« first day (450 days earlier)      last day (2576 days later) » 

12:40 AM
@JonEricson But that is awesome!
... or not.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:48 AM
@waxeagle It's possible that Gallaudet had no choice but to investigate Angela McCaskill in self protection.
> The more serious legal issue is that she destroyed her credibility as an important witness FOR the school, should the school ever be sued for discrimination.

For that reason, the school had not just a right, but an obligation to suspend her, to fact-find and then to remove her from any role in the administration of non-discrimination policy.

She’s entitled to her private beliefs and private actions, but when those actions (particularly) might be used to impeach her testimony as an officer of the school, the school has a duty to protect itself.
 
 
8 hours later…
9:57 AM
@SteelyDan Being accepted as "Christian" in a way that makes specific questions and their relevant answers on-topic on this site is not at all the same thing as an answer that claims to represent Christianity as a larger whole when it does not and fails to identify who it does represent. The former is not something I have abandoned and the latter is never something we've approved of.
I'm not going to belabor these points to much.
I replied to your rash of comments to me the other day here, here and here.
@SteelyDan Your "form of Christianity" is not obviously anything to anybody on the outside because there is nothing to observe.
This has been covered before. Establish yourself and your beliefs somewhere off-site then we can consider them for relevant questions on this site. Christianity.SE isn't a platform to create/develop/exist something that doesn't have another voice.
@SteelyDan We've been over this before too. You cannot unilaterally co-opt "the purposes of this site" to match your personal opinion of what should or should not happen. You are welcome to express what you would like to see, but for the time being the community has already expressed a significant inclination in an opposing direction, so the "purposes of this site" that we enforce as moderators are going to be that.
2
Nobody is trying to suppress beliefs, we're just keeping this site focused and clean, which is what SE is all about. High signal to noise ratios ... clear direct answers to specific questions.
Groups that have no external publications or their own (whether incidentally to not seeing that as important or through belief that they should not do so) must rely on third parties to document them before their beliefs would have a meaningful place in this context.
 
 
5 hours later…
2:56 PM
@SteelyDan: I'm going to address your comments here because the use of the comment functionality on meta is getting too hard to follow. Here they will be properly threaded.
"Obviously offensive or plain trolling posts." Clearly not the case, leaving aside all the other arguments that are being presented against their appropriateness. — Steely Dan 9 mins ago
@Caleb Actually, yes that is clearly the case. We DO do exactly that. Your posts are not the subject of my bullet points, I was detailing how the feature generally works and it does work that way.
"Obvious mis-matches between the question and answer. A rant (however coherent) about how Lutheranism is a sin would be deleted if posted on a question looking for clarification on a point of Baptist doctrine." Well, I don't do anything of that sort, either. — Steely Dan 10 mins ago
@Caleb I wasn't accusing you of doing so. Again my post isn't primarily addressed at you and those were not a list of why we delete YOUR posts, they are reasons for deleting SOME posts.
"Content problems such as outright plagerism." No one's ever accused me of that, and rightly so. — Steely Dan 11 mins ago
@Caleb Again not about you. But we do see that a bit and delete them when they come to our attention.
Nobody has accused you of plagiarizer. Your problem is off the charts at the other end of the spectrum.
"Things that don't answer the question -- whether a one-liner that should be a comment or a thesis that doesn't ever address the actuall subject of the question." Again, not something I've ever done. — Steely Dan 12 mins ago
@Caleb Sure you have. Of course the answers LEFT on the site don't exhibit that problem or (as per my post) they would have been removed.
So what we're left with is, my answers get deleted for reasons totally apart from this. Do they need sources? Well, whether that's appropriate in this case or not is debatable at best, and even if they do that's a cause for requesting further edits, not outright deletion. So obviously that can't be it. Which means the only remaining alternative is that they're being deleted because they make people uncomfortable. — Steely Dan 11 mins ago
@Caleb All those points were not primarily about you, but you then conveniently skip the part of my post that is relevant. I quote myself:
> Over time the community sometimes goes farther. I have seen posts older than 3 months collect delete votes after multiple challenges to the content as being wrong or lacking references have gone unanswered.
And sure, you've given your arguments time and time again. But every time I've blown those arguments out of the water by showing how they're totally incompatible with the purpose of this site. It's not my fault if others are so stubborn as to refuse to accept that they're so horribly wrong about this, and they're the ones who need to relearn what we're all about here on Christianity.SE if they wish to continue contributing. — Steely Dan 11 mins ago
@Caleb Change the subject and the object and you've about got the picture. Are you going to play by the rules and follow the guidelines like everybody else or would you like to take your opinions somewhere else? Because I'm about done pandering to your deliberate misunderstanding/misconstruing.
 
 
4 hours later…
7:01 PM
I have just invented a new disclaimer: IANAPE.
Know where to draw the line between being showing your own joy and being passive aggressive. If the thought foremost in your mind as you uploaded that picture was other people's negative reactions to it, then you weren't actually doing it to "show your love of Jesus". You're just fooling yourself. On the other hand, if you uploaded it joyfully, with other people's negative reactions very much in the back of your mind, then you're probably okay. I am not a professional ethicist. This is a comment, not an answer. — TRiG 1 min ago
@Caleb Dan is fond of talking about how such-and-such an action does or does not conform to "the purpose of this site", but I don't think he's ever been very clear about what he imagines the purpose of this site to be.
Anyway, he's being a thorn in your side, and that annoys me. That should be my job.
3
"Spiritual attack" is such an overwrought phrase (quick, someone, bring me my fainting couch!).
 
7:48 PM
@TRiG That's such a good observation. I wish more people were authentic in their interactions with others. Christians tend to be especially bad because of our overdeveloped sense of responsibility and underdeveloped sense of compassion.
@TRiG It's tough to drag this big-ole cross around with me. People on Facebook keep reacting to my provocative posts; must be "spiritual attack". ;-)
 

« first day (450 days earlier)      last day (2576 days later) »