JosephM Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Joseph, Perhaps you can explain why my posts were censored. And, although I obviously did not agree with DavidK, I saw no reason to censor his post. I have never deleted any of your posts relevant to your thread. I have already explained to you privately that you are not to discipline other members but to use the report button and wait for my response which is quite prompt. Those are the only posts I deleted of yours as inappropriate for the thread. I have tried to explain to you my reasons for wanting a protected area within this forum and I have done that with you in private in spite of everything within in me disagreeing with you that those discussions should be in private. I told you that I would leave this forum because I thought you were trying to keep "our dirty laundry" in the dark. There is a protected area already and it cannot be up to each individual to decide who they think are progressive Christians and those who are not. report any suspected post violations by the report button. No debate there. Expressing differing views is not debate. This mission of this forum is not to make discussion of problems with other members public or open for general public discussion. I feel no need to burden the members of this forum with such matters. Information on this board is placed here not as a right but as a privilege. This forum is for member and guest use but the management is reserved for leadership. It is not member run as we can not please everyone as much as we try to do so. As you know, Our mission is as follows: To reach out to those for whom organized religion has proved ineffectual, irrelevant, or repressive, as well as to those who have given up on or are unacquainted with it. » To uphold evangelism as an agent of justice and peace. » To give a strong voice both in the churches and the public arena to the advocates of progressive Christianity . » To support those who embrace the search, not certainty. Welcome all including but not limited to... believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, those of all races and cultures, those of all classes and abilities, those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope This makes for a most difficult managing job because with such diverse beliefs emotions often lead members to resort to name-calling, accusations and to be disrespectful of differing views. I consider it taboo and unacceptable to tell another member their views are non christian. It is simply not necessary even in debate and serves only to provoke. If one sticks to the subject matter of the topic stated as ones view we should have very few disciplinary problems. I have decided to come back but I have decided not to communicate with you in private. If you send me a private message I will read it but I will not answer it in private. Any appropriate response will need to be in public. So I hope that if you have something to say to me that you can say it in public. I am pleased that you have returned but I will still not discuss other members you are concerned with in public and will not allow other members to criticize other members in public. Members must use the report button and I will get back with them on my decision by PM as promptly as possible. I'm sorry if you do not view this as an open door policy but frankly David this is not public business just because the forum is made public. Member time is better spent helping to encourage and support other members on a sometimes very difficult journey of transition. You obviously have the power to continue to censor my posts. I would suggest that you limit that ability to a very, very few instances. Thanks for listening in public. David Again, none of your posts were censored or deleted as relates to the topic of your thread. Leave the management of members to me and you will need not to be concerned with the censoring or deleting of your material which has been most satisfactory and well written. Love Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 (Sniped quoted post 17132 of JosephM for brevity.) I would like to continue this discussion. However, I brought this discussion to the protected area so that those like Sonoman would not participate. It seems obvious to me that just because Sonoman has no problem with the 8 points does not mean that he is a Progressive Christian. It was obvious from reading his extensive writings that he is not a Progressive Christian and he makes no claim to be. He does have the right to post in the Debate portion. However, Sonoman has been restricted from posting for 7 days. I will wait for that period to pass and see if Sonoman wants to provide any evidence to support that he belongs in this protected area (which was my original question). If he does not respond then I would like to continue this protected conversation. David, Sonoman is not open for public discussion. Whether he is a progressive Christian or not will not be your determination as relates to this board. As I have told you privately but you wish to make public, there will be no criticising by members of Sonoman publicly. Your thread is not the appropriate area for complaints concerning him or TCPC or what his rights are. Your thread is to support those as relates to "Can We Rebuild After Deconstruction?" Sonomans post in your section. His post #17117 was not deemed inappropriate or provoking or disrespectful of progressives in any way and remains there for all to see. I communicated my findings to you in a timely manner. It had not yet been determined by moderation that he did not fit under the PC umbrella at that time. End of discussion. Please do not continue discussing other members on other threads. if you have a complaint you want handled publicly concerning yourself or TCPC then do it here under Complaints to TCPC. I consider even suspended members as fellow travelers on this oftentimes difficult journey to find Truth and do not wish to contribute to that which does not promote unity Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Love Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 I have never contended that Sonomon’s post was provoking or disrespectful. As we argued about in private, that is not the issue. The issue is whether Sonomon should be posting in the protected area because it was obvious that he was not supportive of Progressive Christianity. Apparently that was not obvious to you and reasonable minds can disagree. But no one could see that discussion because you censored my posts. You have censored my posts in total and most recently in part (for brevity?!?). I find that censorship very objectionable considering the words that were censored are no more objectionable than the ones that you have not censored. You have decided to censor for several reasons--most recently because my comments were not appropriate or relevant for the thread that I authored. Yet remaining in that thread are the comments from you that state that Sonomon can post because he has no problem with the 8 points. So how is your comment relevant to the thread that I authored and my objection is not? You state that “it can not be up to each individual to decide who they think are Progressive Christians and those who are not”. Where did I say this? My position is that although the Moderator can have the final say, the Moderator should not censor all discussion about that issue. Also, discussion that challenges someone who probably is not a Progressive Christian is appropriate for any member. Obviously that discussion should be done in a civil manner and we should not call people names like “bigot” or compare members to Dick Cheney in a mocking manner (were those posts censored?). But I can live with the "bigot" and Cheney comments. You have decided to censor when you have concluded that someone is being provoking or disrespectful. If there are extreme comments that fit that description then I would agree. You evidently have defined the “unacceptable” as relating to the accusation that someone is not a Christian. I do not see that as any more “disrespectful” than the bigot comment. It is a conclusion that someone has reached, like the bigot comment, based upon some reasoning. In DavidK’s instance it was supported by a civil argument (even though I would disagree with every part of that argument). We can live with others calling us not Christians. That has never been a danger to us for the whole history of this forum. I totally and strongly disagree with your censorship based upon that. You evidently will censor others when they “criticize” others. How long has this forum survived without the need for such censorship? If you actually believed this you would censor those who criticize DavidK as well. I see none of that happening. Obviously I don't think you should do that just as I don't think that when DavidK does it that he should be censored. I’m sorry to be a your critic after being your cheerleader. You have a difficult job and I appreciate that fact. Thank you for doing that job even if at the moment I do not agree with the way you are doing the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I have never contended that Sonomon's post was provoking or disrespectful. As we argued about in private, that is not the issue. The issue is whether Sonomon should be posting in the protected area because it was obvious that he was not supportive of Progressive Christianity. Apparently that was not obvious to you and reasonable minds can disagree. But no one could see that discussion because you censored my posts. You have censored my posts in total and most recently in part (for brevity?!?). I find that censorship very objectionable considering the words that were censored are no more objectionable than the ones that you have not censored. I hear what you are saying. I have nothing new to add that I have not already spoken or commented on. You have decided to censor for several reasons--most recently because my comments were not appropriate or relevant for the thread that I authored. Yet remaining in that thread are the comments from you that state that Sonomon can post because he has no problem with the 8 points. So how is your comment relevant to the thread that I authored and my objection is not? That thread is not the place for your objections to any authority given me. I have nothing to defend. You state that "it can not be up to each individual to decide who they think are Progressive Christians and those who are not". Where did I say this? My position is that although the Moderator can have the final say, the Moderator should not censor all discussion about that issue. Also, discussion that challenges someone who probably is not a Progressive Christian is appropriate for any member. Obviously that discussion should be done in a civil manner and we should not call people names like "bigot" or compare members to Dick Cheney in a mocking manner (were those posts censored?). But I can live with the "bigot" and Cheney comments. It was a general statement by me and only assumed by you that I was quoting you as you saying that. Public Discussion is not appropriate that challenges someone who is 'probably' not a progressive christian. I have told you that both privately and publicly. There is simply nothing else for us to discuss publicly concerning this. I will not get into a public discussion/debate with you comparing your posts with others nor will I have you publicly usurp any administrative authority given me.. To me, It serves only to divide. You have decided to censor when you have concluded that someone is being provoking or disrespectful. If there are extreme comments that fit that description then I would agree. You evidently have defined the "unacceptable" as relating to the accusation that someone is not a Christian. I do not see that as any more "disrespectful" than the bigot comment. It is a conclusion that someone has reached, like the bigot comment, based upon some reasoning. In DavidK's instance it was supported by a civil argument (even though I would disagree with every part of that argument). We can live with others calling us not Christians. That has never been a danger to us for the whole history of this forum. I totally and strongly disagree with your censorship based upon that. That is fine to disagree. Your disagreement is acknowledged and you are on record that you disagree strongly. You have made your point. You evidently will censor others when they "criticize" others. How long has this forum survived without the need for such censorship? If you actually believed this you would censor those who criticize DavidK as well. I see none of that happening. Obviously I don't think you should do that just as I don't think that when DavidK does it that he should be censored. Yes, I will censor those who name call, or criticize ANY member openly. Debate and discussion doesn't need to resort to insults, personal criticising, or intolerant behavior. I'm sorry to be a your critic after being your cheerleader. You have a difficult job and I appreciate that fact. Thank you for doing that job even if at the moment I do not agree with the way you are doing the job. No need to be sorry about it if you sincerely feel as you do. You are welcome to post complaints in this section and I will read them and give it prayerful consideration. However that does NOT include public complaints or public discussion about other members. That will be reported privately through the report button or PM. This is not a democratic board owned and financially supported and run by its guest/members users. This is TCPC.org's board. They have a leadership team and a mission that have given me responsibility to serve members and guests with a place to share and discuss progressive Christianity, not disciplinary issues or public chastisement or discussion of members. Posts are made public as a privilege not as a right. TCPC.org is mostly a volunteer organization and they have graciously allowed the public to use this board to promote progressive Christianity and support those making transitions. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 It does not concern me so much that we disagree about the nature of God as it does that we disagree about your source for authority on the subject. Added by JosephM (Caution Please - Post unrelated to thread subject and provokes further unrelated and unecessary personal debate) How is this not related to the thread subject? The question was:Can anyone name a theologian that has been associated with Progressive Christianity that would say that God is an entity? The answer was: Jesus Jen has clarified before what this means and she clarified it again within this thread. I questioned her source. How is that not related? Why is any debate unrelated, unnessary or personal? Exactly what are you going to allow and what are you not going to allow. This is getting rather silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 David, I am only handling this publicly because you refuse to handle it with me by PM. I am accommodating you this one last time only. You make things personal in public is why I have cautioned and warned you. You provoke anger in others. The responding posts themselves are evidence of this. Everyone knows from reading past posts your position/view and your past issues with that other person are a sore area. Your view there is well known. There is no need to bring up your past disagreements to provoke old wounds in public. You got personal when you also said to one member you couldn't do church with them. You can make your point without such comments that are insensitive to others in this community. You call my moderation publicly silly above. This is not necessary and makes your point personal. I will not allow you to make other members uncomfortable here. We will avoid that kind of provoking and getting personal on this board. This is your final warning and if you want any more clarifications on your behavior from me you will do it in private or not at all. Love Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Well first of all Jen is the one that first challenged me with “past issues” and she clearly knew what she was doing. But I found no problem with that. These are not “old” issues. These issues are as fresh as the last post. These issues will always be issues between Jen and I. I am not going to ignore them just because they make her or you angry. Your position is that we should only accept the “personal” if it is “positive” as though the “personal” does not include the “negative”. We do not want to give any appearance of the “negative”. Your attempt to “sanitize” conversations so that there is no anger is just unrealistic. People who hold strong positions do get angry. I have said that we need to respond with civility. This is especially true when we are angry. I have tried to do that while admitting that sometimes my emotion affects my words. Sorry for being human. But I do recognize that when it happens and I continue to try to be civil. Your goal is to not make anyone uncomfortable. And you have obviously censored posts and moderated with this goal of eliminating all signs of being uncomfortable as though this was a place of total peace without disturbance. That is a false peace. It has no integrity. And I will not stay in a place with no integrity. Part of that integrity is discussing these things in public. And if you can not do that then it will be “not at all”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 You got personal when you also said to one member you couldn't do church with them. You can make your point without such comments that are insensitive to others in this community. Janet, Could you respond to this? Was my response in any way different than your question to me as far as being offensive? Thanks, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 You provoke anger in others. The responding posts themselves are evidence of this. Everyone knows from reading past posts your position/view and your past issues with that other person are a sore area. Your view there is well known. There is no need to bring up your past disagreements to provoke old wounds in public. Jen, Should I have not responded to you when you posted in response to me? Were you not the one to challenge me? Given that challenge what was I supposed to do? Please read this thread and compare your words to mine. Let me know if I should have been censored any more than you. Thanks, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Moderator response... There will be no responses to David in this area. This is complaints to TCPC. David will not be posting for 7 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.