From MOW's own mouth

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Ferd

anyone here ever play Pinochle?

Yes, a lonnnnnnnng time ago.

Why do ask?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I agree and I'm assuming that the "you" you are referring to is addressing the board and not me specifically.

life's funny...

concerning my intent, your assumption is correct

I actually went back and reviewed that post for "second person" references and made a few modifications before submitting the post. I wanted to leave the last line in place because I was sincere in my asking the general reader, the corporate 'you', that if you post just for yucks (ex. Atlanta Bishop was pretty open with his primary motives), please make that a clear disclosure.

Pot-stirrer might be an overused cliche',
and many of us enjoy well-executed humor,
but tossing in matches just to watch a fire burn is the stuff of folks that really need to "get a life".

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by tbpew

life's funny...

concerning my intent, your assumption is correct

I actually went back and reviewed that post for "second person" references and made a few modifications before submitting the post. I wanted to leave the last line in place because I was sincere in my asking the general reader, the corporate 'you', that if you post just for yucks (ex. Atlanta Bishop was pretty open with his primary motives), please make that a clear disclosure.
Pot-stirrer might be an overused cliche',
and many of us enjoy well-executed humor,
but tossing in matches just to watch a fire burn is the stuff of folks that really need to "get a life".

I completely agree!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tbpew

IMO, tolerance will never have a chance to be established as normative behavior where a talkative minority think that verbal sniping is a godly calling. To have this calling, a person would also need to have the unscriptural ability to discern another poster's motive/heart.

IMO, our shared willingness to engage one another via discussion is NOT SPORT. If the purpose for taking time to post is often established in stirring up some other poster that is preceived as an 'idiot' (or worse), that is a pretty clear witness of stuff being sourced from carnal-mindedness.

If that is the reason you come here...please put your reason under your avatar so that we can all know what motivates YOU. It will help others "get it" when you cast your chum upon the waters.

I like this post!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tbpew

life's funny...

concerning my intent, your assumption is correct

I actually went back and reviewed that post for "second person" references and made a few modifications before submitting the post. I wanted to leave the last line in place because I was sincere in my asking the general reader, the corporate 'you', that if you post just for yucks (ex. Atlanta Bishop was pretty open with his primary motives), please make that a clear disclosure.

Pot-stirrer might be an overused cliche',
and many of us enjoy well-executed humor,
but tossing in matches just to watch a fire burn is the stuff of folks that really need to "get a life".

And this post.

I was also thinking that sometimes a thread or post seems to be tossing matches, when in fact, something is being posed, but perceived the wrong way.

Sometimes we come at it with an attitude instead of trying to understand what the person is really trying to say.

I've seen that happen many times.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

We're 20 pages away from the initial post, so a play-by-play summary that has some people here on AFF concerned, with Ferd leading the charge, is as follows:

Key talking points:

1-


The bolded statement seems to suggest that he thinks some discussion is being censored or suppressed...considering he was an inside man, his words seem to carry further weight.


2-

A tension that he seems to think may be due to outside forces or pressure...


3-

This further suggests his view that there is some censorship going on that does not give room to arguably 'fair game' topics.


4-

Confirmation for my comment on item #2 above.


5-

Confirmation for my comment on item #1 above


These are the key talking points of MOW's post and decision for stepping away.

WOW...Id say you summed it up.

The kicker for me was this quote...

"I have gone on record stating that when truth is stifled on this forum, in any manner, I'm gone."

That was the knock out punch to the theory that all is well and out in the open.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Rhoni,

Lets look at the administration team and see who is who.

St Matthew - I am mod to con
Boom - con
Prax - mod
Renda - lib
Esther - mod to con
Jeanie - mod to lib (her husband is a Corinthian )
Lisa - mod
Man of Word - lib
Malvaro - con
Tina - mod
The Mrs - mod to lib



So given our staff here, we are pretty balanced in the admin area. I find no "imbalance". What you folks don't realize is that ALL actions are reviewed by all the Admin that are available, so we have a balanced viewpoint.

Fine.....BUT
It is the ownership that has the problem with the term "Apostolic"

Show us how balanced that is.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

There needs to be a spirit of tolerance of fellow-Christians!

RIGHT ON SISTA!!!!!

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by NLYP

WOW...Id say you summed it up.

The kicker for me was this quote...

"I have gone on record stating that when truth is stifled on this forum, in any manner, I'm gone."

That was the knock out punch to the theory that all is well and out in the open.

NLYP,
1. how has truth been stifled?
2. making an allusion that obligates the hearer to fill in the blanks is classical, ambiguous, preacher-speak
3. how do we know that MOW's assessment of "in any manner" matches your assessment of "in any manner".

If truth was stifled, as your post seems to suppose, MOW better stay gone forever, or else this statement that you have rightly brought into the forefront of this discussion, is a sling and a barb.

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by Margies3

Who IS the DEAN, by the way? I see him touting himself as an administrator, but I never see his name on the list of admins.

"TECHNICALLY" the Dean is not admin.
At least that is my understanding....

Renda...can you help with this?