@ThomasShields Ya the bar when up. I guess you'll have to up the ante to get them back. I know it's frustrating and I'm sad our community involvement in closures and such just took a hit, but it is also a blessing. The bar was too low for a mature active site and it's a good thing that people will have to earn more trust in living under extant community standards before throwing weight around.
When viewing an individuals profile on an SE network site, the accounts page shows badges with that site's theme. The resulting site specific badge icons strike me as odd when paired with other sites. See for example how I have fish badges on the Unix & Linux site:
Perhaps this account listing...
I'm no stranger to getting a regular subset of unexplained downvotes nor for complaining about them — but usually I can at least guess why. Sometimes not. Anybody want to hazard a guess what purpose a downvote on this answer serves?
@TRiG My first realization the priv levels had reset was seeing the edit review queue grow much faster than normal and fill up with names I don't usually see in there :)
If someone tries to insult you, no matter how inept they may be at doing so, they are in fact being insulting. The offense is in the fact that they made an effort to insult you in the first place.
@TRiG We've been over this one before. You find some people's views offensive even when they don't intend them to bed. On the other hand we've been moderating this room based on either widely perceived offense or clear intent to be offensive. Bar one of those, your option in this room is to have thicker skin.
@MattЭллен No, what fredsbend is saying (and going out of his way to say, in a context where its not remotely relevant) is that gay relationships never include love, only a "semblance" thereof.
And he said that in a deliberate effort to needle me, which makes it worse. It wasn't a slip; it wasn't an incidental remark which just happened to upset me: it was a deliberate, intentional, offensive statement.
He went out of his way to offend me. And I don't think that's reasonable behaviour. At all.
@MattЭллен I would guess he probably does. That's the point. The term "love" to many Christians has a very specific meaning and context. Outside of that context, anything labeled "love" is only bears a resemblance to the original, it is not actually the same essence.
@MattЭллен Most people who would make similar statements (including myself) mean exactly the opposite of what TRiG has read into it -- it's actually an acknowledgement that even a situation that we believe to be a perversion of an original can include feelings and actions which resemble to original. One can certainly disagree however vehemently with the view of what is true and what is counterfeit, but that doesn't mean the statement is intended to be offensive.
It would make me feel belittled, patronised and excluded if it happened to me. I understand where you're coming from, really. I'm an athiest and I sometimes have to curb my expression to try not to upset religious folk.
@TRiG I see now why you got so angry. But I think @fredsbend just made a poor choice when he picked his words. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it it sounded like he's saying that sex with a human (no matter which genders might be involved) has at least the possibility of "love". (It doesn't help that we equivocate wildly on that word in English!)
Keep in mind the first chat item in that chain compared an anti-gay activist to a Nazi. We aren't exactly starting in the best place to avoid offense, I think.
I'm pretty sure a lot of hetrosexual unions have nothing to do with "love" in the sense that @fredsbend was using.
Summary: Robert Gagnon often talks about homosexuality and bestiality in the same breath. If anyone says he's comparing the two, he gets very upset and claims he would never ever do such a thing. So Jim Burroway talked a lot about Gagnon and a lot about Goebels, while never ever comparing the two and making a big deal of the fact that he was not doing so.
I checked with our designer (Jin) - and 1024px is the minimum that we support. While many things happen to work at smaller widths, they aren't officially supported to do so. As you notice, it behaves well down to about 990px, which is pretty much the best we can do to make sure nothing looks awfu...
@msh210 At this point I think I would leave it in your own words because one of the things that will be useful in answering a question like that is a word or two about what kinds of sources are available. Your wording is more likely to prompt somebody to fill in those details than mine would be :)
Perhaps I'm the only one seeing this:
I think the word help is the leftmost option, but I copied a bit more just in case. My eyesight is pretty good, but I can't really read anything other than policy | mobile without straining.
@El'endiaStarman Good. To be honest, I didn't think @Caleb's solution would help. White on blue seems problematic to me. (But I think anything besides black on some shade of white or tan is hard to read.) I think the reason it works is that we don't need to read that text very often.
Significant chronological disparities exist between St. John's telling of the life and death of Jesus and those of the synoptic gospels. For instance, St. John discusses at least three years of Jesus' ministry, while the synoptics focus on the final year prior to his death. The synoptics place Je...
Following up on this: Is it appropriate to offer a bounty in order to gain attention for an answer?. When a person answers a question with a bounty I think that they should receive the bounties points regardless of whether it was their question. It may take a lot of work to find the answer to the...
Is it me, or does the cross in the main logo of your site have longer left than right arm? (I guess I can download the picture, edit it, and count pixels.)
@JonEricson Right. The I's also: they're balanced, but the deep blue part isn't.
No, wait.
The second I is balanced. The first I isn't, but its deep blue part is.
But imbalance in the I's doesn't jump out at the eye (no pun intended) -- or not at mine, anyway. In the cross, yes.
But (no offense but) it's no skin off my back if your logo has an imbalanced cross; I'll let you guys figure out whether to do anything about it. Have a good day.
One thing about this new chat theme: the colour contrast between your own comments and everyone else's is quite sharp: a very clear distinction. I think I like that.
@JonEricson FYI the reason I outlawed a unification response on this question was to prevent the wacky day-counting folks from copying and pasting nonsense into the thread when respected scholars such as NT Wright, Ehrman, and others have made it clear that a contradiction exists.
Even if you can explain away the 14/15 Nisan disparity, you're still left with the Passover being celebrated a day early in John's account and then having to assume this goes unmentioned in the synoptics (highly unlikely)
the paper actually argues for a harmonization, it just doesn't allow that theory, perhaps I should allow for a reconciled view, but just exclude that one. What do you think?
@JonEricson I should mention though that I do take it as a contradiction and was specifically looking for an explanation of why John may have intentionally used a different date to communicate something deeper to us. I tend to think his gospel was written as a mystical letter, not as a factual/historical document.
When viewing an individuals profile on an SE network site, the accounts page shows badges with that site's theme. The resulting site specific badge icons strike me as odd when paired with other sites. See for example how I have fish badges on the Unix & Linux site:
Perhaps this account listing...
Perhaps I'm the only one seeing this:
I think the word help is the leftmost option, but I copied a bit more just in case. My eyesight is pretty good, but I can't really read anything other than policy | mobile without straining.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room