ohio jones wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:15 pm
temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:50 am
you made an accusation based on what you found others saying.
my response was my best effort to explain MY pov, not theirs
A) When you emphasize and repeat that "NO ONE IS ARGUING" the invasion is not wrong, it certainly implies that you are explaining everyone else's point of view.
There may not be a post in this thread that explicitly says the invasion is justified, but there are some that come close enough to excusing it that it's difficult to say they don't. If your interest is in looking to the future instead of rehashing those arguments, it's best not to bring them up.
temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:42 am
admin+mods have not interferred.
B) Lack of official interference should not be inferred to mean agreement. But here again, you are speaking for others.
i’ll attribute this mostly to my poor writing skills, and attempt to clarify.
A) Where i used “NO ONE” i might have used, “the vast majority of folks on forum and in the world,” which is closer to what i meant.
B) When i refer to admin+mods, i don’t intend to infer in any way they agree or disagree, with members or with each other.
However, i do appreciate their presence and tolerance. i’m pretty sure a lot is tolerated that is not agreed with, Robert has described this a number of times. Which is something (i value) on this forum. It’s definitely not common in the world.
i also respect the subjective nature of this forum. It’s not a pure democracy; decisions are made, i try to respect them, whether i agree or not, whether i understand or not.
to repeat, i definitely do not interpret silence (or lack of interference) from admin/mods as agreement.
i wouldn’t even want it to be.
i appreciate the model of tolerance. this, in itself, suggests the presence of disagreement.
Not that an example is needed, but one i’ve sometimes thought about:
Robert does not want CNN on this forum. Overall respected.
He could make a good case to restrict the NYT. He hasn’t suggested it. In my view that’s (probably) an example of tolerance.
With that in mind, possibly up to 40-50% or more of VOLUME on this forum is probably “not agreed.”
As Robert counseled me early-on, agreement does not drive discussion. Disagreement does.
i think he’s right.
i suspect the frustration with “godly topics that go nowhere” revolves around this unwanted reality: agreement does not drive discussion in the way disagreement does. it’s not Robert’s plan, nor mine, but that’s typically how it goes.
sometimes i’m thankful for disagreement i find on forum - because it brings out discussions that would not have happened without!
i’ve learned so much by reading (usually defenses) of Christian faith that i’m not sure i could have learned any other way.
much of which is pure gold. it’s not necessarily found where it might be expected.
sometimes i’m shocked at my own poor writing skills. i never take for granted what i meant to say is what i said/wrote.
sometimes i’m awestruck at how far i missed the mark. this is not a “worst” example. as you know, i’ve done worse.
In this case, good news is, Szdfan answered my question: What do you propose?
i appreciate his answer. Page 129
