSDA one isn't valid, then, neither was the PSDA one.

If the only concern is about limiting the voting to the identified TSDA Sub-forum group, then there is no reason why another POLL with the same rules listed in the one in the TSDA Sub-forum can't be redone. Seeing that the FSB ones haven't even gone to POLL yet, and the new sub-forums are also not in place yet, it doesn't affect things any, as we are not ready to sticky any of the rules, other than the PSDA ones, that have been voted on in the wiki. I am not going to fool around with this any further, therefore, I am going to create the POLL right now in the Main SDA Forum.

It is just delay tactic #5,872, but go ahead.

[tall73]

This is not about delay. This is about you making true statements.

[tall73]

http://foru.ms/t6061831&page=3


T&O
I really don't see ANY reason why we should declare independence from the main forum. To me, it'd be like declaring independence from the Adventist church and as far as I know, none of us have done that or even want to.



Daryl:

I also feel that declaring independence from the Main SDA forum and other sub-forums that are part of the Main SDA forum, as the TSDA Sub-forum also presently is, would be akin to declaring independence from the organized SDA Church.

[TrustAndObey]

Yeah Tall, that's how Daryl and I feel about it. You guys have to make that decision for yourselves and if you don't feel that way, why in the world would what we've said about our personal feelings affect you in any way?

So you're admitting that you're intentionally trying to make this difficult because you perceive our statements as a reflection on you guys?

[DarylFawcett]

The POLL (Take 3) has been created in the Main SDA Forum in response to the challenge here.

[tall73]

I am saying you are lying about me, and if you don't retract we will continue with the logical results of your statements

IF you don't declare independence then you are not independent.

Yes, I want you to set the record straight.

Now if that is how you felt, why did you say here and there it wasn't?

Did you forget?

[TrustAndObey]

here is what Sophia said recently
You do have to declare independence if you want to be the only ones to vote on or have a say in the rules for your sub-forum. Otherwise, Progressives could vote, too, just like with the main rules.

Then the rules in the PSDA forum aren't valid either Tall, because you guys voted those in BEFORE you declared independence.

You're making up rules as you go along.

What is to keep ANYONE on this site from voting in our wiki? Where are the boundaries?

[tall73]

We talked it over in pm after our vote and thought they were fine and added a clause. Ours are fine, thanks.

The boundaries are what we set.

But that is not the issue for me. The issue is you all continually ride us, over and over again, about how we are leaving the church, are not really part of the church, are off-shoots, don't belong in the church.

Until the church puts us out we are in.

I am sick of the slander. You can act like it doesn't matter, but it does. And we have told you EVER SINCE you came here that it does. And yet you go back and forth and say you do feel that way or don't, or whatever.

But when it comes out what you really feel we get the above statement.

If this is what it takes to point it out to you, over and over again, then I will do it.

[DarylFawcett]

You are taking those statements to an extreme.

I said akin or like. This is about the declared independence of a sub-forum, not about you as a person.

[TrustAndObey]

I am saying you are lying about me, and if you don't retract we will continue with the logical results of your statements

Uh huh. And I lied about you HOW exactly? By stating how *I* feel about it? Come on!

IF you don't declare independence then you are not independent.

Yes, I want you to set the record straight.

Now if that is how you felt, why did you say here and there it wasn't?

I think maybe you need to calm down a little because you're making lots of typos and it's hard for me to understand what you're saying. That IS how I feel about it personally Tall, I feel that if I said "hey, Traditionals, let's declare ourselves independent just so we can have our own staff" that we'd basically be saying we can't agree to the rules of the Main Forum that we basically voted in.

You feel otherwise and that's FINE Tall. You guys wanted your own rules and your own staff and I'm TOTALLY okay with that, believe me.

[TrustAndObey]

We set boundaries too Tall. Only Traditionals could vote in our polls and that's exactly what happened.

[tall73]

You are taking those statements to an extreme.

I said akin or like. This is about the declared independence of a sub-forum, not about you as a person.

This is about you all turning into something it wasn't.
It was never about leaving the church. It was never AKIN to leaving the church.

It in fact had nothing to do with the church. What it does have to do with is the mistrust that has built up here for years, because for years we have been called fake Adventists.

[DarylFawcett]

This is really no longer a wiki discussion, therefore, I will not respond any further about it here.

[tall73]

Uh huh. And I lied about you HOW exactly? By stating how *I* feel about it? Come on!


It is not at all about leaving the church. You all intentionally distorted what it is. This forum never has been and never will be the church.





I think maybe you need to calm down a little because you're making lots of typos and it's hard for me to understand what you're saying. That IS how I feel about it personally Tall, I feel that if I said "hey, Traditionals, let's declare ourselves independent just so we can have our own staff" that we'd basically be saying we can't agree to the rules of the Main Forum that we basically voted in.
I think you should stop calling us fake Adventist for years and treating us like dirt. I think if I ever do leave the church I will be thinking of you all and how you have treated me and others here.

You all have been disgusting.

I may calm down, but I am through pretending. You all can have your opinion. But I am in this church till I leave or am put out.



You feel otherwise and that's FINE Tall. You guys wanted your own rules and your own staff and I'm TOTALLY okay with that, believe me.Yes, we wanted that. We NEVER said we wanted to leave the church.

If you feel it is about that it is because you don't realize that Erwin is not the GC.

[tall73]

This is really no longer a wiki discussion, therefore, I will not respond any further about it here.

Where would you like to respond? Would you like to do it some more in the traditional section where DL can tell me I am not welcome?

[TrustAndObey]

DL did NOT tell you that you weren't welcomed Tall. He just pointed out that it's a non-debate subforum. He just stated a fact.

And Tall, you have told me more than once that you will probably leave the church. You mentioned Ice's dilemma and said "I'm probably right behind him."

If you do leave, that is YOUR decision and if this forum isn't the church, why would you let what we say affect you? It's a FORUM.

In my personal opinion *I* do feel like the Traditional section declaring independence is similar to saying we don't like the rules of the Adventist church, which obviously isn't the case.

But I have never once reflected how I feel about it on to you guys, you did that yourself.

I'm done with this conversation. You got your way and now we have to vote on it again. And if our rules DON'T pass this time, we do have other options.

[NightEternal]

Trust, you are totally contradicting yourself.

First you said this:

First of all, who has said you guys are withdrawing from the church? It certainly wasn't me and I haven't seen any posts that say that.

Then Tall pointed out where you implied as much:

I really don't see ANY reason why we should declare independence from the main forum. To me, it'd be like declaring independence from the Adventist church and as far as I know, none of us have done that or even want to.

Then you came back with this:

Yeah Tall, that's how Daryl and I feel about it. You guys have to make that decision for yourselves and if you don't feel that way, why in the world would what we've said about our personal feelings affect you in any way?

So basically you denied you said it, then when you were shown where you did, you admitted that is how you felt!

For the record. Tall is absolutely correct. It is and has been happening for a long time and it really [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]es me off! (pardon my french.) This is NOT a church, this is a FORUM. It has been both outright stated and implied that we are 'seperating ourselves' from the church by declaring our subforum independent, and saying it's just your opinion and it shouldn't matter to us is just a cop-out. Your and Daryl's comments are not the only ones either by a long shot. I grit my teeth until they hurt everytime someone does say it. These ridiculous insinuations need to stop. Honor needs to stop with her 'offshoot' nonsense and you guys need to stop lending your support to her deliberately inflammitory comments by your silence and start calling her on it. It just all needs to STOP. And I hope Tall rides everybody into the ground until it does stop.

And Daryl, you may not see it as such a serious thing, but I for one, as a baptized, card-carrying member of the church, do!

[tall73]

DL did NOT tell you that you weren't welcomed Tall. He just pointed out that it's a non-debate subforum. He just stated a fact.

And Tall, you have told me more than once that you will probably leave the church. You mentioned Ice's dilemma and said "I'm probably right behind him."

If you do leave, that is YOUR decision and if this forum isn't the church, why would you let what we say affect you? It's a FORUM.




A. If it is my decision then why do you all keep calling us offshoots and saying we practically already did? If it is my decision then let me make it.

B. It affects me because this is what I will live with every day of my life in the Adventist church--nothing but an off-shoot apostate pastor.

C. If you all didn't say this kind of stupidity in the Traditional section and then go there to complain about my reaction I would have no reason to go there at all.

That having been said it is a no debate area. You are right there.

Show me where you want the conversation then.





In my personal opinion *I* do feel like the Traditional section declaring independence is similar to saying we don't like the rules of the Adventist church, which obviously isn't the case.

since when are our rules here the rules of the Adventist church?

Say it with me now together...this is not the church.


But I have never once reflected how I feel about it on to you guys, you did that yourself.
Ah yes, well if I say that to call people in the church offshoots is to be a total jerk...who do you think I would be reflecting on? Now can I BLAME them if they apply it to themselves?


I'm done with this conversation. You got your way and now we have to vote on it again. And if our rules DON'T pass this time, we do have other options.Oh don't believe I got my way. You will still go on saying everyone else is a fake Adventist.

Of course it is just an opinion. And my opinion is that you drive people away.

[TrustAndObey]

Trust, you are totally contradicting yourself.

First you said this:

First of all, who has said you guys are withdrawing from the church? It certainly wasn't me and I haven't seen any posts that say that.

Then Tall pointed out where you implied as much:

I really don't see ANY reason why we should declare independence from the main forum. To me, it'd be like declaring independence from the Adventist church and as far as I know, none of us have done that or even want to.

Then you came back with this:

Yeah Tall, that's how Daryl and I feel about it. You guys have to make that decision for yourselves and if you don't feel that way, why in the world would what we've said about our personal feelings affect you in any way?

So basically you denied you said it, then when you were shown where you did, you admitted that is how you felt!

Wrong. If I had contradicted myself, you'd have to show me a post of mine where I said "I really don't see ANY reason why the Progressives should declare independence from the main forum. To me, it'd be like they were declaring independence from the Adventist church and as far as I know, none of them have done that or even want to."

And guess what Night? I made that comment in the TRADITIONAL section. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you that said no Traditionals should go in and even READ the Progressive subforum (which I DON'T)? That works both ways you know. Tall is going in there looking for something to get mad about.

Don't go taking quotes of mine from there when it's supposed to be a SAFE HAVEN for Traditional Adventists....a place for us to relax and talk about what bothers us.

Tall wants something to get mad about because he wants to be able to blame his decision to resign as pastor and leave on someone besides himself.

I'm not taking the blame for it. I wasn't even ON this forum when he started questioning the doctrine and fighting with people about it.

For the record. Tall is absolutely correct. It is and has been happening for a long time and it really [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]es me off! (pardon my french.) This is NOT a church, this is a FORUM. It has been both outright stated and implied that we are 'seperating ourselves' from the church by declaring our subforum independent, and saying it's just your opinion and it shouldn't matter to us is just a cop-out. Your and Daryl's comments are not the only ones either by a long shot. I grit my teeth until they hurt everytime someone does say it. These ridiculous insinuations need to stop. Honor needs to stop with her 'offshoot' nonsense and you guys need to stop lending your support to her deliberately inflammitory comments by your silence and start calling her on it. It just all needs to STOP. And I hope Tall rides everybody into the ground until it does stop.

Now there is real contradiction. It's just supposed to be a forum to us, but it literally makes you grit your teeth and get angry? Why is it not supposed to affect any of us?

And Daryl, you may not see it as such a serious thing, but I for one, as a baptized, card-carrying member of the church, do!

Okay, either it's "just" a forum that no one should take seriously or it literally affects card-carrying members of the church. Seriously, which is it?

You fall for it EVERY time Night. Tall makes a big dramatic thread about leaving, so you run around trying to see what all the fuss is about and you decide to make a speech about our intolerance.

For every one of his goodbye threads, there's an intolerance speech made by you.

Look around our forum. Tall has been super busy the last couple of days trying to tell Traditional Adventists how to run their own show. We aren't going to be bullied and it's really as simple as that.

Go into OUR subforum for some of the info because he had NO problem coming in there to debate.

Rules don't mean a thing unless people actually FOLLOW them.

And please, please, please don't tell me that I haven't spoken up when a Traditional was mean to someone. You guys have your own little guy running around harassing people's every post and you never say a WORD to him. I don't gotta mention names because you know EXACTLY who I'm talking about.

Now either agree that this is JUST a forum and quit getting so upset yourself or allow us to have our feelings about it too. Anything less than that really is intolerance.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Someone's up late! *waves @ Lainie*

Just gonna suggest..that considering the tension in this right now, maybe we should all leave the wiki for the Sabbath? :) Take a breather, come back with rested minds on Sunday?

[TrustAndObey]

A. If it is my decision then why do you all keep calling us offshoots and saying we practically already did? If it is my decision then let me make it.

Oh yeah, I make it a point to call you guys offshoots all the time do I? Show me.

B. It affects me because this is what I will live with every day of my life in the Adventist church--nothing but an off-shoot apostate pastor.

You said the people of your local church have been nothing but kind Tall. If this forum is seriously affecting you this badly, then that's something I can't help you with. I do NOT leave this forum questioning anything about myself, my beliefs, OR my life. There isn't a single person here that has managed to seep over into my real life in a negative way (only positive), and that's a fact.

C. If you all didn't say this kind of stupidity in the Traditional section and then go there to complain about my reaction I would have no reason to go there at all.

Here's where I think you should take Night's advice and just don't read it Tall. If it bothers you, then don't read it. Skip over the parts that bother you.

You have already stated that you are not a Traditional Adventist. You posed a problem for us and we discussed how we were going to handle your new "take" that everybody in our forum should get to vote on the Traditional rules. You didn't think anyone could complain about that?

Or did you KNOW they would and you went looking for any reference to it?

Some of what you see as change or progression, we see as compromise. That isn't going to change. You are not going to convince people about something as HUGE as their faith that you're right and they're wrong.

Any person on here in a real relationship with God is getting their information through prayer and guidance....not from a person sitting behind a computer screen.

That having been said it is a no debate area. You are right there.

Show me where you want the conversation then.

This is a conversation?

Whatever it is, I'm done. I'm putting you on ignore until you've calmed down and can take some accountability for blowing statements WAY out of proportion to make us look like some kind of vultures circling over you telling YOU what to do.

It was the other way around and I won't be bullied.

since when are our rules here the rules of the Adventist church?

Say it with me now together...this is not the church.

This is not the church. It's just a forum. Relax.

Ah yes, well if I say that to call people in the church offshoots is to be a total jerk...who do you think I would be reflecting on? Now can I BLAME them if they apply it to themselves?

Oh don't believe I got my way. You will still go on saying everyone else is a fake Adventist.

Of course it is just an opinion. And my opinion is that you drive people away.

People look for reasons to leave and it's a lot easier if they can blame it on someone else. That's what I've noticed. Just an opinion too of course.

Take a break and have a good Sabbath Tall.

[TrustAndObey]

Someone's up late! *waves @ Lainie*

Just gonna suggest..that considering the tension in this right now, maybe we should all leave the wiki for the Sabbath? :) Take a breather, come back with rested minds on Sunday?

I went to bed once believe it or not. My little guy has bronchitis and his coughing wakes ME up but not him. :)

I'm done with the wiki for this evening, I agree.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I went to bed once believe it or not. My little guy has bronchitis and his coughing wakes ME up but not him. :)

I'm done with the wiki for this evening, I agree.
Rofl. I go through that when I get sick. My mom'll be up all night because I was coughing. Do you know how hard it is to spend the night trying to cough silently so your mom wont give you the death stare in the morning? *lol*

[NightEternal]

Wrong. If I had contradicted myself, you'd have to show me a post of mine where I said "I really don't see ANY reason why the Progressives should declare independence from the main forum. To me, it'd be like they were declaring independence from the Adventist church and as far as I know, none of them have done that or even want to."

Oh come on! That's just semantics and you know it. You plainly said that to declare independence from the subforum is like separating oneself from the church. We have done that. Therefore, two and two make four.

Trust, please don't insult my intelligence.

And guess what Night? I made that comment in the TRADITIONAL section. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you that said no Traditionals should go in and even READ the Progressive subforum (which I DON'T)? That works both ways you know. Tall is going in there looking for something to get mad about.

I cannot control where Tall goes nor where he pulls posts from Trust. The comments were posted here, therefore I dealt with them as comments in the WIKI.

Don't go taking quotes of mine from there when it's supposed to be a SAFE HAVEN for Traditional Adventists....a place for us to relax and talk about what bothers us.

Then don't say one thing to our faces here and in the main forum and then say another in the Trad subforum.

And I never took your quotes from your safe haven. I dealt with them because they were HERE.

Tall wants something to get mad about because he wants to be able to blame his decision to resign as pastor and leave on someone besides himself.

That was low. I can't even believe you would say that.

I'm not taking the blame for it. I wasn't even ON this forum when he started questioning the doctrine and fighting with people about it.

He is not doing any such thing as trying to blame you for his situation. This is a product of your own imagination and completely not even an issue here. He is saying he is tired of the claims that are being made in regards to our Adventist integrity. THAT is the issue.

Now there is real contradiction. It's just supposed to be a forum to us, but it literally makes you grit your teeth and get angry? Why is it not supposed to affect any of us?

And a person who has been in the church for 20+ years is just supposed to take it up the tailpipe and smile when a Trad has the audacity to label them 'offshoots'?

But you know what? I don't care anymore. I really don't. You guys can call me anything you want. I know what I am and I know who I am.

Okay, either it's "just" a forum that no one should take seriously or it literally affects card-carrying members of the church. Seriously, which is it?

Like I said, I don't care anymore. I done with it. I am no longer going to let it get to me.

You fall for it EVERY time Night. Tall makes a big dramatic thread about leaving, so you run around trying to see what all the fuss is about and you decide to make a speech about our intolerance.

For every one of his goodbye threads, there's an intolerance speech made by you.

Trust, I haven't got a clue where you get that from. I really don't. You think I need a goodbye thread from Tall to address the intolerance of the Trads? You should know me better than that!

Make no mistake, this issue has annoyed me since before I left the forum. I have brought it up countless times, before I even knew Tall very well. So this 'running around after him' nonsense is just that-nonsense. I have done no such thing. I have repeatedly called Honor on her 'offshoot' comments time and again. You certainly could not have missed that. I finally gave up, because I was sick of sounding like a broken record with no results. Tall has just now brought it up again and said what I have been saying for MONTHS. It's the very same thing I wanted the split over! And you think I am not going to back him on this? Um-no.

Look around our forum. Tall has been super busy the last couple of days trying to tell Traditional Adventists how to run their own show. We aren't going to be bullied and it's really as simple as that.

Go into OUR subforum for some of the info because he had NO problem coming in there to debate.

I don't care about any of that. You guys can choke yourselves silly with rules all you want for all I care, it's no skin off my nose. But if you want to make comments about our Adventism, expect to be taken to task on that by a Prog.

Rules don't mean a thing unless people actually FOLLOW them.

And please, please, please don't tell me that I haven't spoken up when a Traditional was mean to someone.

This is not about just being mean to us in general. This specifically about Honor and her 'offshoot' comments, none of which I have ever seen you or any other Trad PUBLICLY call her on. I have to assume you agree with her.

You guys have your own little guy running around harassing people's every post and you never say a WORD to him. I don't gotta mention names because you know EXACTLY who I'm talking about.

I am not here to babysit you or anyone else. I have yet to read a Prog call any Trad a 'fake Adventist', which is a much more serious charge than just general harassment. If they do, I will be on them like white on rice.

But of course, they never have and never will, because saying such things is purely a Trad problem.

Now either agree that this is JUST a forum and quit getting so upset yourself or allow us to have our feelings about it too. Anything less than that really is intolerance.

Trust, you can feel any way you want. Just be honest about it. Don't claim you haven't said something when it is clearly implied in your own words. You regard subforum independence as similar to separating from the church. We have declared our subforum independence. It's pretty easy to connect the dots, we aren't idiots! :doh:

The bottom line hee is that Tall caught you in a contradiction and now you're backpedaling.

[TrustAndObey]

I promised my friend Red that I wouldn't debate on Sabbath, and unfortunately I know I've let him down. I'm sorry Rojo!

Night, I don't know why we're expected to be baby-sitters and our silence is condoning something, but you aren't a baby-sitter and don't have to say anything. That's really not fair play and you know it. It's hypocritical.

If the offshoot comments were the only thing you fight with Honor about that'd be one thing, but you know it isn't.

I don't think anyone is a fake Adventist. I do think there are people here that are bent on leaving and taking as many people with them as they can. I see it all the time, and THAT really is sickening.

You have your opinions and I'll have mine. I'm HAPPY in the Adventist church and LOVE the doctrine. I know that drives some people crazy but they have to worry about themselves, not me.

Night all!

[NightEternal]

I promised my friend Red that I wouldn't debate on Sabbath, and unfortunately I know I've let him down. I'm sorry Rojo!

Night, I don't know why we're expected to be baby-sitters and our silence is condoning something, but you aren't a baby-sitter and don't have to say anything. That's really not fair play and you know it. It's hypocritical.

If someone questions your Adventism, they will hear from me, no worries there.

If the offshoot comments were the only thing you fight with Honor about that'd be one thing, but you know it isn't.

I am not the only one who has problems with her saying that, believe me.

I was not the one who reported her for that BTW. But I darn well support whoever did! :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone is a fake Adventist. I do think there are people here that are bent on leaving and taking as many people with them as they can. I see it all the time, and THAT really is sickening.

I don't see that. That is pure paranoia Trust.

As for the comments on false Adventists, it has been more than implied by Honor, DL and Jon. And my hunch is that Doc and Jim feel the same way. They just aren't as vocal about it as the other three.

You have your opinions and I'll have mine. I'm HAPPY in the Adventist church and LOVE the doctrine. I know that drives some people crazy but they have to worry about themselves, not me.

Doesn't drive me crazy in the least.

[tall73]

Oh yeah, I make it a point to call you guys offshoots all the time do I? Show me.



Note the plural. You know quite well who uses the term.But if you FEEL that we are separating from the church, as you admit above, the issue is semantics.



You said the people of your local church have been nothing but kind

Indeed, but I don't go to church there anymore, do I? As soon as I go to a new church, and I have gone to two so far, the questions come...hey...why are you hear today...where ya from...etc.....



Tall. If this forum is seriously affecting you this badly, then that's something I can't help you with. I do NOT leave this forum questioning anything about myself, my beliefs, OR my life. There isn't a single person here that has managed to seep over into my real life in a negative way (only positive), and that's a fact.

You sure seemed to be affected when your Trinitarian status was questioned. Now how about someone hammering that all the time.



Here's where I think you should take Night's advice and just don't read it Tall. If it bothers you, then don't read it. Skip over the parts that bother you.
yes, then I can pretend that you all don't think that we have left the church.

Sorry, I don't like reality much at the moment, but pretending doesn't change it.


You have already stated that you are not a Traditional Adventist. You posed a problem for us and we discussed how we were going to handle your new "take" that everybody in our forum should get to vote on the Traditional rules. You didn't think anyone could complain about that?

Sure, complain all you want.

It is logically consistent, and it forced you to look at what you were saying with your non-sense about us leaving the church.



Some of what you see as change or progression, we see as compromise. That isn't going to change. You are not going to convince people about something as HUGE as their faith that you're right and they're wrong.

That is funny, because people actually do have an impact when they point out truth.

I don't need a reminder of your huge theology of the Spirit being your only teacher. Suffice to say that the Spirit used people more than once in Scripture.

But apart from that, you have ignored a few facts here.

A. This isn't the church.

B. we are part of the church, and despite your opinions you haven't gotten the administration to boot us yet.




Any person on here in a real relationship with God is getting their information through prayer and guidance....not from a person sitting behind a computer screen.
If you can't learn from others that is simply pride.




This is a conversation?

Whatever it is, I'm done. I'm putting you on ignore until you've calmed down and can take some accountability for blowing statements WAY out of proportion to make us look like some kind of vultures circling over you telling YOU what to do.

It was the other way around and I won't be bullied.

No, it was your group's ploy from the beginning to deny us even the name Adventist.

Statements on the subject abound. And some were quite upset that it didn't work out.



If you want to put me on ignore feel free.



This is not the church. It's just a forum. Relax.
This is progress.

Now please explain, if this is not the church, how wanting our own section is akin to leaving the church?




People look for reasons to leave and it's a lot easier if they can blame it on someone else. That's what I've noticed. Just an opinion too of course.

Take a break and have a good Sabbath Tall.

No, it would not stem from you. But you have served as an example of the goads that could be avoided without the welcome committee of the "true" Adventists. And some days being free of of that is inviting.

[tall73]

Tall wants something to get mad about because he wants to be able to blame his decision to resign as pastor and leave on someone besides himself.



Complete delusion.

I don't like leaving the ministry, but I don't blame you or anyone for that. I blame what I found.



I'm not taking the blame for it. I wasn't even ON this forum when he started questioning the doctrine and fighting with people about it.
No, what I blame you for is just what you did....hammer everyone who you don't think is the right kind of Adventist. And this forum was FAR better when you and your crew were gone.

It was one of the few times of peace we had. Until you all came back and started right up again, hammering away.


Now does it tempt one to leave the presence of folks who do what you do? Sure.

.

[tall73]

I don't think anyone is a fake Adventist.



This is from August 2005, soon after the Adventist forum started.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=17929036&postcount=70

At what point did you stop believing in fake Adventists?

[TrustAndObey]

Good morning and Happy Sabbath all!

I have no intentions of carrying on the fight from last night, but I do want to clear something up real quick.

I cannot control where Tall goes nor where he pulls posts from Trust. The comments were posted here, therefore I dealt with them as comments in the WIKI.

Night, when MVA1985 first came here I noticed that he was posting in the Prog section. I noticed it because Senti started a big thread about it in the Main Forum...lol...so it sort of fell in my lap. I PMd him and asked him to not do that anymore, that we needed to respect your boundaries.

Now at first he gave me some 'tude about it, and later we became really good friends. It is possible to explain to someone that you don't condone their behavior. And if it comes from someone that you know cares about you, it's a lot easier pill to swallow than someone that you disagree with a lot.

We do influence each other here. When I see a fellow Trad say something that I know others will find offensive I DO say something. Some people listen to me, some don't...but I DO try.

Then don't say one thing to our faces here and in the main forum and then say another in the Trad subforum.

And I never took your quotes from your safe haven. I dealt with them because they were HERE.

The Trads voted in the rules of the Main Forum. No debate, only OFFICIAL teachings of the Adventist church, etc. Why would we want to separate from that type of forum? That was my whole point. I know you guys didn't like the rules we voted in, and I really can see why you'd want independence from them, just like in real life.

The big difference between us is that Trads DO believe in the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church. Keeping a subforum away from those types of teachings would just be weird to me and it would feel like we (Trads) were saying we didn't agree with the fundamental beliefs of the church.

THAT is what I expressed in the Trad section and that really is how I feel.

My feelings on it extend no further than to my fellow Tradtionals on this site and that's the truth. I'm not the control freak here. I know more than anything else that the way I think/feel isn't going to influence a single Prog on here.

That was low. I can't even believe you would say that.

He is not doing any such thing as trying to blame you for his situation. This is a product of your own imagination and completely not even an issue here. He is saying he is tired of the claims that are being made in regards to our Adventist integrity. THAT is the issue.

Check out post #838 in this wiki Night.

I think you should stop calling us fake Adventist for years and treating us like dirt. I think if I ever do leave the church I will be thinking of you all and how you have treated me and others here.

Tell me again he isn't going to try to blame us for his decision. It's right there, in black and white.

Notice he didn't mention differences in doctrine at all. No, it will be on OUR heads if he leaves the Adventist church.

That's when someone is spending way TOO much time on a message board, IMHO.

I have to go shower...adios!

[sentipente]

Tell me again he isn't going to try to blame us for his decision. It's right there, in black and white.

Notice he didn't mention differences in doctrine at all. No, it will be on OUR heads if he leaves the Adventist church.


He only said that he will be thinking of the treatment you guys meted out to him. He did not say his leaving will be on your heads.

[sentipente]

This is from August 2005, soon after the Adventist forum started.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=17929036&postcount=70

At what point did you stop believing in fake Adventists?
Having read that link I am beginning to understand her obsession with statrei. Sounds like she knows him/her personally.

[Sophia7]

He only said that he will be thinking of the treatment you guys meted out to him. He did not say his leaving will be on your heads.

Exactly.

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Anyhooooo.

So, are we putting those FSB rules we discussed up for pre-poll with Woob's suggestion too? :)

[tall73]

Notice he didn't mention differences in doctrine at all. No, it will be on OUR heads if he leaves the Adventist church.




If there were no differences in doctrine would we be having this conversation?

I will leave over theology if it is clear there is too much I disagree with.

My point was that the treatment we get from the orthodoxy police makes it more desirable.

[tall73]

Anyhooooo.

So, are we putting those FSB rules we discussed up for pre-poll with Woob's suggestion too? :)

What post had the final version?

[sentipente]

Exactly.
Sometimes I wonder if certainly people deliberately misread what others write in order to maintain their own untenable positions.

[tall73]

ah....little problem.

We are nearing the 1k post mark in this thread. If it happens then this wiki closes and cannot be edited. it also spins off a new one automatically...but unless Erwin got it fixed it spins it off somewhere else.

Therefore I make the following recommendation. We need to copy the current wiki contents and post it into a new wiki. Then the mods need to lock this one. Then we link back to this one, and the wiki discussion can continue.

[DarylFawcett]

I will locate that post and use it to create a pre-poll topic in the Main SDA forum.

[DarylFawcett]

I created the pre-poll topic on the section 6 proposed rules in the Main SDA Forum.

[DarylFawcett]

As a result of tall's observation about the length of this discussion, I have created a Take 3 version of this wiki, therefore, please continue the wiki discussion there at the following link:

http://foru.ms/t6104106

Perhaps a request should be made to close this wiki?

[Sophia7]

Closing this so that it doesn't reach 1,000 posts. Please continue discussion at this link:
http://foru.ms/t6104106