Forum is Ex-Pentecostal??

[Amos]

I might add, getting incensed because someone prefers a different internet forum doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Amos

LOL...if I decide I like Whoppers better than Big Macs, that doesn't mean I am incensed or up in arms; it just means I prefer something different.

Different strokes for different folks.

Especially if you decide those greasy Big Macs will send you to hell and Whoppers are the only way to eat burgers.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Amos

Getting all incensed and up in arms about an internet forum is like putting on full tactical gear and attacking a bale of alfalfa.

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

To which Encryptus replies:

And yet that is the reason some other forums get started.

And Amos then provides this:

LOL...if I decide I like Whoppers better than Big Macs, that doesn't mean I am incensed or up in arms; it just means I prefer something different.

Different strokes for different folks.

Amos, I think you lost your way somewhere from "full tactical" to "Big Mac".
You introduced a perspective where silliness is revealed by a misplaced reaction to benign action.

Then, a valid comparison is made to the motivation behind spawning a new internet forum...

and you revert back to a fast-food preference analogy.

Can you see how a reader may think you lost way from your start?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by tbpew

To which Encryptus replies:


And Amos then provides this:


Amos, I think you lost your way somewhere from "full tactical" to "Big Mac".
You introduced a perspective where silliness is revealed by a misplaced reaction to benign action.

Then, a valid comparison is made to the motivation behind spawning a new internet forum...

and you revert back to a fast-food preference analogy.

Can you see how a reader may think you lost way from your start?

I understood what was said. At least I think I did.


Amos started out by saying that folks are all up in arms over a forum. Then Encryptus tried to do a "gotcha" and stated that other forms are formed because people get up in arms. To which Amos said that other forums are started simply due to there being a market for different tastes in forums.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I understood what was said. At least I think I did.


Amos started out by saying that folks are all up in arms over a forum. Then Encryptus tried to do a "gotcha" and stated that other forms are formed because people get up in arms. To which Amos said that other forums are started simply due to there being a market for different tastes in forums.

One forum came into existence because someone was banned.

another because 1) some were up in arms and 2) wanted something to their own exclusive taste

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

One forum came into existence because someone was banned.

another because 1) some were up in arms and 2) wanted something to their own exclusive taste

but MY POINT was,
isn't it a clear example of "full tactical gear" being used to bring in a bale of wheat?

It wasn't born out of diversity of choice, it was born out of a strategic countermeasure to bring about stricter management of dissenting viewpoint.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

One forum came into existence because someone was banned.

another because 1) some were up in arms and 2) wanted something to their own exclusive taste

I think your info is a little off. Daniel's forum (not sure it is Daniels only) was something that had been in the works for a long time. Am I right Daniel?

I am not privey to all the reasons for the other being created, though I have enjoyed posting there.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by tbpew

but MY POINT was,
isn't it a clear example of "full tactical gear" being used to bring in a bale of wheat?

It wasn't born out of diversity of choice, it was born out of a strategic countermeasure to bring about stricter management of dissenting viewpoint.

No, it is not a clear example of "full tactical gear", as the person starting it was not even posting here on a regular basis. And my guess is that it was born because the options were getting slim to none on a place that ministers that were not ultra cons, but not libs either, could post together.


If it had been a countermeasure, it would have been to compete with AFF. Yet it does not serve the same clientel as AFF, as it is for ministers only.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I think your info is a little off. Daniel's forum (not sure it is Daniels only) was something that had been in the works for a long time. Am I right Daniel?

I am not privey to all the reasons for the other being created, though I have enjoyed posting there.

Absolutely ... PP and two other posters here were going to join this effort in August of 2007 ...

No doubt my ban expedited a plan that was in effect for almost a year.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by tbpew

but MY POINT was,
isn't it a clear example of "full tactical gear" being used to bring in a bale of wheat?

It wasn't born out of diversity of choice, it was born out of a strategic countermeasure to bring about stricter management of dissenting viewpoint.

A strategic countermeasure?

Thanks for extending the tactical metaphor.

The point I attempted to make was that whatever it was, it was not done in some hissy fit of emotion, with squealing and angst and upscuttle.

While, on the other hand, I have read page after page of emotive outpouring here about how awful it is that there is another forum that doesn't let everybody play.

The countermeasure, if you wish to call it that, grew out of an ever-increasing disinterest rather than some "I'll take my toys and play somewhere else" type tantrum.

At least that is how it was for me.