The Upper Room

12:30 AM

@TRiG Not a bad article.

@El'endiaStarman too add to that npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/06/25/193174358/… is a fascinating article about children's books and how the demographics haven't shifted there yet

David Stratton

Hey!! The "Retract vote to close" option is working. Does anyone know when that got released?

wax eagle

@DavidStratton this week?

very recently

El'endia Starman

@DavidStratton Waitwhatwoah! [starts to go test]....[realizes he has supervote]...awww...

wax eagle

@El'endiaStarman you'll have to go find somewhere where you dont :)

David Stratton

12:37 AM

@El'endiaStarman - Let's hope you continue to have that supervote.

El'endia Starman

@waxeagle My next highest is Math.SE and I need 1,212 more rep...

@DavidStratton Thanks for the vote of confidence. :)

wax eagle

@El'endiaStarman ah, you gotta start posting on MSO, rep comes easy there if you know the network :) and they hand out gold badges like they are candy

(if you catch the right post)

El'endia Starman

@waxeagle There are that many clueless users? :P

wax eagle

oh yes.

El'endia Starman

Of course there are.

It's technology. Lots of users. On the internet.

wax eagle

12:40 AM

I have fewre than 40 posts there and over 3k rep

El'endia Starman

Wow.

wax eagle

though to be fair, I have just over 40 posts here

and over 3k rep

but I've picked up 3 reversals there

El'endia Starman

As for me, 133 posts, 5.1k rep.

You've got a higher rep-to-post ratio than I do. :P

wax eagle

I don't post much anywhere unless it's right in my wheelhouse. The only place I feel comfortable spouting knowledge on general stuff is at RPG...

I could do all right here if we got more questions on reformed stuff (which the past two days have been full of, I've just been beaten to the punch a bit).

It helps that on RPG the most popular tag happens to be my area of expertise

El'endia Starman

[nods]

I think I've gotten more rep on questions than answers. I'll check that with the Data Explorer later.

wax eagle

12:51 AM

here we're similar to DIY we don't have a super dominant tag or two that rule all questions and that definitely makes it harder for those of us who might be expert in a small subset of the site.

Anonymous

1:15 AM

I am just wondering out of curiosity about this. Are the terms (fornication, adultery, sodomy, onanism) still used often in the Christian community, or at least your Christian community? Or are they all outdated terms?

TRiG

@Anonymous For the JWs, you've got fornication and (perhaps less often, which is odd, as it would probably be more commonly used in general culture) adultery. Not the others.

Anonymous

1:34 AM

@TRiG Do you think that the terms sodomy and onanism are just too loose/broad? According to my Merriam-Webster 11th Edition Collegiate Dictionary, onanism has three definitions, whereas sodomy can mean any sexual behavior considered to be obscene.

Example: "He dragged the woman into a dark chamber, in which he used to execute his sodomitic vices."

TRiG

@Anonymous The word sodomy has an interesting and varied history, actually.

Sep 18 '12 at 20:40, by TRiG

@waxeagle A case in point, from Rick Warren (Sodomite).

Anonymous

1:50 AM

Example: "The sodomitically vicious man broke into the house of the wealthy heiress and sodomized the home completely."

I don't even know what that means in my context. Scratch that sentence.

New sentence: "Get rid of your onanistic urges!"

TRiG

@DoesElishaspeak? Okay. Who's playing games with the bot name?

yesterday, by El'endia Starman

@DavidStratton Hehehehe...so, there are three feeds that post questions in this room. Their default name is "Stack Exchange", but that name can be changed. Caleb decided to change the names of the three feeds to "Elisha spake thus:" (Eschewmenical blog posts), "Does Elisha speak?" (Meta posts), and "Ask Elisha" (questions on History.SE about Christianity).

Okay. That was a moment of confusion explained. And it's all @Caleb's fault.

Does Elisha speak?

2:43 AM

0

Q: Should C.SE. start allowing "personal opinion", the alternative to "identifiable position"?

Are there any good reasons to start allowing personal opinion? Is PO the alternative usually being advocated when users oppose a policy on "identifiable position"?

discussion

Anonymous

4:13 AM

0

Q: Who were the 40 men who wrote the Bible, according to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is made up of "66 smaller books". God used about "40 faithful men" to write them. According to them, the first five books were written by Moses about 3,500 years ago; the last book was written by the apostle John over 1,900 years ago. God communicated wi...

jehovahs-witnesses

Does Elisha speak?

4:47 AM

0

Q: unwelcome attention against the rules

Ok according to the Stack Exchange team unwelcome attention is against the rules. Stack Exchange Team via stackoverflow.com Jul 8 (9 days ago) to me If anybody (Caleb included) is posting something inappropriate or unwelcome, please flag it for moderator attention and a site modera...

discussion

Sachin Kainth

9:36 AM

Hi, can you all please follow this site. It really needs followers.

3

Sikhism

Proposed Q&A site for anyone who is interested in the Sikh religion.

Currently in definition.

Caleb

10:26 AM

← 1 message moved from Christianity 2013 Moderator Election

← 4 messages moved from Christianity 2013 Moderator Election

justbelieve

11:47 AM

I'm curious if we can get a summary of nominees' positions on young earth creationism and evolution. While a person can be affable (gaining social allies and charming newcomers), I think it is important to know where they stand on intellectual humility.

Also, in my opinion recognizing possibly false premises is more important than having iron-clad inference (from this follows that) and legalistic (Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world , and I will find enough in them to hang him ) skills.

TRiG

12:11 PM

@El'endiaStarman BEHOLD Tarvek in his underwear

in Relationships and Dating, May 1 at 11:53, by TRiG

@Chris (a) I'm already following it, but have no intention of committing to it. (b) I may possibly upvote a few sample questions when I have a moment later today. (c) I dislike link spam. If (i) that site were related to this room in some way, or (ii) this was a long-running room to which you were a regular contributor, it would be acceptable. As neither of those conditions is true, it's just spam. Knock it off.

justbelieve

12:49 PM

@fredsbend No, I'm hung up on using logical fallacies (slippery slope) and then accusing your perceived opponent of "being poorly logically equipped". However, I won't point out to you in which post you used the slippery slope -- take it as a homework question.

I also think that with your attitude of getting angry because someone makes you look foolish "subtly" or cleverly, then accusing them of calling you names, then admitting that the name calling came from you, you ought to retract your nomination.

I would have previously thought that the racism part might be a bonus for you, but last night's discussion showed me there are plenty of sensible people around here.

Just as a clarification, the YEC question has nothing to do with questioning @fredsbend nomination. I'm raising these as separate issues for the community's consideration.

Ryan Frame

2:04 PM

@justbelieve How would a person's views on creation have any effect on his/her abilities as a moderator? Moderators need to be able to deal with people effectively; they don't necessarily need to be well-versed in the knowledge domain of the site. Even an atheist could be a good moderator on this site.

wax eagle

@RyanFrame he was saying it doesn't

Ryan Frame

@waxeagle: then why ask for them?

wax eagle

@RyanFrame I'm not sure of the context of the YEC remark tbh, in that I have no idea why it was mentioned. based on what I've read in chat over the past couple of days the objection to the nomination is based on our recent conversations on race.

Ryan Frame

I see. He said it just a few messages up.

wax eagle

ah, now I see it. sorry my eyes skimmed right over that

svidgen

2:17 PM

"Well, God created the world in 6 days. Therefore, this question is spam."

wax eagle

@justbelieve please either post this in the election chat or the question collection thread so it can be seen by all candidates.

justbelieve

2:31 PM

OK. I didn't want to spam the election chat, as I wasn't sure who is supposed to post there

wax eagle

@justbelieve anyone who wants to know more about the candidates.

or has a quick question about the election.

justbelieve

2:47 PM

I will let the @fredsbend challenge stay here, since I think bringing it to the election room would only confuse things.

wax eagle

@justbelieve I agree with that. As that amounts to a personal question rather than an electoral one.

TRiG

@justbelieve I, at least, have no intention whatsoever of voting in this election, so you can discount me from your list of "sensible people" (assuming I was on it in the first place).

justbelieve

@waxeagle A person who is immature, who feels under personal attack, who thinks they are being called names (when in fact they are doing the name calling) is actually a worse candidate then a Richelieu-type person ("give me six lines...").

@TRiG The "sensible people" were those who pushed back against racism. That statement was an appreciative nod to the community.

(as opposed to a battlecry for allies in my personal vendetta against @fredsbend, if that's how you interpreted it :) )

Ryan Frame

3:33 PM

Is it possible to see all posts in chat for a specific user?

wax eagle

@RyanFrame all, ever? I'm not sure, all, recently, then yes, from their chat profile.

justbelieve

@RyanFrame I've asked that before; I believe the answer was no.

wax eagle

@RyanFrame chat.stackexchange.com/users/71374/ryan-frame?tab=recent here's yours

Ryan Frame

@waxeagle I found that but it doesn't go back far enough. Thanks though

I think I remember the subject, so I'll try searching. If only I could search "*"

wax eagle

@RyanFrame search works well if you know a word or two

you can filter on user, that sometimes helps

El'endia Starman

4:20 PM

@TRiG Aaand the fangirls start drooling...

TRiG

4:38 PM

@El'endiaStarman ^-^

justbelieve

@waxeagle Never mind, I got confused following 3 rooms. Sorry. I've deleted the noise

wax eagle

no problem it's more confusing than normal with an extra room

justbelieve

OK, I'm still confused. I see some of @svidgen's messages (e.g. "And it's not a lack of intellectual humility to idolize science?") still in the election chat. Shouldn't those be moved to the Cr-vs chat as well?

wax eagle

in Christianity 2013 Moderator Election, 13 mins ago, by wax eagle

I'm still trying to sort out what's relevant to the election and what's not and I'm uncertain so I think rather than move anything else I'm going to just say that we need to redirect further discussion that way.

justbelieve

@waxeagle Ah, OK. But then should I reply in the election chat...?

wax eagle

4:47 PM

@justbelieve creation chat. He should still be pingable there

and yeah, I know it's headache inducing

justbelieve

@waxeagle OK, but since his messages are still in the election chat, I won't be able to reply directly (with backref highlighting and all the works), right?

wax eagle

@justbelieve hmm, good point. I'm going to move his latest one so that you've got a direct reply. Is that adequate?

svidgen

This is chaos! I quit!!!

justbelieve

@waxeagle I think it's the best, the only alternative would be to flood the election room.

@svidgen Soon there will be light :) It's almost solved

wax eagle

@justbelieve ok, that's what I've done :)

@svidgen vote to close anyways. You can always retract it (new feature) or vote to reopen when it's corrected.

There isn't much harm in shooting first and then aiming with community close votes.

svidgen

5:52 PM

Eh hem ... usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/17/…

wax eagle

6:03 PM

stupid work web filter blocks anything with sex in the URL...

El'endia Starman

@waxeagle So something like "www.bobsexperience.com" would be blocked?

wax eagle

6:19 PM

@El'endiaStarman no, that would be ok

it has to be the issolated word

El'endia Starman

@waxeagle So something like "www.url.com/sex-in-marriage.html"?

wax eagle

@El'endiaStarman blocked

El'endia Starman

Gotcha.

TRiG

6:39 PM

> 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

?

That's the 1994 data, apparently.

wax eagle

@TRiG is the ? that it's not 100 or that it's 80?

TRiG

@waxeagle Well, that figure is one I'd've expected to be lower for "devout" Catholics.

svidgen

@waxeagle That's unfortunate ... but understandable.

@TRiG That line struck me as a little odd for a number of reasons ... Point is, Catholics have awesome sex.... so ... I expect you all to be enrolling in RCIA soon.

TRiG

@svidgen I ... doubt it would help.

wax eagle

@TRiG I dunno, with some of the rumors out of VC...

TRiG

6:57 PM

@waxeagle Meh. Closets don't suit me.

wax eagle

@TRiG legit

El'endia Starman

...for once, I am not getting the references.

TRiG

@El'endiaStarman Apparently (wonderful word, apparently) there's a "gay lobby" in VC.

Vatican City

El'endia Starman

...that exchange makes much more sense now...and seems a bit more clever too. :P

fredsbend

8:36 PM

@justbelieve If what you are doing is not personal attack I suppose I will just take your word for it.

I am not really interested in reading my own words for a third time as "homework" from such a gracious teacher.

I am also done with the race discussion. Your heels are in the sand so we aren't going to get anywhere. I will just mention a final time that I gave a quote from Cosby and El gave a quote from Morgan Freeman that supports the ideas I was trying to relay, but I doubt you would think their thoughts and ideas racist (another issue I tried to illuminate).

I will not retract my nomination for a moderator position on an SE site about Christian doctrine and history because of my sociological opinions. The two are distinctly unrelated.

I will also not retract my nomination at your suggestion because we had an argument and you now think me your enemy. In fact, despite feeling personally attacked by you (which I would define as irritating rather than angering), I did not come back offensively.

I, instead, asked you twice to please stop doing what you were doing. I held my own, took your words, and insisted that we could resolve what I was experiencing in our discussion without the moderators being involved; I asked that we could move forward positively. I would actually think that patient and mature; qualities I would hope you want in a moderator.

But, Instead of recognizing that I was feeling attacked by you, whether you think it valid or not, you persisted and still persist.

So in a final effort to eliminate this unfriendly rivalry I urge you to move forward positively with me. We are not enemies and there is no reason to despise each other. We can drop this issue, as you can see TRiG and I have, or you can pound it further still into the sand.

On a different note, because this and the above are unrelated, I will not answer your question on being YEC or not, though I have already told you, because that is also unrelated to one's capability to moderate this site. You are certainly welcome to vote on whatever criteria you deem valid, but I will not entertain what appears to be an attempt to make a certain belief group look stupid, foolish, etc.

TRiG

9:29 PM

@fredsbend *fascinated eyebrow*

TRiG

9:59 PM

7

A: 2013 Moderator Election Q&A - Question Collection

One of the hardest issues we've dealt with over the past two years is how to deal with the following two related issues: Minority Christian groups that are regarded as heretical by mainstream groups. Individuals who claim to be the only person who believes the way they do and insist on being ab...

> How will you as a moderator assist in making minority groups feel welcome?

By not being (or, almost as important, sounding like) a racist asshat.

svidgen

@TRiG Well that's no fun ..

Transcript for