Thread: Styx: S o F Denominational Representation Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001015
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Trudy Scrupmsious wrote on the 7th Day Sabbath thread:
quote:
It's so rare anyone raises a question in Purgatory that I actually know something about. I spend most of my time as a Purg host reading through pages and pages about arcane Anglican practice and politics and feeling like I didn't get the memo, so it's hard to restrain myself when the rare topic comes up in which I have been well-schooled. [Smile]
That made me wonder how the denominations are represented on the Ship.
It seems the highest proportion of posters are Anglicans or ex-Anglicans.
But worldwide Anglicans are quite small.
Why is this? How can a better variety be encouraged?
[ 10. February 2014, 18:05: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
What is a "better variety"? And if there is one, why should it be encouraged? Folks select themselves for all sorts of reasons - a capacity to promote and cope with unrest might have something to do with it. I think the place has a substantial number of nonconformists (small "n"), regardless of religious or denomination affiliations. But then, I suppose I would think that ...
I've got a feeling that denom affiliations were surveyed in a thread at one time, but I can't remember where or when.
[ 17. October 2009, 10:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
In UK terms the ship is disproportionately Anglican, liberal and liturgical. The two biggest gaps are charismatics and Roman Catholics. The complete absence of the former is fascinating given the influence of charismatic Christianity in the wider church and the presence of an active evangelical minority on the ship. I don't want to stereotype charismatics, but this might reflect anti-intellectual tendencies. IME open or conservative evangelicals are much more inclined to approach faith intellectually and the ship is much more intellectual than the norm. I think the extent to which shipmates tend to be actively committed to a particular tradition is also unrepresentative. Most Christians I know IRL float happily from one denomination to another, but shipmates tend to be very definitely Anglican or Lutheran or Methodist or whatever.
I'm not sure there's anything you can do to change the ship's Anglican bent. As a non-Anglican I find it both interesting (in that its teaches me about another tradition) and sometimes annoying (the tendency to assume that whatever Anglicans do is The Norm, all those 'Whither Anglicanism' threads). On balance its confirmed me in my non-Anglicanism, even if I've come across some interesting Anglican thinking I might have missed otherwise.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The two biggest gaps are charismatics and Roman Catholics. The complete absence of the former is fascinating given the influence of charismatic Christianity in the wider church and the presence of an active evangelical minority on the ship.
Not true. I think you mean the charismatic&trade stereotype. I'm not sure if you mean US charismatics - within the UK, charismatics are much more theologically diverse than the stereotype would indicate.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
And there are many of us who belong to rites which give obedience to the Roman Pontiff, From time to time we're very vocal. Even if, sometimes, we get washed away by other ecclesial communities who use the same terminology*. And within the Catholic church there are those of us who are conservative in practice, liberal in social issues, liberal in practice, liberal in social issues, or whatever number of combinations you can think of. And we co-exist, for the most part, happily.
*not saying that's a bad thing, just confusing.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The two biggest gaps are charismatics and Roman Catholics. The complete absence of the former is fascinating given the influence of charismatic Christianity in the wider church and the presence of an active evangelical minority on the ship.
Not true. I think you mean the charismatic&trade stereotype. I'm not sure if you mean US charismatics - within the UK, charismatics are much more theologically diverse than the stereotype would indicate.
I'm a little confused. If you mean that I'm stereotyping charismatics as evangelical, then thats just because almost all the charismatics I've met IRL would identify themselves as such. If its the stereotype of charismatics as anti-intellectual then 'mea culpa'. It would be more accurate to say that charismatic Christianity is more experiential, something which doesn't always fit with the kind of rather abstract intellectualism you tend to get in Purg. As for charismatics being underrepresented on the ship, I just know that IME people who self-identify as charismatic are much rarer on the ship than they are in the wider church.
Pete, I was thinking more of the UK when mentioning RCs. Given that more people apparently worship with the Roman Catholics than with the Anglicans on the average Sunday morning in England*, its surprising there aren't more English RCs on board.
*I haven't got time to dig up the stats now, but vaguely remember the brief flurry of interest in the media about this a year ago.
[ 17. October 2009, 11:01: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
quote:
What is a "better variety"? And if there is one, why should it be encouraged?
My answers to that Barnabas are
1) A better variety is a wider range of viewpoints and denominations. Better in that we hear different opinions outlooks and traditions.
2) It should be encouraged to make our experience here more rich, more interesting and more inclusve.
Of course the Ship will focus on certain issues as long as certain voices predominate, fringe issues will be mocked or rubbished making it difficult for some to express there views.
I am intrigued as to why the proportion of RCs isn't higher. I'm also intrigues as to why the proportion of US contributors isnt higher - or other English speaking countries...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yerevan
"The complete absence (of charismatics)" simply overstated the case, that's all. Speaking as one ...
Of course you are right that folks whose emphasis on experience is a "be all and end all" don't tend to stick around here. But hear the words of a veteran of renewal in the UK, Ken McGreavy. A gentle, thoughtful and quiet man.
"All word, no spirit; dry up
All spirit, no word; blow up
Spirit and word together; grow up"
Plenty like him about, interested in growing up, not swinging from the chandeliers. [No matter how much joy may be got that way.] Some of them on board here.
But it was just a tangent.
Eddy
Do you have a marketing proposal?
[ 17. October 2009, 11:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Um how do you know - on an English language website - that the proportions of Canadians and other English speakers isn't high? Not everyone mentions their geographical location. Nor do they care to do so.
And the US contingent not participatory? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The above to Eddy.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I should make it clear that I wasn't complaining in my comment, just stating the facts as I see them. I think there is quite a bit of diversity of views on the Ship, one of the reasons I enjoy it so much, but as far as demoninations go there is definitely a preponderance of Anglicans and a lot of Anglican-centric discussions. I think all anyone could do to broaden the representation is name-drop the Ship in conversation with interesting people of different backgrounds who we think might enjoy it and have something to contribute here -- which I do constantly in discussions with intereting and opinionated SDAs, but so far, no-one's ever taken the bait.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Barnabas62. Thanks for that. As it happens I'm quite interested in charismatic Christianity and am intending to learn more about it, so I don't want to be unfair.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Sorry, if you're not Anglican then your post button is disabled.
OK, only joking ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- as far as I'm aware (and, being Anglican, there may be something they're keeping from me) nobody is prevented from either starting a thread or posting whatever denomination, churchmanship or religion they are. So if you want other views represented, I suggest you get out there and post them. Perhaps if only a few more Methodist, Baptist, Hindu, Jedi people post then it will encourage others. I'm sure all we Anglicans would benefit from your insights. But it's not going to happen if other denominations curl up in the corner and act all timid and hurt. Be bold. Be brave. Show us what you're made of. Dare you. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
(Meanwhile, if you're truly interested in SoF representation, you could start a poll in the Circus to find out - we haven't had one of those in a while, and the ship's composition may well have changed in the meantime. Put a link in your sig. to encourage everyone to contribute.)
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Well, I've been waving my Methodist flag for a while and I imagine I will carry on doing so...
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
quote:
That made me wonder how the denominations are represented on the Ship.
It seems the highest proportion of posters are Anglicans or ex-Anglicans.
But worldwide Anglicans are quite small.
Why is this? How can a better variety be encouraged?
Gee, I'm sorry some of you guys are threatened by those questions! I was just wondering.
Its not about how many denominations shipmates belomng to. I'm asking why is there a heavy focus on Anglican questions.
Of course the two are related. The fact is I guess there are more RCs in the US than members of the Church of England, but the C or E is most talked about here - or has a high proportion.
My point I guess is the worldwide distribution of Christians and their denominations - the ratios- isn't reflected in the mebership here. Its an observation not a criticism.
I think a bigger range of views and opinions would help, and stop so much of the in house bickering we get, and stop some people dissing whole denominations or their practices.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Well, I've been waving my Methodist flag for a while and I imagine I will carry on doing so...
I'm waving my English Catholic and English Charismatic flag here too...
Max.
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Thats great seasick and Max. and please get more like yourselves.
And where are the Unitarians, Baptists, Independant Church followers... There'll be some here I know lets encourage them to speak up.
And the modern alt.worship crew - it would be super to have much more of that in ecclesiantics too.
I'd love to hear more of 'Fresh Expressions' worship
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on
:
Hmmm maybe the ship is a bad influence?
I started off Vineyard/emerging church post-evo charismatic...
... and now I'm Anglican (although very low church Anglican).
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Eddy said:
Thats great seasick and Max. and please get more like yourselves.
Impossible - I'm unique.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Gee, I'm sorry some of you guys are threatened by those questions! I was just wondering.
I don't think any of us are threatened by you asking. Are we?
I'm all for variety, but would prefer people do that voluntarily, rather than feel they must.
All may, some should, none must? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Eddy,
Despite its Anglican/liberal bias the ship is incredibly diverse. Just about everyone's represented here...Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Independent Evangelical. I would have no experience of (for example) the Orthodox or Lutheran traditions without the ship. Now for the 'but'...
Chorister's right up to a point. The best way to have more non-Anglican threads is to start them, but it isn't always quite that simple. Even non-Anglican specific discussions sometimes happen within a set of assumed parameters that are inaccessible to anyone who isn't Anglican or Anglican-literate. To take one silly example, the universal assumption that all clergy work insane hours was very surprising to a Baptist like me (and shocking...my heart bleeds for Anglican ordinands ). I've found myself learning a whole Anglican 'language' to get the most out of the ship. Here it might help to remember that new shipmates reading general threads aren't always going to know what a PCC is for example. And the fact that the ship is pretty Anglican/liturgical is sometimes an inhibitor on starting new threads....you don't bother because you assume not many people would be interested. I'm not actually too bothered about the above personally, as I quite like using the ship as my one stop shop window on Anglicanism. I could imagine non-Anglicans newbies finding it a bit too much though.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I've never had the impression that there are more active posters from the UK than from elsewhere, but I seldom pay attention to exactly how many are from where.
Judging from the Mystery Worship reports, the Anglican Communion in all its geographical locations is favored, followed by the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world. Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians also make a strong showing. Independent evangelicals are not exactly under-represented either. It seems that Orthodox churches in all their territorial flavors are, however, under-represented.
I don't recall seeing very many (if any) reports from these churches:
A.M.E. or A.M.E. Zion (and I'd love to see one)
Salvation Army (not in a very long time)
Church of the Nazarene (again not in a very long time)
Seventh Day Adventist (only one that I can recall -- mine!)
Mennonite (again, only mine!)
That branch of the Baptist church peculiar to the Southeastern United States known as "Free Will Baptist"
Not the independent evangelical megachurches, but rather the tiny store-front independent evangelical churches.
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
I'm not sure the range of MW reports can be set as a guidepost for the threads in Ecclesiantics, 'cos it seems to me that some guys and perfectly and rightly, like to go to different and interesting places to MW - and dont they just!
Now Yerevan says:
quote:
Despite its Anglican/liberal bias the ship is incredibly diverse. Just about everyone's represented here...Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Independent Evangelical. I would have no experience of (for example) the Orthodox or Lutheran traditions without the ship. Now for the 'but'...
Chorister's right up to a point. The best way to have more non-Anglican threads is to start them, but it isn't always quite that simple. Even non-Anglican specific discussions sometimes happen within a set of assumed parameters that are inaccessible to anyone who isn't Anglican or Anglican-literate.
I'm not sure just how worldwide diverse the ship is. It does seem to have a bias to liberal intelligent folk. It has an Anglican bias.
Some customs and traditions do have scorn poured on them. There seems a hesitancy for some folk to speak up - and some if they do get shot right down and ground down! Like look at the discussion on lay celebration, the Anglicans on here - or most of them, simply couldnt cope with it and let everyone know in strong terms. But then so what - many churches could cope with it - but it was hopeless saying that.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Please clarify what Ship's Business is intended here, or we'll be moving this discussion to Purgatory.
-RooK
Non-Anglican Styx Host
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Ship's business:
How do we get a wider range of contributions?
How do we encourage new members from different traditions, especially none C of E or ex-C of E people?
How do we encourage people with opinions very different from Anglicanns to feel confident to post?
Not sure if thats business for here or Purgatory. Please advise. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by The Atheist (# 12067) on
:
How to increase forum turnover is easy - advertise. You paying?
As to why there are so many CoE people, isn't that more due to the UK location of the largest number of posters?
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
How to increase forum turnover is easy - advertise. You paying?
As to why there are so many CoE people, isn't that more due to the UK location of the largest number of posters?
Thats just too easy to say!
Specifically inviting people to contribute / comment would be just as good as advertising.
The second question is just circular, I'm sorry to say because the next question is 'Why are the largest number of posters from the UK?' And don't forget that there are just as many RCs worshipping in the UK as Anglicans.
No, I appeal to the hosts to consider the C of E bias and see if they can encourage wider contributions, and membership.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Ship's business:
How do we get a wider range of contributions?
How do we encourage new members from different traditions, especially none C of E or ex-C of E people?
How do we encourage people with opinions very different from Anglicanns to feel confident to post?
I don't see these as crucial issues. There are any number of other religion discussion boards on the Internet, and each has its special character.
Let the Ship be the Ship. It isn't all things to all people, and why would anyone want it to be?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Eddy - you seem to be counting ex-Anglicans as essentially Anglican in some posts and not in others. How does a high number of ex-Anglicans equal a CoE bias? Or should that be an Episcopalian bias?
So do ex-charismatics (evangelical or otherwise) count as essentially charismatics? IMHO they are not all that rare.
It seems to me that the proportion of Orthodox here is untypical of the UK and ditto Quakers - though maybe in both cases we punch above our weight.
[ 17. October 2009, 19:03: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Fr W says 'let the ship be the ship' - indeed. I say and let it grow and develop and become even more welcoming and inclusive of lots of opinions.
Lets encourage broad discussion. lets encourage different denominations and even different faiths to contribute. Lets say thank you to the hgosts who encourage this.
My point about ex-Anglicans is that some of them continue to pontificate and give views on how Anglicans should be doing things - but I say they've jumped ship and its a bit of a bl***y cheek to go on about how Anglicans should do liturgy or whatever when you've turned your back on them.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Eddy, I have been thinking about this same issue for quite some time, and I've come to the conclusion that some Christian faithful are taught that it is inappropriate to question the church, point out negatives--even when they are no-brainers, and debate what they have been taught to believe. A similar situation occurs with national patriotism, where people sometimes blindly obey authority because that is what they've been taught, and they think that doing anything else is unpatriotic.
Because of the very fact that the Ship forums mostly center on debate, they are going to attract people who are traditionally ripe for debate:
- People who have advanced degrees
- People who are disenfranchised by something
- People who are Mainline Protestants
- People who are naturally inclined to logorrhea
- People who have nothing better to do with their time
- People who are striving to effect change
- People who like causing a ruckus
- People with philosophy degrees taking a break from checking the want ads online
- (and undoubtedly several I have missed).
I have come to accept the fact that Ship's English heritage is going to mean that Anglicans are dominant. It's okay with me because I have discovered here that Anglicans run the gamut from the lowest of low church to nosebleeders so ridiculously high that they can't go to church because they have yet to find a priest who does it right. (Of course, the vast bulk of worldwide Anglicans are almost identical to the vast bulk of worldwide Lutherans, so I'm not too troubled by the Anglican presence.)
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Good thought Martin L.
I still think though that it would be good to get other perspectives involved.
Anglicans from low to high do not actually embrace the whole church, though Anglicans sometimes think they do.
RCs have a wider range of traditional to left wing, of conservative to social activist.
Other demoniations will have a range in different ways as well.
The ship would be bigger and richer if it could develop further from its English Anglican roots.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
No, I appeal to the hosts to consider the C of E bias and see if they can encourage wider contributions, and membership.
So what should the hosts be doing then?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Anglicans from low to high do not actually embrace the whole church, though Anglicans sometimes think they do...RCs have a wider range of traditional to left wing, of conservative to social activist.
All this being your, no doubt authoritative, opinion?
quote:
Other denominations will have a range in different ways as well.
Not sure what this means. quote:
My point about ex-Anglicans is that some of them continue to pontificate and give views on how Anglicans should be doing things - but I say they've jumped ship and its a bit of a bl***y cheek to go on about how Anglicans should do liturgy or whatever when you've turned your back on them.
Except that, if you're talking CoE, you are talking about the Established Church, so I think any Brit is entitled to an opinion. In any case, I (for example) no longer regularly attend, but I have been confirmed, I could start attending regularly again tomorrow, and I reserve the right to have an opinion. If that's OK with you.
You claim to be interested in getting a wider spectrum of opinion on board, but it sounds rather more as if you've got an axe to grind against a particular part of the current spectrum. Though I'm still not clear whether your problem is with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans, or both.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
it seems to me that we have the most open of all "recruitment" styles - anyone can sign up if they follow the 10Cs. are the 10Cs "anglican biased"? of course not.
I came here as an anglican (have since left the church) because I heard about it through word of mouth in my church. I suspect it's the same for many.
Why do you want us to try and recruit those from other traditions? you want more *fill in the blank* types? go find some and tell them about the place.
I believe that some traditions are uncomfortable with questioning certain aspects of Christianity and biblical teaching. That why some people find this place uncomfortable and either don't sign up or don't last. I have a very good friend who took a look at this place and found Chapter and Worse so "offensive" that she will not frequent the boards. (AoG, FWIW) that's her call. But I would be very offended if we tried to change who we are as a Ship to try and recruit those from traditions that will not accept the Ship as it is.
they can suck it up and deal or go find a forum that appeals to their beliefs. we can't be everything to everyone. thank God for that.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Thats great seasick and Max. and please get more like yourselves.
And where are the Unitarians, Baptists, Independant Church followers... There'll be some here I know lets encourage them to speak up.
And the modern alt.worship crew - it would be super to have much more of that in ecclesiantics too.
I'd love to hear more of 'Fresh Expressions' worship
Of your last 50 posts, excluding this thread, only three have not been in Eccles (and they were in purg).
Is your issue really about the whole ship, or is Eccles getting to you ?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I think many of the points brought up above are in play. I also think the Ship has a liberal bias because Christian websites where liberals are welcome and won't be censored by site admins are not too thick on the ground. Unfortunately, that in turn makes non-liberal shipmates seem ganged up on sometimes. It's a matter of numbers and people who want to get their thoughts out there. Same thing with the Anglican numbers. Say, someone brings up lay presidency, even by people in denominations where the "priesthood of all believers" is an important tenet, and you still have Anglicans spurred to thoughts about their own beliefs.
Another point. The Ship's voyagers are an opinionated lot and aren't afraid to show it. Frankly, a lot of us are rough around the edges and this alarms some people of the more nice-nice Christian persuasions. Hell, it alarms me occasionally. I'm afraid that lots of people who are preached at weekly to "put on a happy face" take a look here and walk away muttering, "ITTWACWS", without ever posting. Eddy is an interesting exception. He's consistently polite and mild-mannered (at least in the posts I've read), yet is persistent and has a thick enough skin to weather a Hell call. Kudos, Eddy! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
But on the other hand, do you ever look at the number of lurkers here at any given time? Often the number is one third or more. Sure, some of them are shipmates with that function turned off. But I think it means there are lots of people reading with secret pleasure our opinionated blather. And occasionally a person with a 2005 registration will gear up and make their first post. And almost always someone will note it and give the newcomer a warm welcome. Although, if they post cheekily in Hell it might be "warmer" than expected. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Basically I don't worry too much about who turns up for the party. People who enjoy it will come and stay; those who won't don't.
Posted by Ceesharp (# 3818) on
:
I too am english, a charismatic, and Roman Catholic. I don't post much but I visit the Ship most days.
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on
:
I've always enjoyed the discussions, though I don't post on all of them. I would certainly say I've learned a lot, and my favorites list has been enriched by links to websites referenced here. (Fresh Expressions, for example).
Some people's religious traditions are not strong on ecumenism, so it's not surprising to me that they are under-represented here. I find the same in my local clergy association. It's the Episcopalians, RC's, and mainliners who make up the bulk of the group, others never come, or respond to the invitation. I'll echo this thought: let the Ship be the Ship. It's a gift to many of us.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
Eddy, I found the Ship way back when around year 2000, when I was a proclaimed Buddhist/Baha'i who had years of experience as a Choir Member in Roman Catholic churches.
I've wandered on since then (including actually being baptized and confirmed into the RCC) but always using the Ship as a place to hear people genuinely discuss, debate and explore their personal journeys.
And now I find myself in the process of leaving Christianity, and as always, Shipmates are posting thoughts that I find helpful.
I really don't understand what your problem is. Why is it so important to you that the Ship reflect everything and all of the various Christian experiences? And why do you think it is so important that it not have a somewhat liberal Anglican bias?
Seriously. Why? It is what it is and what is was created to be by the two men who started it and keep it going. Why should your vision replace theirs?
And having been a host for ever so long (MW/Eccles mostly, but with guest stints in Purg and Hell), I have to say that I find your complaint that "the hosts should be doing more to make this site more ecumenical" is both an insult and a piece of crap.
Hosts and Admins can do a bit to steer discussions and vet members, but they always have to work with the people who show up. Contrary to your opinion, they don't have some magical ability to attract certain sorts of members and/or control the topics presented for discussion.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
How do we get a wider range of contributions?
While the basic philosophy is indeed "the more the merrier" on The Ship, I'm not sure I see any way within the remit of the Ship's Crew to affect the propagation of internet memes in a way that causes a significant divergence from the sort of people who are attracted to the Ship currently. Feel free to speculate in Purgatory what various changes to the Ship might mean, but I for one am not in any great hurry to scuttle what we have in order to shift demographics.
quote:
How do we encourage new members from different traditions, especially none C of E or ex-C of E people?
Again, feel free to speculate in Purgatory. I'd be curious how you'd propose a way of steering clear of anything that might be seen to have a selective bias against anyone systematically.
quote:
How do we encourage people with opinions very different from Anglicanns to feel confident to post?
Anglicans all have the same opinions? Seems like a bit of a category error.
-RooK
Styx Host
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
Indeed, if you spend most of your time in Eccles, you will feel surrounded by those to whom the details of liturgy are important. For many groups it doesn't matter how many candles are there are, when they are lit, what bit of tat is used to put them out, or the theological implications of (HORROR!) dripping wax on the floor. These groups won't find Eccles as interesting and will go elsewhere on the ship. That doesn't mean they are necessarily under-represented as shipmates, but they don't feel they have anything to add to liturgical discussions.
Because of the English roots of the website, the liturgically concerned shipmates tend to be Anglican.
As others have pointed out, the fact that the Ship encourages actual discussions about issues, at a relatively intellectual level that makes us reconsider our beliefs and why we hold them, also tends to self-select out groups where questioning Authority (or thinking for oneself) is discouraged. It takes a particular mindset to feel comfortable on the Ship, and there are plenty of alternatives that are less challenging to one's faith. It also requires a bit of being able to laugh at oneself and (especially the excesses of) others that may offend those who believe that religion is very serious. That tends to shift the population more to the liberal side, though we certainly have Shipmates from across the spectrum who are not afraid to express their views and defend them.
And perhaps that is the key point - people are free to express their views, but have to be willing to defend them, and to consider that others may start with the same material and come up with a different interpretation. A handy proof-text that might be sufficient support for your position elsewhere is likely to be met with 5 counter-texts and a discussion about the context and translation of the original Greek. Many of the conservative Christians that I know are not comfortable in that sort of environment.
For myself, what I find most addictive about the Ship is the combination of the quality of the discussions, including respect for the people who hold opposing views, and the ability of the Shipmates to form a close community in spite of those differences. (And the lighthearted humour, too.) Having a range of viewpoints represented is important to achieving that, but a lot of people aren't up to what it demands of them to participate.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Thats great seasick and Max. and please get more like yourselves.
And where are the Unitarians, Baptists, Independant Church followers... There'll be some here I know lets encourage them to speak up.
And the modern alt.worship crew - it would be super to have much more of that in ecclesiantics too.
I'd love to hear more of 'Fresh Expressions' worship
Of your last 50 posts, excluding this thread, only three have not been in Eccles (and they were in purg).
Is your issue really about the whole ship, or is Eccles getting to you ?
Dang, Think² beat me to it. Eddy, the mix is a little broader on the other boards, but they don't necessarily want to discuss liturgy all the time. You want to interact with a wider base of people? Move around the Ship a little more.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Anglicans all have the same opinions? Seems like a bit of a category error.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
& you can say the same for Nonconformists&trade . We're excellent at such co-operative skills as shaking each other by the throat, splitting etc ..
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Some customs and traditions do have scorn poured on them. There seems a hesitancy for some folk to speak up - and some if they do get shot right down and ground down!
If you read some of the other threads on the Styx you'll notice others have raised issues about Ecclesiantics, and the tendancy of a few there to shoot down people posting from a non-tat background. Of course, that's not a denominational issue as the "tat brigade" cross Anglican, RC and Orthodox boundaries - with many other members of those churches on the "non-tat" side receiving the scorn. We've been attempting to change that aspect of Ecclesiantics.
Basically, simply scorning or flaming another person because they're from a different tradition is not on. Robustly challenging the views someone has expressed is fine, although we've had plenty of people here who haven't been able to take such challenges and have left.
On large parts of the Ship, denominational backgrounds are irrelevant. I've never noticed any clear Anglican/non-Anglican divide in discussions on politics, ethics, sport or TV shows. Even in discussions of worship and ecclesiology, the dividing lines rarely (if ever) follow denominational lines.
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Thanks for that Alan and RooK.
My comments you know are meant to be positive and constructive and I'd love to be seen in that light.
Ecclesiantics can be a problem by the tat folks and some others shooting down others - I agree. Thats maybe a hosting issue as well. The hosts have a helluva job there at times. (And maybe I've cause probs. too). It does seem to be about 5 or 6 folk who persist in the know all everyone else is rubbish approach.
It would be great if we had more and more fresh minds and different outlooks there. I am wondering how that can happen. I've noticed actually some change recently, thats good.
Linking liturgy with life is a good think and not so much ritual notes / percy Dearmer (OMG not him again) stuff!
Eddy
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Eddy,
One problem is that different types of Christian find it hard to talk to each other. To simplify a bit: If you're an evangelical your primarily authority is scripture, whether interpreted on its own terms or within the parameters of evangelicalism. If you're a trad Catholic, Orthodoxen or Anglo-Catholic its tradition, whether filtered through Rome or not. If you're liberal or liberalish then its much much more fluid. All this makes it so hard to have discussions across the boundaries that any fairly intellectual Christian forum is going to gravitate towards one or the other. The ship's mostly 3, with a large dollop of 2 and a much smaller dollop of 1 (which is often dismissed, sometimes unfairly, as 'proof-texting'). I'm really not sure how you change that or if its worth trying. To move away from 3 inevitably IMO means moving closer to 1 or 2, which will just alienate another constituency.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying that its probably impossible to be completely include everyone, because the common ground for discussion just isn't there.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Ecclesiantics can be a problem by the tat folks and some others shooting down others - I agree. Thats maybe a hosting issue as well. The hosts have a helluva job there at times. (And maybe I've cause probs. too). It does seem to be about 5 or 6 folk who persist in the know all everyone else is rubbish approach.
Eddy, of the 147 non-MW threads on Eccles at the moment, you are the OP for 21 (14%).
This means you have a significant impact on what s discussed on Eccles. Now whilst I have noticed you have started one or two OPs outwith your tradition recently - OPs like "November: Month of the Holy Souls" necessarily restrict your likely audience and produce the dynamic you are discussing here. Basically, OPs that are "What do you do on [insert liturgical calendar event] ?" tend to promote primarily descriptive accounts, and then the debate that follows tends to be of the "oh well it ought to be done like this not that" variety. "Why" questions make for more inclusive OPs, that have more chance of involving a wider range of people.
So altering how you OP may help achieve the outcome you are asking for, alternatively read and post on more of the ship - that will give you more interaction with a wider variety of posters.
[ 18. October 2009, 09:59: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Thank you Think for that. I can see what you are saying and will give thought and care to how I open threads. I must say I'm a bit horrified to see that I may in fact be responsible for some of the tat backbiting that goes on - if I am I apologice to everyone.
Now folk say other groups than Ecclesiantics on the ship are more broad - I hope Ecclesiantics will broaden out as will - it would be good to learn more and exchange more ideas from different traditions.
I can see the point about people speaking in different ways and so not speakoing across trads. but then surely a common language can be found.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
RooK makes a good point when he says that not all Anglicans think alike. I remember arriving in Eccles (I seem to remember it was called something else then - Mystery Worship, perhaps?) - and being fascinated by discussions such as which gin or incense one should use. Or how many times one should ring a bell or clack a crotalus. That is totally outside the experience of many Anglicans as well as other denominations. But, instead of feeling critical towards such discussions, and staying away, I read avidly with voyeuristic interest and eventually found threads where I could contribute something. So a little tenacity on the part of those to whom such things are alien may pay off dividends. You never know.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
I'm an official member of three different denominations - CofE, Methodist, URC, and am an evangelical fairly low Anglo-Catholic by habit but with many friends and linkages to the Quakers, Baptists and Free Churches. Can I count as one of each if I post on a board?!
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
lol, amber. Well at least you'd be a good broad minded person.
Chorister and others: Sometimes I think Anglicans believe they have the monopoly on being 'broad' but infact they don't represent all varieties of belief. I think going on about this can appear a bit critical of other wide ranging churches - like saying we are good cos we are broad and you arent, when in fact that ain't true. Look at the reaction by the folk to that suggestion of lay led communion!
I think Baptists are very broad too aren't they?
And RCs?
I appreciated Think's thoughts on posting and how to encouraging variety. I think yes the inital post maybe needs more careful thought than I've being giving.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
Chorister and others: Sometimes I think Anglicans believe they have the monopoly on being 'broad' but infact they don't represent all varieties of belief. I think going on about this can appear a bit critical of other wide ranging churches - like saying we are good cos we are broad and you arent, when in fact that ain't true. Look at the reaction by the folk to that suggestion of lay led communion!
I thought the reactions on the Lay Presidency thread actually did prove just how broad the Anglican Communion is.
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on
:
Not really. I mean how many could cope with discussion of it in a friendly enquiring way - very few of the regular tat folk
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
... but as far as demoninations go there is definitely a preponderance of Anglicans and a lot of Anglican-centric discussions. ...
Well, if there's one thing that Anglicans are good at, given the non-authoritarian style of that church, it's endless debate with very little productive results. So they'll be much at home on the discussion boards on the Ship.
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Eddy,
One problem is that different types of Christian find it hard to talk to each other. ...
Some types of Christian find it very hard to acknowledge that any other type exists. Those who find unbearable the cognitive dissonance that comes from finding that someone else who calls themselves a Christian doesn't believe the same things that they do, will not feel at home here at all.
So I suggest that the very nature of these discussion boards produces a bias in favour of some Christian traditions and against others. That's the nature of the beast, and I don't see any way of changing that - or need to change.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
The Ship of Fools is not a Social Service. It is not founded on Equal Representation. I don't feel it's my job to coax oddly-affiliated folk onto the Ship.
I find Eddy's constant pats-on-the-head ("Thanks for that good post, Whoever" - over and over again) to be very annoying. Who asked for Eddy's guidance and approval in the on-going discussions?
I've entirely lost interest in Eccles since it became The Eddy Show. But this makes no difference to me or anyone else. People come, and people go. Just thought I'd let you know.
N.B. Voicing a divergent opinion, mind you, adding to the broad mix of outlooks and church positions. And Nationalities. And Gender Assignments. And Dietary Preferences. And Age Groups.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
Its unfortunate if one person's style is putting you off a whole board you would otherwise be interested in.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
There is a dissonance and disingenuity here.
It strikes me as very peculiar that Eddy should refer to the "tat brigade" in the third person, when he is chief among the party of one. Who else starts endless threads about "what Anglo-Catholic priests wear"? Who exactly are in this tat brigade? I long ago decided that these Eddy threads were there to bring disrepute on those who cared to discuss liturgy. I don't play along anymore.
When someone questions some practice, Eddy is quick to jibe with not following "the usual practice of Catholic churches".
But when someone suggests, for example, that flowers for Communion is far from Christian, suddenly he takes the other tack: there is no such thing as Catholic norms. And those who do, in fact, wish to stick by Catholic norms are simply incapable of celebrating "diversity" and creativity.
I could go on an on with one buttock-clenchingly annoying example after another.
Now we are chided here in the Styx because there are not enough people from yet more and more obscure sects, whose Liturgy eddy wants to drool over.
Sorry, all of this does not compute. And I remain with my impression that there is a deliberate attempt to bring those who discuss matters liturgical into disrepute.
This wind-up nonsense needs to stop.
Posted by Fr Cuthbert (# 3953) on
:
Is this the place for such a vitriolic attack on a shipmate?
In the opening post on this thread Eddy asked:
quote:
That made me wonder how the denominations are represented on the Ship.
It seems the highest proportion of posters are Anglicans or ex-Anglicans.
But worldwide Anglicans are quite small.
Why is this? How can a better variety be encouraged?
From my experience and reading of posts, I believe those are good questions, and worth discussing.
It's a shame that one or two have turned this to an attack on the person who asked the questions. In my experience that happens when the questions are found to be uncomfortable.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Well, a larger congregation of H and A than I've seen in a while have contributed to the thread, and RooK has growled a couple of times, so I suspect that a move - be it to Hell or Purg - will be undertaken if it drifts too far one way or another.
I've felt right from the OP that there was more to this thread than was immediately apparent. It's been an interesting read.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
As a U.S. Lutheran with no interest in tat I have to say that it doesn't bother me that the Ship's population is largely Anglo-Anglican (with a large sideserving of tat queens). There's a great pleasure to be found in going out among the exotics ). I see no reason why we should force it to be anything but what it grows into naturally.
If you want it to be different, do something yourself. Easy.
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Well, a larger congregation of H and A than I've seen in a while have contributed to the thread, and RooK has growled a couple of times, so I suspect that a move - be it to Hell or Purg - will be undertaken if it drifts too far one way or another.
I've felt right from the OP that there was more to this thread than was immediately apparent. It's been an interesting read.
Laetare/Eddy has been called to hell before by LQ with a very funny and entertaining hell thread which Eddy took personally and winged about (and we, being good Christian folk, felt bad for him and looked at our feet and pretending that such a thread never existed in the first place... except some of us big bad bullies on the ship who like to prod Laetare/Eddy every so often until he has a tantrum and asks for anybody else's opinions other than your own because you're a big bad Catholic and you won't say what he wants you to say)
Max.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
Eddy is Laetare? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Oh shit, there it is right in the sig line.
Dear God, I do truly hate name change amnesties, I do, I do, Ido. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 18. October 2009, 23:55: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Given that more people apparently worship with the Roman Catholics than with the Anglicans on the average Sunday morning in England
In the UK as a whole - the CofE is probably still marginally ahead in England.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Judging from the Mystery Worship reports, the Anglican Communion in all its geographical locations is favored, followed by the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world. Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians also make a strong showing. Independent evangelicals are not exactly under-represented either. It seems that Orthodox churches in all their territorial flavors are, however, under-represented.
This is an English-language website and the vast majority of Orthodox use Russian, Greek or Arabic in church.
In numbers I think its the Pentecostalists & Charismatics who are missing - they probably out number all the other Protestants worldwide these days (& therefore they outnumber the Orthodox as well) Globally its the second most popular flavour of Christianity after RC.
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
As to why there are so many CoE people, isn't that more due to the UK location of the largest number of posters?
Thats just too easy to say!
Its easy to say but its probably true!
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
It seems to me that the proportion of Orthodox here is untypical of the UK and ditto Quakers - though maybe in both cases we punch above our weight.
Orthodox certainly. Maybe not the Quakers though. On the other hand that there are any Lutherans at all is odd by UK standards.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Judging from the Mystery Worship reports, the Anglican Communion in all its geographical locations is favored, followed by the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world. Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians also make a strong showing. Independent evangelicals are not exactly under-represented either. It seems that Orthodox churches in all their territorial flavors are, however, under-represented.
This is an English-language website and the vast majority of Orthodox use Russian, Greek or Arabic in church.
They may use those languages in church, but do they use them exclusively? This is certainly the case if you're talking about Orthodox churches worldwide. However, if you're limiting yourself to the English-speaking world, then I think that the proportion of churches that do not use English as their primary liturgical language within the area that any given MWer would be reasonably expected to travel to get to a church to MW, will vary considerably from MWer to MWer. London Orthodoxy, for instance, is notorious for its ethnic ghettoisation, and that will have an influence on the liturgical language.
Of the Orthodox churches that I know in the midlands and in the northwest, I know of only two churches whose liturgical language is exclusively Greek or Slavonic. Apart from the two that are primarily Slavonic or Greek with some English, all the rest of which I know serve either entirely in English or predominantly in English with token bits of Greek or Slavonic, (none with Arabic to my knowledge). It depends very much on where you live and how you define your MW "catchment area".
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In numbers I think its the Pentecostalists & Charismatics who are missing - they probably out number all the other Protestants worldwide these days (& therefore they outnumber the Orthodox as well) Globally its the second most popular flavour of Christianity after RC.
I think they are here, they just don’t self identify as a Charismatic or Pentecostal on the Ship. I can think of quite a few reasons why they would prefer to just post on a topic without wearing their denominational badges. Having said that, of course it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to give a number to back up what I say here, so it is only a guess.
The thing is, I don’t hear them complaining about the lack of representation of their voices (or possibly I have missed it) so I presume they are quite happy to be on the Ship as it is.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
I'm a cradle (Roman) Catholic who sings in the Cof E and therefor tends to worship there as well. Not everyone fits neatly into a category, and even those who would categorise themselves as, for example, - C of E, vary enormously in beliefs and practices. I relish the variety I find on the ship, but then, I surf between boards. There's too much incense on Eccles, and too narrow a range of interests for me to want to visit more than occasionally. The varied diet provided across the boards is more interesting.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
I think they are here, they just don’t self identify as a Charismatic or Pentecostal on the Ship.
I think you're bang on the nail there. It's not that people are hiding the fact - the ones I've 'met' seem happy enough to talk about it when it's relevant - but they don't feel the need to wear a badge.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
Are you for real?
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I must say I'm a bit horrified to see that I may in fact be responsible for some of the tat backbiting that goes on
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy, 3 posts previously:
percy Dearmer (OMG not him again)
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy:
I must say I'm a bit horrified to see that I may in fact be responsible for some of the tat backbiting that goes on
quote:
Originally posted by Eddy, 3 posts previously:
percy Dearmer (OMG not him again)
Are you for real?
Something I've been asking for a few months now.
Max.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Are you for real?
All I can say is, it's a good job that the mods can see that Eddy & I have different IP addresses, hosted a world apart
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Are you for real?
All I can say is, it's a good job that the mods can see that Eddy & I have different IP addresses, hosted a world apart
I can't believe you've never heard of proxies!
Max.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Are you for real?
All I can say is, it's a good job that the mods can see that Eddy & I have different IP addresses, hosted a world apart
I can't believe you've never heard of proxies!
Max.
Or Tor.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There is a dissonance and disingenuity here.
It strikes me as very peculiar that Eddy should refer to the "tat brigade" in the third person, when he is chief among the party of one. Who else starts endless threads about "what Anglo-Catholic priests wear"? Who exactly are in this tat brigade? I long ago decided that these Eddy threads were there to bring disrepute on those who cared to discuss liturgy. I don't play along anymore.
When someone questions some practice, Eddy is quick to jibe with not following "the usual practice of Catholic churches".
But when someone suggests, for example, that flowers for Communion is far from Christian, suddenly he takes the other tack: there is no such thing as Catholic norms. And those who do, in fact, wish to stick by Catholic norms are simply incapable of celebrating "diversity" and creativity.
I could go on an on with one buttock-clenchingly annoying example after another.
Now we are chided here in the Styx because there are not enough people from yet more and more obscure sects, whose Liturgy eddy wants to drool over.
Sorry, all of this does not compute. And I remain with my impression that there is a deliberate attempt to bring those who discuss matters liturgical into disrepute.
This wind-up nonsense needs to stop.
Styx Host Tiara On
You seem to have confused the Styx with Hell. Don’t.
Styx Host Tiara Off
Tubbs
Styx Host
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Well, a larger congregation of H and A than I've seen in a while have contributed to the thread, and RooK has growled a couple of times, so I suspect that a move - be it to Hell or Purg - will be undertaken if it drifts too far one way or another.
I've felt right from the OP that there was more to this thread than was immediately apparent. It's been an interesting read.
Laetare/Eddy has been called to hell before by LQ with a very funny and entertaining hell thread which Eddy took personally and winged about (and we, being good Christian folk, felt bad for him and looked at our feet and pretending that such a thread never existed in the first place... except some of us big bad bullies on the ship who like to prod Laetare/Eddy every so often until he has a tantrum and asks for anybody else's opinions other than your own because you're a big bad Catholic and you won't say what he wants you to say)
Max.
Member Admin Tiara On
In this post you admit to trolling and flame-baiting and you make a personal attack outside Hell. Breaking Commandment 1 (don’t be a jerk); Commandment 3 (attack the issue not the person) and Commandment 4 (take it to Hell).
Under normal circumstances that would earn you a few weeks shore leave. These are not normal circumstances. On 7th July 2009 you were told that any further misbehaviour would result in permanent shore leave. Three commandment breaches in one post counts as further misbehaviour. Goodbye Max.
Member Admin Tiara Off
Tubbs
Member Admin
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Well, I'm a charismatic non-denominationalist (although, since we've moved, we've been attending a Baptist Church). Hello!
I think that part of the problem (if it is a problem) is simply that the demographic is by nature going to be self-sustaining.
If most people are from a certain background, then they're going to be interested in similar topics, and start threads on those topics. Someone who isn't interested in that topic won't bother to read or post, so getting those people from other demographics is going to be hard.
Likewise, I've sometimes been disappointed in a lack of interest/depth on threads that I post on / start. But it's understandable, because many people here are either not going to have an opinion or be bothered about the same things as me.
That said, I think SoF is about as diverse a place as you're going to be able to get. And I quite like the fact that most people are from a different kind of background to me - that means I get to hear a different perspective to usual. And there are enough frequent posters who are atheists or of other religions and background that you get a varied voice.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Well, a larger congregation of H and A than I've seen in a while have contributed to the thread, and RooK has growled a couple of times, so I suspect that a move - be it to Hell or Purg - will be undertaken if it drifts too far one way or another.
I've felt right from the OP that there was more to this thread than was immediately apparent. It's been an interesting read.
Laetare/Eddy has been called to hell before by LQ with a very funny and entertaining hell thread which Eddy took personally and winged about (and we, being good Christian folk, felt bad for him and looked at our feet and pretending that such a thread never existed in the first place... except some of us big bad bullies on the ship who like to prod Laetare/Eddy every so often until he has a tantrum and asks for anybody else's opinions other than your own because you're a big bad Catholic and you won't say what he wants you to say)
Max.
Member Admin Tiara On
In this post you admit to trolling and flame-baiting and you make a personal attack outside Hell. Breaking Commandment 1 (don’t be a jerk); Commandment 3 (attack the issue not the person) and Commandment 4 (take it to Hell).
Under normal circumstances that would earn you a few weeks shore leave. These are not normal circumstances. On 7th July 2009 you were told that any further misbehaviour would result in permanent shore leave. Three commandment breaches in one post counts as further misbehaviour. Goodbye Max.
Member Admin Tiara Off
Tubbs
Member Admin
Well, you've lost me as well then. This is completely OTT. Max was wound up by a wind up merchant. He shouldn't have been, but it's completely understandable, and hardly a grievious crime against the Ship's commandments. It is surely not the kind of 'misbehaviour' which any reasonable person would have thought he was being warned about in July.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
It certainly seems OTT from here too.
Thurible
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Max was given far more leeway than he should, and just because the final straw was a hair over the line instead of running at it full-force does not mean that he doesn't get to enjoy the consequences of his cumulative behavior.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
So be it. But I'll miss the lad. We've had our differences over many things, but there was something about him that made you just want to take him by the shoulders and give him a good shaking, and then hope he'd start behaving himself. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
That's an interesting take. I find it difficult to see what he contravened. The post for which he has been banned was a descriptive of past behaviour, for which he was given the final warning. It was a direct reply to an enquiry as to the history. I thought it quite a fair description, actually.
I am not an apologist for Max, and we have had dozens of run-ins. But this is just weird.
How strange the wheels of fortune work around here.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
Exactly my thoughts. This 'misbehaving' seems not to have been obvious enough to intrude on the original thread(s), otherwise a host would have picked it up.
It seems he's being banned for what I imagine was a somewhat rhetorical interpretation of events to make a point. If the actual posts weren't serious enough to warrant a sanction at the time, how does an after-the-event recollection make them so?
Perhaps a technically correct call, but one that seems not quite right in a justice sense.
[ 20. October 2009, 15:09: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
In this post you admit to trolling and flame-baiting and you make a personal attack
I can't see where Max made a pesonal attack except maybe accusing Eddy of "whinging", but that's just British for "complaining" isn't it? The rest was describing past history with wording for humor and effect. I too think the reaction was over the top.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If the actual posts weren't serious enough to warrant a sanction at the time, how does an after-the-event recollection make them so?
Because a post that is within the rules, but happens to wind someone else up, doesn't look like misconduct, but once you admit that you posted it with the intention and purpose of winding someone up, you are admitting to being a jerk?
That said, I'm not at all sure that Max was admitting to this. I think his post could equally well be read as admitting to a certain pleasure in Eddy getting wound up at his and others opinions. Or (more likely) as mere bluster.
I appreciate that Max was on a very clear final warning, but I'd be sorry to see him go on the basis of (what looks to me like) quite a fine judgment call, and I do hope that somewhere in the ship's hold a small last reserve of Slack can be found.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Oh no! I'll really miss Max; I found his posts interesting and fun. And others who "attacked" him IMO have as much responsibility...
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I don't think any of us really "attacked" him. Many of us did try to make him see the error of his ways. He was a smug little bloke, so convinced he was right and everybody else was wrong, and missed no opportunity to let us all know that -- as children will. I once called him a brat, and I think he fit the bill.
Admittedly, some of us enjoyed goading him now and then as well. And we were taken to task for it at the time.
But Max matured greatly over the years, and I really will miss him.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Exactly my thoughts. This 'misbehaving' seems not to have been obvious enough to intrude on the original thread(s), otherwise a host would have picked it up.
It seems he's being banned for what I imagine was a somewhat rhetorical interpretation of events to make a point. If the actual posts weren't serious enough to warrant a sanction at the time, how does an after-the-event recollection make them so?
Perhaps a technically correct call, but one that seems not quite right in a justice sense.
I agree with this - I have met him on several occasions and it's the way he talks. The hosts were taking his words 'literally', as it were.
I have texted him to that effect and I believe the hosts were OTT.
On the other hand, being off The Ship will mean he has more time to do the valuable work that he does and prepare for his future, using his considerable gifts.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Max was never a particular pal of mine, but a Ship which has exchanged him for Eddy is a poorer place for it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You know, this constant second guessing of the hosts and admins is getting very very old. Not to mention damned rude.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
I feel guilty for providing the post which prompted Max. to make his comments.
I have to say that I didn't view his response as particularly provocative, rather a witty in-joke observation about times past.
I've been around long enough to know some of his history, and I know he's come up against the H&A before, and I knew he was on a final warning, but I'm surprised that this was the proverbial straw, so to speak.
I would hope that Tubbs might reconsider, as I really felt that the post was jocular, rather than deliberately mischievous or malicious. And he is part of the furniture round here, after all.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Either I don't understand the meaning of the term, or you don't. But questioning and disagreeing with a decision is not the same as second guessing. Where is this alleged second guessing?
As to rudeness, I am not sure what model you are operating on, but again questioning and disagreeing is not the same as being rude. One can do it in a rude manner, but simply having the temerity to do it is not a display of rudeness.
I am not pleading for Max, nor do I think he is some cutesy little mascot who is amusing to have around the place. There would have been other occasions on which I would have applauded a decision to plank him. This particular incident strikes me as utterly bizarre and unjustified.
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
All things being considered, Max' post struck me as quite innocuous. The rationale for permanently booting him strikes me as rather pretextual. In fact, the host who booted him practically admitted the fact.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
I keep getting the feeling that there's a back story with Max I never heard. Has he been killing puppies or something?
Posted by Jigsaw (# 11433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
So be it. But I'll miss the lad. We've had our differences over many things, but there was something about him that made you just want to take him by the shoulders and give him a good shaking, and then hope he'd start behaving himself.
Respect to Miss Amanda - perfectly put.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Max will be missed. Can I add my voice to those who regret his peremptory banishment?
Of course he can be irritating. But he's grown up a lot while he's been on the Ship, and amongst the point-scoring and student flippancy, he shows a genuine faith. And he helps debunk some of the po-faced 'catholicism' of the sacristy queens (many of whom are of course anglo-catholic) by showing that 'low-church Catholic' is not necessarily an oxymoron.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Shadowhund wrote, quote:
All things being considered, Max' post struck me as quite innocuous. The rationale for permanently booting him strikes me as rather pretextual. In fact, the host who booted him practically admitted the fact.
Are you implying that as soon as a thread started here questioning how to get more RCs on the ship, the administration planked a prominent RC on a pretext just to show what the unofficial policy is?
It resonates with the little, paranoid voice in my head. Maybe I should break out the tin foil?
Or am I being naive?
Posted by Fr Cuthbert (# 3953) on
:
What a pity that this thread has descended to attacks and defences of individuals.
I still believe the original opening questions are worth discussion and thought.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Member Admin Tiara On
In this post you admit to trolling and flame-baiting and you make a personal attack outside Hell. Breaking Commandment 1 (don’t be a jerk); Commandment 3 (attack the issue not the person) and Commandment 4 (take it to Hell). Member Admin Tiara Off
Tubbs
Member Admin
Perhaps you can explain how he did any of these things? Any of them, I'll find it very interesting to know how you can support even one of your allegations.
FD
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
I'll find it very interesting to know how you can support even one of your allegations.
She doesn't have to. None of the admins are answerable to anyone but Simon and Erin.
None of us have a right to post here at all.
Lamb Chopped is right. Continuing to second-guess decisions like this is insulting to the people who keep the ship afloat.
It's not our call, and it's not really any of our business. Time to move on.
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
I'll find it very interesting to know how you can support even one of your allegations.
She doesn't have to. None of the admins are answerable to anyone but Simon and Erin.
None of us have a right to post here at all.
Lamb Chopped is right. Continuing to second-guess decisions like this is insulting to the people who keep the ship afloat.
It's not our call, and it's not really any of our business. Time to move on.
I think anyone who has contributed to the ship's coffers at least deserves a say.
Besides, just because they don't "have to" doesn't mean they "shouldn't be requested to".
I liked Max.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Cuthbert:
What a pity that this thread has descended to attacks and defences of individuals.
I still believe the original opening questions are worth discussion and thought.
If you're talking about the Max situation, someone ought to start another thread, methinks.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I think anyone who has contributed to the ship's coffers at least deserves a say.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. Contributing to the ship's coffers doesn't get you any special privilege in this regard. Everyone is free to register their opinion, including those who think we're collectively the reincarnation of Hitler and those who think that everyone should just STFU about it already.
[ 21. October 2009, 01:04: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'll miss Max. He grew--and grew up--a lot here.
He had a good sense of humor; unfortunately, people sometimes read his posts seriously when they weren't meant that way. I know that was the case with the big mess in Hell, sometime back.
I know these decisions are hard for--and on--the hosts. I hope, FWIW, that maybe someday there'll be a way for him to come back.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all concerned.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Well, it's obvious the H&A have been seeking a *reason* to ban Max. However, this piss-poor excuse merely looks vindictive.
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on
:
How many more buttons should he get to push? Max has been granted sooooooooo much slack, but that has finally run out. Should the post in question have been ignored until the next one? And if the next one wasn't really serious and just inside joking, should the H&A's wait until the next mistep? Giving a final warning is a bit silly if it's not actually going to be the final one.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Maybe Max. can learn from this that in RealLife™, "enough" really can mean enough. It might save him from more than a ban from a website.
If you're lurking Max, God Bless.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Well, it's obvious the H&A have been seeking a *reason* to ban Max. However, this piss-poor excuse merely looks vindictive.
And I'm going to have to stop you right here, too. The Ship's administration reserves the right to ban anyone at any time for any or no reason whatsoever. So the admins don't need to seek a reason, or an excuse. The bannee, as always, takes care of that all on their own.
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
My only experience of Max was on the thread that got him warned. (And count me among those who picked up fast that there was a big past history. For starters the Admins cited a lot of "episodes" in their posts.) But the warning to me was very clear that anything, anything at all, meant that Max was gone. Given the way Max acted in that thread, and in starting that thread, I'm surprised that the final straw was for something this mild. Then again, it was stated in the post that banned him that he'd ordinarily get suspended for that post, and since he was already not getting suspended for the July fiasco explicitly so that the admins could ban him as they'd had enough, this was the double yellow card that amounted to a red.
Compared to his July thread, the post in question was utterly minor. Added to his July thread, the tipping point.
Posted by Viola (# 20) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa:
How many more buttons should he get to push? Max has been granted sooooooooo much slack, but that has finally run out. Should the post in question have been ignored until the next one? And if the next one wasn't really serious and just inside joking, should the H&A's wait until the next mistep? Giving a final warning is a bit silly if it's not actually going to be the final one.
That's about the size of it. And just in case anyone thinks that Tubbs is the big, bad meany - she acted after consultation & agreement with the other admins.
And we've had exactly this situation with other multi-warned, multi-suspended posters before, with exactly the same accusations of unfairness. Sometimes, a final warning really is a final warning, even if the tipping point would have been a minor offence for a shipmate with otherwise exemplary behaviour.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
As a simple Shipmate I understand that Max. was amusing, so I know why various people who should know better are posting in his defense.
As a long-time previous host of MW/Eccles, I know how much time and effort he required over the years, both in public and in PMs. He has been given more second chances than any other member of this forum and spread over a much longer timespan.
For those of you who think he has grown up, think again. The hosts and admins and various shipmates have put way too many personal hours into trying to train Max and while he has made some progress, it simply hasn't been enough.
And for those of you who are new or haven't been paying attention, he has a reputation of posting and/or linking to all sorts of personal information and then having a hissy fit at the Ship when someone In Real Life happened across it
Will I miss his posts? Yes.
Will I miss his presence? No.
He should have been banned long ago simply because he always seemed to think that the rules didn't apply to him.
It's one thing to push the limits (the Ship tolerates that) but quite another to simply ignore them and think you are special.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
My only experience of Max was on the thread that got him warned. (And count me among those who picked up fast that there was a big past history. For starters the Admins cited a lot of "episodes" in their posts.) But the warning to me was very clear that anything, anything at all, meant that Max was gone. Given the way Max acted in that thread, and in starting that thread, I'm surprised that the final straw was for something this mild. Then again, it was stated in the post that banned him that he'd ordinarily get suspended for that post, and since he was already not getting suspended for the July fiasco explicitly so that the admins could ban him as they'd had enough, this was the double yellow card that amounted to a red.
Compared to his July thread, the post in question was utterly minor. Added to his July thread, the tipping point.
Warnings are also intended to influence behaviour. Other posters have been told that they need to change their behaviour in order to remain here and they’ve done so. Max didn’t.
Tubbs
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
All that said, I'm slightly disappointed that the other guy who got banned got a new logo that looked like Erin ate him, but Max still gets to stay as he was. That Erin eating people logo is funny.
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
All that said, I'm slightly disappointed that the other guy who got banned got a new logo that looked like Erin ate him, but Max still gets to stay as he was. That Erin eating people logo is funny.
The "Erin eating a troll" avatar is reserved for sockpuppets, I think.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
All that said, I'm slightly disappointed that the other guy who got banned got a new logo that looked like Erin ate him, but Max still gets to stay as he was. That Erin eating people logo is funny.
The "Erin eating a troll" avatar is reserved for sockpuppets, I think.
......so he can have one next time. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
The "Erin eating a troll" avatar is reserved for sockpuppets, I think.
......so he can have one next time.
Whatever Max.'s sins and failings, I don't think sockpuppetry is one of them.
[code]
[ 22. October 2009, 12:25: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
All that said, I'm slightly disappointed that the other guy who got banned got a new logo that looked like Erin ate him, but Max still gets to stay as he was. That Erin eating people logo is funny.
The "Erin eating a troll" avatar is reserved for sockpuppets, I think.
It's used when the person is banned by Erin. For whatever reason.
Tubbs
Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
The "Erin eating a troll" avatar is reserved for sockpuppets, I think.
......so he can have one next time.
Whatever Max.'s sins and failings, I don't think sockpuppetry is one of them.
[code]
His twitter is informative.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Lord P, if there is one thing I have learned by now on the Ship, it is that the Adminisphere is full of very bright, crafty--even sneaky--people who are pretty good at knowing the their market.
Max. is quite bright and I'd be surprised if there isn't a trick or two up his sleeve, but in the long run my money is on Erin and the Admins.
(Hmmm..."Erin and the Admins" might make a decent name for a rock band).
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
Before H&A come down on Lord P for this last post, I have already snarled at him about it. Easy enough, given that he is sitting in the next room.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
people who are pretty good at knowing the their market
If I were marketing a bulletin board to be "unrestful", and wanted interesting people to flock to it, I'd get rid of the bores who have posted recently on this thread and I certainly wouldn't ditch a hard-to-manage but challenging young person like Max. But then marketing, like human resources, is a department for folk who aren't up to selling anything.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
There's unrest that stirs the marketplace of ideas, letting thoughts and memes be shared and considered as people of different ilks rub shoulders. Then there's screaming children knocking over displays and preventing everybody else from conversing. And there's also grimy indigents mumbling their displeasure of reality as they stink up the place with their alcoholic breath.
We're not a company with departments. We're a bazaar.
Posted by Slavophile (# 140) on
:
After observing the ship for over a decade, it is quite clear that the only time spoiled assholes are tolerated is if they are also admins.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Slavophile:
After observing the ship for over a decade, it is quite clear that the only time spoiled assholes are tolerated is if they are also admins.
Obviously, you see more Admins than I do. And, clearly, in your observations I've been an Admin for a long, long time.
Posted by Slavophile (# 140) on
:
Well, it's either adminship or the plank. Usually the plank if you crusade or are immature in your assholeishness. If you are a bit more sophisticated or caustic, you get to fall up.
And you've been part of the Hosts and Admins for a long fucking time. Don't kid yourself or us.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
Hey, Slavophile, where have you been all my (Ship) Life?
FD Grimy Indigent etc etc
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
We're a bazaar.
Ahem... I think you'll find the correct spelling is:
b i z a r r e
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
So wait, does that mean I need to change my title? I quite like poisonous, dysfunctional witch.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
No no, you're an Editor, not an Admin.
And I'm not changing my title. Because, really, by now the red maple leaf is synonymous with "spoiled asshole" anyway.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
True, but he said admins, plural, and you and David and I are about the only ones who ever qualified.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think Tubbs has been found out. She only seems to be an informative, helpful person. Really, in the light of the moon, she's a spoiled brat, clearly.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
True, but he said admins, plural, and you and David and I are about the only ones who ever qualified.
Occupation says *Cubicle Monkey* - maybe somewhat, er, less than qualified, generally speaking, y'know IRL an' all that ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
HAW! HAW! HAW!
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
never can tell, can ya hon?
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on
:
The Ship's finally kicking Max. out of the nest and giving him chance to grow up already? Cool. I know it's against his call and all, but that boy needs to get laid. May the Goddess bless his journey onward from here, and good job H & A's, as usual.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Not sure whether 'getting laid' in itself ever enlightened anyone. If that were true those who had really screwed around would be the most mature. I hope Max remains chaste and true to his call.
Like everyone here, Max has pure gold within him. I wish him enormously well. God bless, Max. Keep on that pilgrim road!
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Like everyone here, Max has pure gold within him.
More than some, Sir P.
Max., nil carborundum illegitimae.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Not sure whether 'getting laid' in itself ever enlightened anyone. If that were true those who had really screwed around would be the most mature.
That's your own false logic you're laughing at there, Pelly. Eating well is good for one's health - but those who eat the most aren't the healthiest.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The Ship's finally kicking Max. out of the nest and giving him chance to grow up already? Cool. I know it's against his call and all, but that boy needs to get laid. May the Goddess bless his journey onward from here, and good job H & A's, as usual.
I think we should mind our own business when it comes to young people's psycho-sexual development.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And I'm not changing my title. Because, really, by now the red maple leaf is synonymous with "spoiled asshole" anyway.
I'm finding it hard to keep up - who spoiled your asshole?
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
I missed it? I'll echo Flausa and others--Max (and his prior named versions) have pushed every button at least twice.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think Tubbs has been found out. She only seems to be an informative, helpful person. Really, in the light of the moon, she's a spoiled brat, clearly.
Damn. You found me out.
Tubbs
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The Ship's finally kicking Max. out of the nest and giving him chance to grow up already? Cool. I know it's against his call and all, but that boy needs to get laid. May the Goddess bless his journey onward from here, and good job H & A's, as usual.
I think we should mind our own business when it comes to young people's psycho-sexual development.
leo, having dealt with Max. over the years, I completely agree with you about this.
People, just shut up and let it go. Max. is banned but that doesn't mean he isn't reading all this crap. OK?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The Ship's finally kicking Max. out of the nest and giving him chance to grow up already? Cool. I know it's against his call and all, but that boy needs to get laid. May the Goddess bless his journey onward from here, and good job H & A's, as usual.
I think we should mind our own business when it comes to young people's psycho-sexual development.
Indeed. Enough already.
Tubbs
Styx Host
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Not sure whether 'getting laid' in itself ever enlightened anyone. If that were true those who had really screwed around would be the most mature.
That's your own false logic you're laughing at there, Pelly. Eating well is good for one's health - but those who eat the most aren't the healthiest.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Oh, I don't know about that. Julia Child for one was pretty well ripened when the Lord finally plucked her out of the garden.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
...Julia Child for one was pretty well ripened when the Lord finally plucked her out of the garden.
I'm not so sure if that was "ripened" or "pickled".
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Clearly, our overlords have done an outstanding job here, as always...
Now, some light mood music, perhaps?
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
To comment on the OP,
While the Ship as a whole is strongly Anglican-of-some-persuasion, it also has a much broader range of perspectives than any I have run across before. It really runs the gamut from clergy, to theologian, those questioning their Christianity (where I count myself now), those who have given it up, and some cohort from almost every representative group (or very non-representative, as it may be).
Yes, there's a strong bias, but in Purg and Hell, where I mostly lurk, it isn't overbearing (once I figure out the lingo). It is people giving their opinion, but not parading it as The Way, which makes it more than palatable.
This is also the only board where I can have some faith that most posters words are backed by often decades of pondering, learning, and thought on the issues. The level of conversation here, even when it gets stupid, is higher than any other non-specialist place I've found on the internet, while retaining a sense of humor.
So, would it be nice to see a bit more variety yet? Sure, perhaps. There's nothing about the current variety though that makes the Ship a less-than-tempting URL to type into my browser.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, some light mood music, perhaps?
I think Arcade Fire's song *My Body is a Cage* fits better, actually
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyp34v6Lmcc
almost scary, huh?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, some light mood music, perhaps?
Aside: I just re-watched that movie last weekend. I freaking love Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone.
And now, back to plotting all your doom.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
The question of representation hasn't yet, at least on this thread, as far as I've noticed, mentioned the shipmates who, like myself, have started out in one denomination, and remain perhaps officially in that one, but have experienced denominational drift into another. I'm a cradle RC, but have been cheerfully singing, worshipping and receiving in the C of E for 25 years. Where do I fit in?
Or could it be that the idea of equal(ish) representation is rather more complex than originally suggested?
[ 03. November 2009, 22:58: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And now, back to plotting all your doom.
Well, RooK, why not invite everyone to join you in a hike on the boardwalk 1500 feet above the water in Pacific Rim National Park?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Or perhaps at Zion National Park. It's about time I went back to Angel's Landing.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
Maybe the Anglican preponderance is why the Ship works.
If there was a Catholic bias it would become maudlin, self congratulatory and a bit saccharine and would probably become dominated by conservative Catholics and no-one else would be happy in that environment.
There would be a similar though different problems if the Ship were overwhelmingly Methodist or Baptist.
Let the Anglicans have it, I say. They could run an Empire so why not a Ship?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
There would be a similar though different problems if the Ship were overwhelmingly Methodist or Baptist.
Oh do tell! Having been both a Methodist and a Baptist in my time I'm very curious.
My guess...
Methodist ship: The long dark committee meeting of the soul
Baptist ship: You think Purg is argumentative now?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
A Scottish Presbyterian ship would schism into two ships, which in turn would schism into more ships, till we'd end up with a Fleet of Fools, some parts of which would concentrate on the Dead Horses, and most parts of which would be a dab hand at Hell calls. Eccles would be deserted and the Circus would be shut on the Sabbath.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
A Scottish Presbyterian ship would schism into two ships, *snip*
Plus an extra schism every time anyone was so rash as to post on the same thread as a [Ian Paisley voice] CATHOLIC! [/Ian Paisley voice]?
(yes, I know Elvis is from the other side of the Irish Sea, but I find it very hard not thinking of him when the Wee Frees are getting their extra-strong reinforced thou shalt not pass gussets in a twist over the PAPISTS!)
AG
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Also, that part of the fleet which had schismed and was sailing out of Stornoway, would of course remained berthed on the Sabbath. No Sunday sailings of the Ship!!
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Maybe the Anglican preponderance is why the Ship works.
If there was a Catholic bias it would become maudlin, self congratulatory and a bit saccharine and would probably become dominated by conservative Catholics and no-one else would be happy in that environment.
There would be a similar though different problems if the Ship were overwhelmingly Methodist or Baptist.
Let the Anglicans have it, I say. They could run an Empire so why not a Ship?
You mean Anglicans AREN'T self-congratulatory? You mean all of the moaning and groaning about "racism" and "sexism" from certain quarters of the Anglican world isn't maudlin?
I assumed that the main reason why Anglicans are (over?)represented had mostly to do with the fact that SOF is based in England and the word trickles mostly back to the United States and elsewhere that way. It would be shocking if the Boards were dominated by "Noncomformist shopkeepers" or Lake Wobegon Lutherans where all the children are above average.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
Of course Anglicans are all self congratulatory etc.
The difference is that they know it. They also know that they are not the only fish in the sea. What makes the Ship work is their expectation of disagreement and varying opinions amongst themselves and they naturally assume that the rest of us will fall in with that culture.
Within many other denominations there is not that tolerance of different opinions either within or without the ecclesiastical structure.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't think any denomination is in complete agreement with itself. It's just that from the outside, some prefer to appear so.
Posted by Genevičve (# 9098) on
:
quote:
Of course Anglicans are all self congratulatory etc
Well, we have a lot to congratulate ourselves about! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
They also know that they are not the only fish in the sea...
I'm not sure. Plenty of English Anglicans are amazingly ignorant about life beyond the C of E.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Also, that part of the fleet which had schismed and was sailing out of Stornoway, would of course remained berthed on the Sabbath. No Sunday sailings of the Ship!!
The really problem is that the fleet is never finally built. Let me explain, they go through the schism building process, but they also have the opposite process as well, possibly when they realise another team of ship builders has managed to work out how to do something they are struggling with, then they merge together, trying to build one ship out of the two partly built ships. Only of course some don't like joining the combined ship building team so they start building another boat alongside. This continual process of splitting a recombining building teams, means that no single boat is never ever got to the stage where it is deemed sea worthy. Of course being Reformed there are endless disputes about what "seaworthy" means.
Jengie
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
If there was a Catholic bias it would become maudlin, self congratulatory and a bit saccharine
Oh well then, maybe I'll stick around after all. We can make it happen.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
Yay
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
<sound of Orthodoxen, in their stalls, lowing respectfully to Think˛ and DOD>
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think any denomination is in complete agreement with itself.
Certainly not the Anglicans, at any rate.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
If there was a Catholic bias it would become maudlin, self congratulatory and a bit saccharine
You make that sound like such a BAD thing...
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
Wow...maybe you have a point! Let's go for it then. We'll pop the Anglicans into Ordinaria and restrict them to Ecclesiantics and turn the Ship into an Armada!
I raise my glass of Benedictine to That!
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Fuzzipeg, if there were a Catholic bias on the Ship it would most certainly NOT be maudlin or self-congratulatory while I continue to post.
m (definitely NOT a member of any private RC boards and just hanging in here to keep the resident RC bastards honest)
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
I can tell that,Multipara, by the clothes you are wearing...terrifying!
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
You should see what I wear IRL....never take an avatar seriously.
m
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
I certainly haven't seen an anti-Catholic bias here. Or at least any more of one than is anti-anything else. It is a kind of anti-everything board. But if you can put forth an actual argument, people will listen. If you can't, people will tell you it doesn't add up. That's what makes it fun!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
It is a kind of anti-everything board. But if you can put forth an actual argument, people will listen. If you can't, people will tell you it doesn't add up. That's what makes it fun!
My little nonconformist legs were kicking with appreciation at this description. Thanks, five.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
I'm sorry, Multipara. I always assume people look like their avatars as I do.
Posted by Hare today (# 12974) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I'm sorry, Multipara. I always assume people look like their avatars as I do.
I do hope not!
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I'm sorry, Multipara. I always assume people look like their avatars as I do.
OMG
Posted by Joyeux (# 3851) on
:
I don't mind Fuzzipeg's assumption...
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I wouldn't either, if I were Joyeux.
Not that far off for me. I am a bit of an old ruin.
[ 13. November 2009, 07:57: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I am a bit of an old ruin.
Agatha Christie said that the great thing about being married to an archaeologist (as she was) was that "the older you get, the more interested he becomes in you".
It's not only the Ship which suffers from decline in species diversity.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I look exactly like my avatar.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Same here. Or, at least, part of me does.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
I used to look like my avatar.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I am a bit of an old ruin.
Agatha Christie said that the great thing about being married to an archaeologist (as she was) was that "the older you get, the more interested he becomes in you".
It's not only the Ship which suffers from decline in species diversity.
That damned Christian rock scene is a dark abyss of the soul. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It is too bad, though. At least it doesn't sound like his order yanked him out (or did they?). And it's pretty healthy of him to know to get out when the getting was good.
By the way, do you know any straight, eligible, 50ish archeologists? Or maybe who I really need is a paleontologist?
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
My avatar is wishful thinking.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Jacobsen has kindly diverted this avatar tangent to Heaven for all who'd like to chat about it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0