« first day (180 days earlier)      last day (4445 days later) » 

3:29 AM
Who is the moderate who put Ron Maimon in a penalty box?
Sorry, "moderator"
 
@HeathHunnicutt we had consensus. Thats about all I'm willing to say
 
Evil tends to hide behind secrecy, that makes sense. Ron is one of the only scholarly posters on this SE.
Otherwise we seem to have a pretty big "flat earther" consensus.
 
(the actual details of suspensions are private other than the period)
 
Is it possible to delete one's account on an SE?
This site has nothing to do with Christianity as I see it.
Is it possible for moderators to delete accounts? I want out of here.
 
@HeathHunnicutt yes, let me check on procedure. My understanding is that you set your user profile to "Delete me" to confirm account control.
I do wonder what you were hoping to find on a Christianity site?
 
3:37 AM
I was hoping to find people willing to share knowledge and open to learning. Instead it's the usual close-minded people who turn everybody away from faith.
 
49
Q: Can I delete my account?

SauronHow can I delete my Stack Exchange account(s)? Return to FAQ index

 
I think I shall complain to the overlords about the moderation here, first. I'd rather see this SE not exist than continue in its current form, which seems to allow only one view.
 
@HeathHunnicutt I'm not sure what you are talking about. Ron was not suspended because we disagreed with him. He was suspended because he was being rude about it.
@HeathHunnicutt please feel free team at stackexchange.com would be the best address
 
Rude about what? You disagreeing with him?
Wax I already correspond with them, thanks for that tup.
Here
 
@Heath I'm not a moderator, had no idea anyone was in a penalty box, but am sorry to hear you found us to be intolerant. You should talk to mark Gravell and several other non Christians on this site.
 
3:40 AM
I sincerely doubt that you would have muzzled him if you agreed with him.
Hi Geek, thanks for clearing up my 25 years of misunderstanding on Levirate vs. Levite.
That was a good one.
I found you to be just right, but overall this SE is only going to prevent conversions
 
@HeathHunnicutt I did disagree with him, but he is free to express his opinions here and as is anyone else. But we do ask all of our members to maintain civility and respect. as well as to stay on topic.
 
One person's "off topic" is another person's "open minded"
 
Np. Glad I could be of help. Again, sorry to hear you're leaving
 
Hmm. I do want to mention that Mark Gravell disagrees with us quite often, but his answers are high-quality and just about as polite as can be.
 
Unless you show me an instance of incivility or disrespect from him, frankly I don't believe you. I have read his posts, and they've all seemed appropriate.
 
3:42 AM
So, no, Ron isn't suspended because he disagreed with us.
 
There were a set of comments that I missed, but were deleted bc of foul language and rudeness
 
I have never seen Ron behave in anything but a friendly manner, and his knowledge surpasses the majority of particpants here. It disagrees with midwestern America culture, but that's good.
Ok, let me assume he swore at people. I wonder if he was being ganged up on?
 
christianity.stackexchange.com/a/5422/1039 I never saw the comments, so I don't know. Still, I know Caleb well enough to know it had to be egregious.
 
From this post:
> @Mason Wheeler: I am not going to follow your guidelines, because they are bullshit you made up to prevent people from giving honest answers. Stackexchange is called "exchange" because it is for the exchange of nontrivial ideas. My answers were very good, they answered the questions, they answered them correctly, although they answered them from an academic point of view, and you know it. The real problem is that they are incompatible with your mentally deranged superstitious beliefs.
 
Ohhh kay
He used the word "bullshit"
What he wrote is the truth, and fully captures the sickness being established here.
 
3:49 AM
@HeathHunnicutt so community guidelines and quality standards are "sickness"?
 
The way they are being used to shut up people who don't follow a specific tradition is the sickness. I share his opinion that they are being used to prevent good answers.
Wax, even your 19:49 is disingenuous and I would like an apology. You can read what Ron wrote is much more than the guidelines per se
 
@HeathHunnicutt ? link?
 
What you wrote in chat was a disingenuous rhetorical spin on my statement that there is a sickness here. You know I didn't mean the guidelines are a sickness, rather than their application. I don't like dishonest argument.
A week in the penalty box for disagreeing with the thought police and using a minor profane word.... That has more to do with disagreeing with the thought police than anything else.
 
@HeathHunnicutt guidelines aren't much without some enforcement.
@HeathHunnicutt that comment was not the primary motivator.
 
What was the primary motivator?
 
3:55 AM
it was merely a ready example. I honestly cannot say. I've already said too much.
 
The penalty box suspension claims it was due to the quality of his answers, much as I feared: thought police.
 
@HeathHunnicutt yes. moderator messages come in a limited set of templates. It sort of limits the reasons listed for suspensions.
 
@Heath, again, I'm not privy to any of the details, but Im pretty sure if the mods did end up spilling the beans, that would be a great disrespect to Ron's privacy. I was taken to the woodshed once for rudeness towards someone else on this site, and I deserved it.
 
Ron received a message with the reasons and had the opportunity to respond if he wants to. After that there really isn't much more to say.
 
It would be hard to choose the right template when there is no good reason, I'll give you that.
 
3:58 AM
I think the mods really are doing their best.
 
A seven day suspension of one of the highest-quality contributors? Not the best.
 
@HeathHunnicutt Ron has 11 non-zero-score answers and 10 negative-score answers. The community disagrees.
 
@HeathHunnicutt I think that calling Ron "one of the highest quality contributors" might be slightly biased. His answers are rarely on topic, and are typically a soap box for his thoughts on mistranslations of scripture. I don't think that qualifies as high quality.
 
The community is a beta and it is starting out just the kind of close-minded community that leads God to want to destroy this planet very soon.
His translations are great! Do you read Hebrew?
 
@HeathHunnicutt no, but I trust a group of actual scholars much more than some guy on the internet.
 
4:00 AM
He is 100% correct that most English translations of Hebrew fill in a lot of detail that wasn't there to begin with. His agenda is to be faithful to the original, not the Catholic Church.
 
His translations are not based on a verifiable manuscript source.
 
Affable, what do you base that on? You think he's looking at the wrong Hebrew document?
Or you think his translations don't agree with translations that stem from the Council of Nicea?
 
No, based on his own statement of translation. There are all sorts of manuscripts out there. The Masoretic text, based on Codex leningrad dates nearly to the 10th c
Academic research has shown the pedigree of the manuscript variation
 
Um, he was translating from the Masoretic according to what he wrote. His difference is that he doesn't add in English words that weren't present.
 
And so, when a translation is done, scholars can debate how close the text is to the original based on studies of every known manuscript.
When Ron talks about how he did his translations, he doesn't seem to know the pedigree.
 
4:04 AM
I don't read Hebrew yet, I started with Greek. I can tell you there are many bogus versus in the KJV and the NIV. For example NIV frequently translates "enter the kingdom" as "serve the Lord." And that is so wrong it's Satanic.
 
@HeathHunnicutt that's not necessarily a good thing btw. ever done any actual translation?
 
Yes
And that's why I challenged him to talk about his translation philosophy
When he made the statement that formal equivalence bs dynamic equivalence was a false choice, I knew right away he was an amateur
I too am an amatuer
 
I was stunned when I learned that all these English translations of the NT are lies, apparently motivated by political and other goals. Now I would be just as stunned to learn that the translations from Hebrew are honest, since the translations from Greek take such liberties as to be fully misleading.
 
Which is why I respect scholars who know far more than I do
Lies?
 
Yes, the works of Satan.
 
4:07 AM
Any translation has to have a philosophy but I hardly think that makes them a lie
Back to the point though, Ron Maimonides admits his own translational priority was literary
Like the NLT. In and of itself, that's not bad, but there are other linguistic concerns when one is arguing doctrine
You do know what ha-Saran means, right?
 
As an example, according to the Greek, Jesus said that any man, putting his hand on plow, and then looking into the past, is not well-suited to enter into the Kingdom (Baciliec) of heaven. The NIV claims he said that the person is not well-suited to serve the Lord. That is Satanic.
 
Ha-Satan
 
@HeathHunnicutt ? serve the lord <> enter into the kingdom? curious thought they were the same thing.
 
No, wax. They aren't the same thing.
Affable, I said I read Greek, Ha Satan would be Hebrew, I take it?
 
I don't mean to make any point by asking you this - I really want to know. How are you learning to do translation? You come from a clearly different school of thought than I do when it comes to translation and evaluation, and I'd like to understand where that comes from. It might help me understand your claims better.
 
4:12 AM
@HeathHunnicutt in most traditions they are doctrinal equalities.
 
Ha-Satan means "the Accuser" I found it rather humorous that you were accusing all of these scholars of being Satanic, that's all
 
In Job, Satan is with Yahweh when the Elohim join him. He asks for permission to torment Job and is allowed to. That's not an act of accusation. I've heard it translated "persecutor", which seems to make more sense.
Wax, this whole "servant" movement is a really new and American thing, so "most traditions" probably don't discuss it.
As for the difference, Yahweh's kingdom is his rule that he is gradually establishing and which will be the New Israel after the days of slaughter and judgment.
 
@HeathHunnicutt Got some support for that claim?
 
Try not to use so many pronouns in chat. What claim?
 
> this whole "servant" movement is a really new and American thing
 
4:17 AM
Yes, I refer you to the original Greek New Testament. Learn to read it.
 
More to the point, this is what we do on SE. We push people to source their claims.
5
 
Great, my source is the Greek New Testament as compared to modern English translations made in America.
 
For all your talk of how close-minded we are, I'd like to think we are showing you that we just are asking you to back up what you say in an academic fashion
 
Also, for the record, both Yahweh and Jesus have spoken to me about the need for a new English translation which is faithful to what they meant.
But Affable, you aren't -- I'm allowed to observe that nowhere in the Greek NT does the word servant appear. I may need to retract the claim that this is an American bias, but it is clearly a modern invention.
 
By all means, I don't want to quench the Spirit, but remember that even Jesus said that you should feel feel blessed when men per cute and revile you
 
4:19 AM
Actually, I think James said that.
 
Um, doulos is all over theNT
 
But good point, I am supposed to be happy about this.
 
And, no it's Matthew 5;13
If you wanted to feel persecuted, by all means go ahead. Just remember, it truly should be for Jesus' sake.
 
@AffableGeek Uh...are you sure?
> [**Matthew 5:13 (NIV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:13&version=NIV)
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <sup>13</sup> “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
 
I was thinking of James 1:2
 
4:21 AM
Excuse me 5:12
It's the end of the beatitudes at the sermon on the mount.
 
> Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Ah, much better. :P
 
The point here is that I doubt even Ron would say he is doing Jesus work here.
 
It starts at 5:11 and you're right, it's another place we're told to be Macharioi when persecuted.
 
I would counsel you to pick your battles.
Inasmuch as possible, be at peace with all men.
 
(Just to include 5:11...)
> 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
 
4:23 AM
δουλος = bondservant, not quite the same as a slave from an American point of view, but not necessarily a willing servant, either. διακονος = servant (later translated as 'deacon,' which is just rendering the Greek into English), or as minister, which was the Latin word for "servant"
 
The mods, operating in good church fashion, found Ron to be a divisive quarreler. And, they followed matt 18:15 in going to him privately, before pushing him out of the community
Furthermore, their goal is to bring him back.
 
Those two words are all over the NT (I read Koine Greek)
 
We really are trying to be Christian here, and I hope you can appreciate that
 
Then you also know what the bacileic is, forgive my lack of unicode.
 
I'm on an iPad here, fighting with autocorrect
But yes I understand the kingdom.
 
4:25 AM
@AffableGeek indeed, the suspension is temporary, and if he desires to come back we welcome him. In fact we have had a couple of people come back form suspensions and do quite well here
 
And btw an easy example of douloc is James 1:1, but are you (Dan) saying that this is the same as the servant doctrine which leads people to translate "enter the kingdom" as "serve"?
 
if you mean βασιλεια, then it means "kingdom"
@HeathHunnicutt I just walked into this conversation, so I'm not saying much of anything right now. I just pointed out that the word "servant" does appear all over the NT. I'm not sure what you mean by "servant doctrine," you'd have to unpack that for me some more.
 
@Heath. Just curious, do worship in a Kingdom Hall? I ask because we definitely need JW voices here, and so it would doubly sad if you thought that we were trying to push people out.
Do you worship
 
Hello everyone
 
[chuckle] I was just now thinking that it was awfully quiet in here... :P
 
4:35 AM
Hi Dan! I wanted to Hi to you, btw. I've just started reading your stuff and wanted to tell you that I find you to be fascinating!
(But, I'll admit, I was trying to suss out what heaths issue was first) trying to let him respond.
 
@ElendiaStarman too true, it had been dead since the blog chatup the other day
 
@waxeagle We should wield the ban-hammer more often if it'll liven up the chat room! (Joking joking joking...)
 
Hey, I'm all for some good discussion - heated or not.
 
Affable no I'm no-denominational. The JW came by Friday and asked me if I was in a cult.
 
4:39 AM
@AffableGeek, I've been reading your stuff and have found it very enjoyable also
 
I'll admit, I wish we could do this over a table with a couple of ginger ales, and no autocorrect
 
@AffableGeek I can't help but wonder if anyone likes autocorrect...
 
@AffableGeek ginger ale is a bit...um... non-alcoholic for my taste. I'll have a blue moon :)...
 
On the other hand, there have been some hilarious exchanges because of autocorrect... :P
 
So, Dan, do I read correctly that you're studying in an Eastern Orthodox seminary?
 
4:41 AM
Dan - I was complaining that the NIV translates Luke 9:62 as "... serve the Lord" rather than "... enter the Kingdom"
 
@wax you don't know how hard it is for a guy who was basically baptist to become a whiskeypalian!
 
What made you think I'm JW?
 
When you were saying that Yahweh and Jesus spoke to you on the need for a new translation
 
@AffableGeek well you know what they say about 1 baptist vs 2 baptists :P
 
Dan - Why did you learn Koine Greek? Was the English not enough for you?
 
4:43 AM
I'm all for discussion over drinks... regardless of alcohol content ;)
 
[knocks on the table] Root beer here!
 
Shouldn't we all be drinking wine? ;)
 
I've never been a seminarian. I dropped out of a Lutheran pre-seminary program where I went through pretty intensive study in the biblical languages, philosophy/theology, and church history. I left the faith altogether for a period of time (agnostic-ish), and then did a whirlwind tour through many different forms of Christianity (including a group I now consider a cult), and now I'm somewhere between Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, existential philosophy, and who knows what else.
 
@DanODay Start a new denomination! I can see it now..."Odayism"...
 
You're similar to me, although I didn't drop out of seminary but did take seminary courses at the United Brethren college.
 
4:46 AM
@HeathHunnicutt I'm a fan :) Ill have a syrah :P
 
1 Cor. 3:4-9 ;)
 
@DanODay LOL.
 
Aww, guys, I apologize. There's really only one person who would beat out this conversation, but she just came upstairs. I'm gonna drop out, but please don't take it as a slight.
 
@ElendiaStarman :)
 
I was raised U. Methodist, took some classes at the U. Brethren, then also went agnostic. Then one day, I was sitting and meditating on why not to punch a guy in the nose. So God sent me a red light which broke a controversial cooking dish (related to why I wanted to punch the guy) and told me that any violence I do would harm me more than I knew and that if I was ever threatened by violence and had faith, He would immobilize that person's skeleton. So far that has happened.
 
4:49 AM
@AffableGeek nice to meet you. Have a good night.
 
That was ten years ago and recently he told me to start talking to people about what's been going on, but I'm not part of any church.
see you Affable
 
@AffableGeek np I understand
 
@AffableGeek Hehe, it's alright. G'night Affable! :)
 
@HeathHunnicutt tell me more about U. Brethren. I'm ignorant of them. What historical tradition are they from?
 
They split from the U. Methodists primarily over drinking (they don't), unchoreographed dancing (don't) and tobacco (don't).
Otherwise I didn't notice that much difference from Methodist.
I think the split was around 1850.
I was attending a UB school because of convenient geography more than agreement with the schism. OTOH, the seminary profs I had were also not 100% UB
they are headquartered in Huntington, IN, and operate Huntington College there.
I assume you're familiar with the Methodists?
 
4:55 AM
@HeathHunnicutt more or less.
I've been to a few methodists churches, but haven't spent much time looking at their doctrine.
 
I wouldn't know what distinguishes their doctrine from, e.g., Lutheran.
 
Yes, looking at the beliefs online. Looks like strong Anabaptist influence, initial split from Methodists over membership in secret societies such as Freemasons. Interesting stuff. I enjoy learning about the history of movements.
In fact, if I had any bias, I may sometimes weight history as equal to God's Word (yes I know this means some consider me a heretic).
 
Huh that is a surprise. I knew some 1990's UB who were freemasons
Not to disagree with you, just observing how it is they told me they split primarily over alcohol.
 
lol You are more qualified to speak about it than I am
 
@DanODay its fascinating. Just the different divergences in the Presbyterian church (there are at least 14 different forms of Presbyterianism just in the US)...I'm PCA but I couldn't tell you tangible differences between us and the EPC, RPC or several other "Flavors"
 
4:59 AM
Well I am sure there is the historical truth as to why they split, and the modern story as to why they split. That's par for the course.
 
I am only going on what I just found on the web. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_United_Brethren_in_Christ
and we all know Wikipedia is 100% reliable... :P
 
Oh! Looking at that article, UB formed in 1800
Oh! Looking at that article, UB formed in 1800 (earlier than I remembered) and had an internal split in 1889 over freemasonry (who knew?).
I was told it formed from a UM congregation split over drinking, smoking, and the type of dancing that lets spirits get into you.
 
website is helpful: ub.org/about/where-we-fit
yeah but the Wikipedia article isn't well cited, so I would double-check those facts
 
really must go to bed. @HeathHunnicutt hope we showed we are more reasonable than you thought.
 
Have a good night @waxeagle
 
5:03 AM
@ElendiaStarman You need to stop removing my comments as "unconstructive" when they're clearly not. The answer given was from a specific Christian perspective that made a pretty major assumption that is not universal to all forms of Christianity. All I did was point out that because it rested on a non-universal assumption, the person should specify which particular Christian perspective he or she was speaking from. That's not "unconstructive" at all.
 
@DanODay thanks.
 
@wax I want the penalty box revoked, then I will think the mods are reasonable
 
@HeathHunnicutt I understand that. You are welcome to raise a meta post about it if you would like further community discussion and you have the SE team's email address.
 
@Dan I have to say reading this UB history is very confusing. I was learning the catechism at headquarters... LOL It's not really that important, but wow does this diverge from what I remember being told.
 
well I've found that the worst source of history for anything is the thing itself. To include national history lol
Only outsiders often give fair critiques, which must be balanced with insider information
At the same time, that is a Wikipedia article with a big warning on top that says many claims are not cited. So it also may not be accurate
I'd want to find primary sources
But no offense, that particular movement doesn't interest me enough to seek them out lol
I often (somewhat jokingly) say that my beliefs fall somewhere between 1054 and 1521, I just haven't figured out what they are yet ;)
 
5:10 AM
Yeah it's not something I could take offense to. I am just amazed at the discrepancy.
Hah, or maybe 1015 to 1200
I like that
 
lol kewl
i need to probably stop saying 'kewl'
 
nah it keeps you young
 
It's a convention I picked up over a decade ago for some reason, and I just liked it
 
@DanODay yeah pretty sure that died a while ago :P
and I'm still here for some reason...really should go to bed
 
lol... I was wondering
 
5:16 AM
@DanODay really going this time.
 
@waxeagle Haha. Good night wax! :)
 
@SteelyDan your best bet would probably be meta. we can't restore deleted comments even if it was useful. Point to the question and then you can get a formal response.
 
no need to restore it; I just reposted it
if not the exact wording, the same substance
I was merely informing Elendia of his/her error
 
@SteelyDan (For future reference, "his".)
 
noted, thanks
 
5:31 AM
<pin drop>
 
@DanODay [dives to catch the pin before it hits the floor]
 
whew! good catch
 
It was a bowling pin...
 
Sorry about that gutter ball
Welcome @JustinY
 
5:59 AM
g'nite all
 
@DanODay G'night! :)
 
 
8 hours later…
2:16 PM
@SteelyDan my wife was talking yesterday with a guy at my church who comes, not for the Eucharist or to worship God, but for the fellowship. Is that the basis of non-theistic Christianity? I kind of see what you mean by, "not all Christians believe in God", but I'm surprised anyone would actually admit to it.
 
2:40 PM
@PeterTurner I've always been uncomfortable with people like that.
 
 
3 hours later…
5:37 PM
Is Mason Wheeler a moderator?
 
@HeathHunnicutt Yes. SE appointed Pro-Tempore Moderator.
 
Wow. This SE is moderated by bad moderators.
 
Everyone with diamonds next to their name on the site are moderators, however there are a couple people with diamonds that are actually SE employees that need the site wide control because of their programming jobs and they don't actually act as moderators on C.SE. Marc Gravell is the most notable example of that.
 
I realize you are a moderator, Caleb. I understand you were part of the decision to silence Ron Maimon.
This SE is going terribly.
I am sure it's going well from the perspective of Protestants from the Midwest of the United States, but otherwise it's not a real Stack Exchange.
It's a bully pulpit.
Consider how offensive user warren is allowed (by Mason) to be toward me. I ask him, in comments, a couple of rhetorical questions (because he has no idea what he is talking about) and Mason Wheeler feels the need to criticize my tone. Fascist
I'm going to figure out how to delete my Christianity SE account and leave you all to patting each other on the back.
I can't find the option to delete this account. Any ideas?
 
@HeathHunnicutt I linked you the MSO post about it last night
 
5:52 PM
I am reading it now. It looks like it's up to the mods to do it.
And, yeah, you gave me the SE team address, whom I already correspond with. Thanks.
What will happen to the answers I've contributed? I want them deleted, too.
I'll just wait to hear back from team. Hopefully we can have this SE deleted, more than just my account. This is a disservice to Christians and to evangelism and should be destroyed.
 
@HeathHunnicutt that is not permitted. All SE content is licensed by you to stack exchange through creative commons, you don't have control over that. your posts will be anonymized if you choose to go through with deletion
 
@HeathHunnicutt There was no decision to "silence" anyone. Nobody has ever been suspended from C.SE for having and answering from different viewpoints.
 
@HeathHunnicutt So...Caleb of Turkey is a Midwestern United States protestant?
 
@HeathHunnicutt its right in the terms of service linked on every page.
 
5:57 PM
Actually it turns out I can delete my own answers.
Tell Mason Wheeler I said, "Good bye you fascist ignorant pig."
 
@HeathHunnicutt I haven't caught up this morning, but the interaction I saw in comments last night, warren was being respectful in his tone although defending the fact that his generalization was fair based on the majority of his experiences, and you're tone to him was derogatory. I almost said something myself but decided I was too tired to be a fair moderator. All that to say I'm not surprised another mod would have felt the need to remind you that only civil polite comments are constructive.
 
Caleb, I have ten years experience and he took a survey in Kentucky.
Can you believe people answering him honestly in person?
 
@HeathHunnicutt yes, but we reserve the right to undelete any of your answers after the fact.
 
And telling someone with ten year's experience that NOT one person agrees with him but everybody precisely agrees with him, is not respectful.
 
@HeathHunnicutt You can delete your user account A) if you don't have much rep you can do it yourself or if B) you have more than a trivial amount of rep you can change your name and description to "delete me" and ping a mod and we can delete it for you. I'd be happy to take care of that at your request, but am certainly not recomending such an action.
 
5:59 PM
warren discounting my opinion because he has polled people who agree with him is not respectful, it's ignorant.
A respectful answer would be "wow I have never heard this answer, can you elaborate"
But his actual response was "you are wrong, and I am right!"
How do you call that respectful? I think we are getting to the bottom of the problem when a moderator calls warren respectful in that exchange and calls me disrespectful. It's absurd and the issue is that the moderators in question have a prejudiced opinion as to Yoga and don't respect the truth.
You don't want an answer that disagrees with the statement that Yoga is stretching plus Hindu worship, which is ignorance, but you tolerate a comment which states that a person expressing ten years' experience is somehow the only person who holds a particular view, and ALL other people hold a view which is precisely that of the mods.
 
No that's not the way of it at all.
 
How is that not what happened?
That is precisely what warren wrote.
 
And I just read the comment thread in question. Warren didn't call you out as wrong, he only noted that you were the first person to not agree with him.
 
Don't you think he is stating that I am the only person to hold my view and therefore he is correct?
Because that is clearly what he is stating, I can't believe you honestly don't think so. In fact I accuse you of being disingenuous.
What is his point in making the statement that everybody agrees precisely with him?
 
I'm with Caleb. Warren said you were the first, not that you were wrong. For easier reference:
> @Heath Hunnicut - you are the first (and only) person I have ever heard who has participated in a yoga practice of any kind that did NOT characterize it as I did. I have met or heard from hundreds of individuals who describe it precisely the way I did.
 
6:05 PM
@HeathHunnicutt You posted a comment saying his answer was incorrect. He was defending the fact that many/most participants do not consider his charactorisation to be incorrect.
 
Oh, and don't forget those superluminal neutrinos that showed up a few months ago. They were the first to be observed traveling faster than light.
 
You are allowed to disagree. In fact you could post an answer to that question that included some details on what Yoga is as long as you answer the core question about whether or not there are any conflicts with protestantism.
 
Ok, El'endia so your point in the neutrinos is that they were first, and they were wrong. So you DO see how the statement warren made is implying I am wrong, but you choose to lie about it.
Thanks for the little attack here in chat, moderator fascist.
 
@HeathHunnicutt No...I never said that those neutrinos were wrong...in fact, I think the scientists made their measurements right.
 
El'endia their results have already been disproven.
 
6:08 PM
@HeathHunnicutt Really? I read that they had been re-confirmed.
 
Um, no.
You go look that up, it will simplify the chat here.
 
@Caleb - I really don't think the EMPHATIC type face and the precisely weasel words fit your description of the comment at all.
 
In the update, it says that CERN modified the experiment to make it clearer and got the same result: neutrinos going faster than light.
 
In addition, Mason's criticism of my rhetorical questions is ridiculous. How is it rude tone to ask people questions they don't know the answer to?
 
6:13 PM
@HeathHunnicutt Sir, if you want to carry on a respectful chat about what should happen here you've got three mods listening. The comments in question are going to go away soon. (all comments are transient). What would you like to have happen beyond that?
 
I want an apology from Mason Wheeler. I want Ron Maimon removed from a week-long penalty box, and I want the mods on this site to stop squelching opinions they haven
have not heard before.
Failing that, I want this BETA SE deleted.
And the apology from Wheeler must be in the same public forum as the offense.
As an alternative, Wheeler can be removed from mod status, if he won't apologize.
 
@HeathHunnicutt 1) You are welcome to chat with Mason in here, but a friendly warning about tone doesn't seem out of line. 2) The issue with Ron has nothing to do with you, and he'll come out soon enough and can choose how he responds himself. 3) We are not squelching opinions in the first place, so please give it a rest. As for 4) This is a community site and if you don't like it, you don't have to participate but you can't executively decide that sort of thing. Neither can I.
 
1) There was nothing wrong with my tone, he just doesn't agree with me about Yoga.
2) Ron was one of the most valuable voices on this site, and that's what it has to do with me. I don't want an SE to exist that squelches information like his. Thus delete this SE.
3) Yes you are.
4) I go back with SE a long way. We will see how my complaint is handled. I'll also pray for the destruction of this site.
 
In that case, I think all of your issues need to be taken up with the community team. Please address future complaints to them, all of this is out of our control as community mods.
 
It's not out of your control, it's something you choose not to take responsibility for.
 
6:22 PM
The comments in question will soon be deleted (if you want a copy for your records, grab them now). The SE team will have permanent access to them in any event of a mis-understanding about how things have played out here.
Anything else I can do for you?
 
You can't delete them from Yahweh's view. Expect destruction.
Mods, in your entire lives, has Yahweh or Jesus ever spoken to you?
I'll take that as no.
 
6:35 PM
@HeathHunnicutt I felt the same way about programmers.SE a year or so ago, but strangely, I think the folks moderating here are a lot more impartial.
 
'Morning, @Heath - glad to see you're here. Just responded to your email...
 
Hey, @Shog9 I was just reminiscing about the good times, before the fall...
 
@PeterTurner Which fall? Not... that fall...
goes to double-check Pete's age, just in case
 
@Shog9 Oh, no not that fall, back when programmers.SE was cool (like 7 seconds).
 
@PeterTurner Really? I've always wanted to ask somebody how long Adam hung out with his wife in the garden before they got in trouble, but I've never found a first hand witness before!
 
6:41 PM
@PeterTurner Ah, the cesspool stage. I liked that site. Lotsa chaos
 
@Caleb I asked a priest that once, he said it was only a few hours.
@Shog9 Good times, good times. I got in a lot more heated dogmatic arguments on that site than I ever did here.
 
@PeterTurner I've always kind of assumed maybe a week or two, but it's a hunch based on not much.
 
@Caleb Christopher West (theology of the body proponent) claims that they had sex, so it was at least long enough to do that.
 
@Caleb gotta figure they took some time to get to know each other a bit better..
 
@PeterTurner Yeah, I recall someone arguing on MSO that this site was too controversial to ever survive - I responded something to the effect of "if we can somehow handle programmers' holy wars, we should be able to handle real ones".
 
user2334
7:08 PM
@HeathHunnicutt For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment of the site and I deleted my account last night because of it, but demanding things of moderators and SE is never going to go well. I'd suggest trying to be more proactive on meta, but that doesn't seem to work here, so I'd really just suggest letting this site do its thing and ignore it: the chances that the site would shut down due to one complaint is slim to none, and stress over a website is not worth it.
 
You did?
 
user2334
Yeah: got tired of its slow descent into yet another insidery forum with questions like these: one, two, three
 
@MarkTrapp I see one of my questions appears on your list. I'm sorry you took it that way.
I'm also sorry if my conflict with you over one of the possible blog topics contributed to your decision.
But I'd also like to know what you mean by an "insidery forum"?
 
user2334
@JonEricson The disagreement about the blog was not why I deleted my account, although your references to Matthew 18:15 because I disagreed with you in public were offensive: it's not a sin against the Church to disagree with how a blog should be run. It's specifically because I waste 10-15 close votes a day on discussiony questions that would be closed immediately elsewhere on the network but live long lives because the most active people on the site want to talk about it.
 
user2334
@JonEricson People asking questions about whatever happened elsewhere on the site as if it were notable and useful to the internet at large. Every day there's at least one question that's about some off-the-cuff point someone made in a comment or in chat: they're useless questions except to the people who follow the inside baseball of Christianity.SE
 
7:17 PM
@MarkTrapp make that 9-14. And I'm really sorry you left, you were/are one of the only people standing behind the effort to try to keep the discussion-ness level down.
 
@Mark it would be nice if all the questions on the site were organically grown out of pure curiosity, but you've gotta admit that sometimes people post positions that require a question themselves.
Could we migrate those to meta?
 
@MarkTrapp I admit the timing seemed poor from your perspective and the disagreement with you was one of the reasons I asked, but for the full history, you probably need to read: meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/266/68
 
user2334
@PeterTurner I think someone posting a position that sounds weird or isn't backed up with references is something that should be asked of that person in chat, "Hey, what did you mean by this? Where does what you're saying come from in the Bible/what doctrinal basis is that from?"
 
user2334
Christianity.SE could've really benefited from the rule Skeptics has, which requires questions to demonstrate notability, which I thought we had with "your question must state the doctrine you want to know the answer for", but it's almost never used in practice, so people ask about things that only one or two people actually care about, like what someone might've said in chat here
 
user2334
If the site can't field actually notable questions instead of recaps of what comments said, there's something wrong with the site in that, like Atheism.SE, it just runs out of questions. I don't think that's the case for Christianity, but maybe it is
 
7:27 PM
@MarkTrapp Yeah, we're gonna need a bit of meta-analysis about this problem. I guess I'm gonna have to start actually casting close votes, dang it all...
 
@PeterTurner We have 103 people who can cast close votes on any question, five of whom have a super-vote.
 
@PeterTurner Speaking of meta-analysis: moving these questions to meta seems like a good first step. It reminds me of the enthusiasm about SO in the early days. You can't stop people (including myself :-( from being interested about talking about the site itself.
 
So perhaps we just need to encourage people to use close votes more.
 
From what I could tell from programmers.SE. Just using close votes usually encourages others to use close votes.
Striking a balance between the tragedy of the commons and the posse mentality is what we probably need to achieve.
2
 
user2334
@PeterTurner More close votes are good, but the site's lacking people speaking more publicly about their issues with the site so other people feel more empowered, which is how Programmers really got out of its funk. I deleted my account because disagreeing was futile at best, stressful at worst.
 
7:43 PM
@MarkTrapp As the author of 1 1/2 of those, I too apologize. I really was trying to understand some of the arguments made by people on the SE.
@Caleb I'm going to apologize to you as well. (a) Catching you in chat to be better at making question (b) I'm open to modifying my behavior
 
@affablegeek, the problem is, those are good questions, but they're only good for increasing understanding of each other; not so much for growing in knowledge to help those around us.
1
Q: Questions sparked from comments on the main site should be meta questions

Peter TurnerFrom today's chat it's apparent that there are a few things going on which need to be fixed up. Mark Trapp pointed out these three questions What is a "non-theistic" Christian? Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian? How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum? ...

 
Fair enough. Admittedly, part of my interest in this site is understanding the objections people have to Christianity
I'll start moving those questions to meta
 
@AffableGeek You can do that with a "close" vote, actually.
 
Would you like me to remove the questions done so far, or just in the future?
 
Close reason -> Off topic -> belongs on meta.christianity.se.
 
7:49 PM
@AffableGeek Me too, but as I think you said, non-theistic Christianity is a very tiny portion, if you only consider people who call themselves non-theistic Christians.
 
They seem to be highly vocal on the Internet, though...
But, as I said, I really do apologize.
I did not intend for these to cause such dissension
So, since my humanism question is already closed, I can't vote to close it.
The other is cwallenpoole's question
 
OK well, I voted to reopen your question. I think it'll let me vote to reclose it (you can too)
 
Would you like the slavery question migrated as well.
 
I think the slavery question is great, but I think you're in a unique position to be the only one who can accurately answer it ;)
 
Still needs more votes to migrate.
If you'd like, I can just delete the humanism one.
Aaww, thanks
 
user2334
7:56 PM
@AffableGeek Your questions are nothing to apologize for (same for you, @JonEricson): it's a site run by the community and you didn't force anyone to vote for it or answer it (or at least, I hope you didn't!). The site is what it is, it's just not the site for me
 
Admiitedly, what I liked about the humanism question was the ability for people to think about what statements a Christian should be making that differentiates them from the general population
 
8:07 PM
@Caleb I need to jump off again. Feel free to reach out to me via email, or even if you wanted to be really crazy, the telephone. My website has contact details.
 
1
Q: Questions sparked from comments on the main site should be meta questions

Peter TurnerFrom today's chat it's apparent that there are a few things going on which need to be fixed up. Mark Trapp pointed out these three questions What is a "non-theistic" Christian? Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian? How can we practice Matthew 18:15 in a public forum? ...

 
@StackExchange 'bout time you showed up... :P
 
@PeterTurner No, not at all. Basically, it's the belief that either a god is simply irrelevant to the essence of the Christ's teachings, which are concerned primarily with building a better world, and so belief in a god is not necessary to to adhere to the Christ's teachings; or (as is the case with me) that belief in a god is literally incompatible with following the actual teachings of the actual Christ.
 
8:45 PM
@MarkTrapp My profile is full of sites that didn't quite work for me for one reason or another: SO, skeptics, and Philosophy (at times). I will apologize for adding to your stress, however. My question was poorly timed and not as well aimed as I wish it were.
 

« first day (180 days earlier)      last day (4445 days later) »