Agreement

[Valerie]

Jesus didn't go anywhere private to call out the Pharisees for their error.

And I would highly advise you to stop calling people "angry" just because they call you out for inconsistencies or because they point out the wrongdoing of the RCC.

Ken S, Jesus' dealings with the religious leadership leading their own people astray called for a different tact than the interpersonal one-on-one relationships.

Regarding angry people, I am discussing Scripture with Sudsy. You can advise all you like but the discussion is between Sudsy and I in that post. He is not calling me out nor is he pointing out wrong-doing by any church. We are speaking into the Scriptural teachings on interpersonal behaviors between disciples. I have no idea where you are getting these accusations. Feel free to reread Sudsy's post and my response.

So you're not confronting ken_sylvania, you don't think he's in error, and there is no disagreement? That's good to know. There for a minute it looked like there might be.

I think Max seems to recognize the way Sudsy speaks to him it seems there's a difference, at least I can see it. If people want to join in, having an intention to expound in a peaceable way is a blessing to witness.

[temporal1]

I think Max seems to recognize the way Sudsy speaks to him it seems there's a difference, at least I can see it. If people want to join in, having an intention to expound in a peaceable way is a blessing to witness.

is there a possbility oj and ken_s and others might have something of value to consider?
even if not obvious in the moment? i understand them to be solid in faith and works. not to mention, experienced forum leaders.

sometimes, it can be, “i don’t understand, i need to learn more.”
for me - quite often!

[Josh]

Uh-huh.

You puzzle me, KenS. In the Commonwealth when we address a person by name, that is a sign that the following words are addressed to that person. Does that have a different modal connotation in the USA? Feel free to reread my post with that in mind.

Many people in the USA are aware that a conversation on an internet forum is a public conversation.

Likewise, in online forums with people in the UK and Australia, a public forum post addressing someone by name is open for public input. Brits and Aussies I’ve conversed with have used a PM if they didn’t want public discussion.

[Valerie]

I think Max seems to recognize the way Sudsy speaks to him it seems there's a difference, at least I can see it. If people want to join in, having an intention to expound in a peaceable way is a blessing to witness.

is there a possbility oj and ken_s and others might have something of value to consider?
even if not obvious in the moment? i understand them to be solid in faith and works. not to mention, experienced forum leaders.

sometimes, it can be, “i don’t understand, i need to learn more.”
for me - quite often!

Of course, never said otherwise.
It's easy to tell when people genuinely want to add to a discussion, talk with you and not at you, and it could be people can get overly sensitive if more used to defending themselves often.

[MaxPC]

Jesus didn't go anywhere private to call out the Pharisees for their error.

And I would highly advise you to stop calling people "angry" just because they call you out for inconsistencies or because they point out the wrongdoing of the RCC.

Ken S, Jesus' dealings with the religious leadership leading their own people astray called for a different tact than the interpersonal one-on-one relationships.

Regarding angry people, I am discussing Scripture with Sudsy. You can advise all you like but the discussion is between Sudsy and I in that post. He is not calling me out nor is he pointing out wrong-doing by any church. We are speaking into the Scriptural teachings on interpersonal behaviors between disciples. I have no idea where you are getting these accusations. Feel free to reread Sudsy's post and my response.

So you're not confronting ken_sylvania, you don't think he's in error, and there is no disagreement? That's good to know. There for a minute it looked like there might be.

Hardly. In countries that speak English, when someone is addressed by name, that exchange is addressed to the person named. I am convinced that etiquette has not changed even the era of internet forums. If you are having a conversation with a friend and a third party walks over to inject themselves into the conversation and pass judgement, would you consider that appropriate or polite?

[Soloist]

It’s only a matter of time before we start arguing on a number of threads. Almost like the Godwin law.

I personally feel that snide comments without naming a person is just as rude if not more so then interjecting into a conversation.
It’s done quite often and is an excuse to avoid being called out on this negative behavior as no one has proof that it’s the case but obvious to anyone involved in the conversation.

As for interjection, this is a public forum and if you want a private conversation, that’s the purpose of the pm.

[Josh]

MaxPC,

I’ve used various online forums since 1991, ranging from local freenet to a BBS to USENET to various listservs to this present day forum.

Propert etiquette is anything posted in public is fair game. If you wanted a private discussion, send an email.

Overall, I feel you have a track record of trying to stoke disagreements, disrupt normal conversation, and try to pit different forum members against each other.

Stop it.

[Robert]

Overall, I feel you have a track record of trying to stoke disagreements, disrupt normal conversation, and try to pit different forum members against each other.

Some would say the same for each of us.

Stop it.

This is actually against the rules. So you break the rules to tell someone else what they are doing wrong. Do you see the struggle? It has nothing to do with agreement.

[Robert]

I do understand what Max is talking about. Yes, it is a public forum, but I have responded to another person and meant the response for that person. I have also responded and meant for an open statement.

I have stood in church in a group and responded to a person and meant that response to that person and I have also responded to a person and meant the response for the entire group.

I also know that when I do respond to a person directly in an open setting that others may respond to me that I did not intead. That is the risk one takes responding in open.

[ken_sylvania]

Ken S, Jesus' dealings with the religious leadership leading their own people astray called for a different tact than the interpersonal one-on-one relationships.

Regarding angry people, I am discussing Scripture with Sudsy. You can advise all you like but the discussion is between Sudsy and I in that post. He is not calling me out nor is he pointing out wrong-doing by any church. We are speaking into the Scriptural teachings on interpersonal behaviors between disciples. I have no idea where you are getting these accusations. Feel free to reread Sudsy's post and my response.

So you're not confronting ken_sylvania, you don't think he's in error, and there is no disagreement? That's good to know. There for a minute it looked like there might be.

Hardly. In countries that speak English, when someone is addressed by name, that exchange is addressed to the person named. I am convinced that etiquette has not changed even the era of internet forums. If you are having a conversation with a friend and a third party walks over to inject themselves into the conversation and pass judgement, would you consider that appropriate or polite?

If I walk up to a group discussion and direct a comment to one participant by name, I would consider it entirely normal and acceptable for anyone else within earshot to offer their commentary on what I said. In fact, conversations would become extremely awkward if all other participants were shut out from replying just because a comment was addressed to one person in the group in particular.

I would consider it rude if there was an ongoing group discussion and someone came up, addressed a comment to one person in particular, and then tried to shut down anyone else who responded to that comment.