Ship of Fools: The 10 Commandments

Thread: The 10 Commandments Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000016

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

This thread is here for discussion and suggestions about our house rules, the 10 Commandments. Unlike the original 10 Commandments, our rules aren't chiselled in stone but are open for debate -- although please bear in mind that there are good reasons why we have the rules we do. They've been developed over the past couple of years by members of this community and reflect our experience in belonging to these boards.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

7 is problematic in my mind as there are quite serious differences between what is considered libelous/slanderous in the UK versus the US (or elsewhere). Maybe a clarification article could be linked to from it?

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

In deciding if a thread it libellous, hosts generally go by UK standards. As I understand it, they are the most strict with the least restrictive burden of proof.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Right.. but my point is: What are the UK standards? Being in the US, I really have no idea.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

The UK standards have proberly changed due to the Human rights act but no body knows which way

I believe under English Common Law traditionally evidence must exist to support any statement made to avoid libel about a person or organisation.

This is slowly being eroded particularly when it comes to public bodies this is due to the influence of the European court of human rights. An organisation can be subject to crictisim in the press as long as reasonable efforts have been made to research the information.

As I understand it this area of the Law is in flux and is moving towards a 'freedom of expression' approach.

Posted by Gill B (# 112) on :

It is worth bearing in mind that the British actor William Roache successfully sued for thousands of pounds (I think it was about 50K but I may have misremembered) for being described as 'boring' by the British press. What makes it particularly ironic is that it was actually the character that he plays (Ken Barlow in the soap Coronation Street who was described as boring rather than Roache himself. That's how tough the UK libel laws are.

Now if one of you kind souls will describe me as 'boring', I will have great pleasure in taking you to the cleaners...

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :

Ah, but that only works if you are *not* boring. If you are boring, then it is a simple statement of truth.

Posted by Arietty (# 45) on :

The onus is on the alleged libeller to prove that what they said is true. And how do you prove someone is boring?

Libel relates to the reputation. Anything that damages my reputation is libellous unless you can prove it is true. The more I stand to lose by my reputation being damaged, the more serious the libel is taken to be. However you do need a lot of dosh to sue and it has gone spectacularly wrong in some cases where the person who has sued for libel has lost the case and ended up losing all their money.

Posted by rewboss (# 566) on :

Well, when we're talking about libel etc, we're talking about civil law, not criminal law. Which means, in part, that which country's laws apply depends on which courts the plaintiff is suing through. Whether the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the allegations are true or not depends varies from country to country. And whether a case can even be brought also depends.

British courts, for example, have almost no jurisdiction over the Internet. Australian anti-defamatory laws, on the other hand, are so strict that ISPs are required by law to block access to sites that contravene those laws.

In all cases, though, Ship of Fools can be held responsible for what information is stored on their site, including anything that is posted to this board. An individual posting something defamatory may not be putting himself at risk, but the whole SoF website.

quote:
I believe under English Common Law traditionally evidence must exist to support any statement made to avoid libel about a person or organisation.

Be careful not to misinterpret this. For example, you are not allowed to suggest that an individual is responsible for a crime until that individual has been convicted of that crime. You are not allowed to report that Mr X has been arrested for the murder of Mrs Y, but that Mr X has been detained in connection with the death of Mrs Y, even if Mr X was discovered at the scene of the crime with blood dripping from his hands.

Posted by Karl (# 76) on :

Not to forget the good old 'helping police with their enquiries'

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

All right, that's enough. This thread is meant to discuss the 10Cs when we encounter difficulties or confusion in their interpretation, NOT for flirting. Take it to Heaven or All Saints. I will be deleting all posts from this thread, except the OP, within 24 hours.

No more.

Erin

Addendum: The offending posts have been deleted, AFTER consulting with my co-host here, who agreed with me.

[ 21 August 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by Peregrinner (# 409) on :

Erin,

To come up to your serious level for a moment or two, I can see the validity of having a thread to discuss the 10 commandments but not one that sits at the bottom of the pile with no responses as this one did for so long.

If you feel this strongly, as you obviously do, that this subject should be a permanent thread, and not something that can be discussed when an individual has a personal objection or a new idea, then I would prefer that you create a new thread every (e.g. 6 months) which will be at the top of the list for people to view and which contains the actual rules themselves (which I included here) so that people do not have to search for them before being able to comment.

My original argument was not with the relevance of the subject but with its practical application. Everybody was ignoring a very dull thread at the bottom of the pile.

I do respect your power, but would ask you to consult with other administrators and hosts before simply butchering this thread and leaving it dormant again.

There is a reason for laws, but Christians should have no need of them because they should be moving in the spirit anyway.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Peregrinner...

Your comments have been noted, however, not only am I an administrator, but I am also one of the hosts of this board (Simon being the other one), so it pretty much IS up to me what I do with threads here.

I am perfectly content to let this thread lie dormant at the bottom of the board for however long it needs to. I don't know if you were on the paid boards or not, but the 10Cs thread oftentimes went months without a post. If you were to read the 10 Commandments, you will see at the bottom of the page is a link to this thread. We will NOT be recoding html every six months just to resurrect a thread that needs no resurrecting unless there is a question or a problem.

This board is about Ship stuff, including questions about the rules and regulations. I am going to start being a bit stricter here with personal chat. There are two other boards here where (the general) you can do that, and I don't have time to monitor this sort of thing. That's why I host the Styx.

Erin

Posted by Viola (# 20) on :

Hmmm,

At the risk of looking like a creep here, Erin's been here a lot longer, and put in a lot more thought onto these boards than most of the rest of us, so probably knows what works, she's in charge of this board, and she does lots of consultation with other hosts and admins.

It would be lovely if we all moved in the spirit and didn't need laws, but even I've been around long enough to know that this place reflects the real world, where people are occasionally either stupid, thoughtless or nasty. Even Christians!

Right - I'll stop moralising and get back to my fluffy, entertaining heaven board.

Posted by Viola (# 20) on :

Oh - and meant to say...

You don't have to search very hard to find the 10Cs. There's a gert big link to them as a constant presence on the left hand side of my screen.

Posted by Angel of the North (# 60) on :

I've been thinking about the 10Cs, and wondering about adding something in somewhere about there being a real person on the other side of the computer monitor, with real feelings.
The 10Cs convey this, but don't actually sum it up succinctly.

Love
Angel

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

Well, Erin suggested my query about the 10 commandments and her calling Jesse Jackson

quote:
vile, parasitic and disgusting long before this latest round of media hogdom.

on the Hell thread about terrorism, needed to be discussed in the Styx.

(Hope you're happy with me adding on to this thread Erin ... or would it be better to start a new one?)

To follow on from Angel's comment above about

quote:
there being a real person on the other side of the computer monitor

. I guess I feel that quite keenly even about public figures.

I don't understand that we have a commandment about attacking an issue not the person for shipmates, but that rule does not apply to people beyond the ship.

There have been a number of such instances I've spotted, and I guess I find that level of attack lacks the 'non-violent' spirit I sense the ship attempts to engender in exchanges within the community.

In our quest for peace and justice, surely its better not to go for anyone's jugular? That's my argument anyhow

(and I'm sure you older hands are smiling wryly at me taking on the wisdom and might of Erin ... more fool me maybe ... but I really want a better answer to this matter of double standards than I've got so far).

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

We don't have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because we want a "non-violent" exchange. We have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because the Ship separates itself into factions and then it takes us months to rebuild what's been damaged. It's primarily a protective measure for the community, rather than any embodiment of ideals.

There's a part of me that would like to discontinue it altogether, because I think that there are times when "shut up, dumbass" is the only logical response. However, we have had to clean up that mess before, so I know that pragmatically we need this rule in place.

And thankfully it didn't stop me from ranting and raving up a storm when I left my ex. And all the bleeding heart pinko commie liberals here would explode if they couldn't trash Bush 43, Reagan or Thatcher.

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
We don't have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because we want a "non-violent" exchange.

The effect is that the exchanges become non-violent though, surely?

We have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because the Ship separates itself into factions and then it takes us months to rebuild what's been damaged. It's primarily a protective measure for the community, rather than any embodiment of ideals.

I'm not entirely sure how to separate in my own mind 'a protective measure for the community' from an 'embodiment of ideals'. I would assume it was both/and.

Yep, and pragmatic idealism is the very best sort IMHO.

And thankfully it didn't stop me from ranting and raving up a storm when I left my ex.
Point taken.

And all the bleeding heart pinko commie liberals here would explode if they couldn't trash Bush 43, Reagan or Thatcher.

Hey, lead me to some of these 'bleeding heart pinko commie liberals' I'm still trying to find them (or is that an impermissable question for the Styx? )

Shalom

late but never a quartet

[ubb tidied -- yes, I am that nice ]

[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that our motivation is to protect the community. We have some fringe benefits (only an occasional knock-down drag-out in Hell), but they are not the reasons in and of themselves.

Re: the liberals -- you can't swing a cat without hitting at least ten of 'em around here.

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

Right I'm gonna take 'cat swinging' and other matters of animal theology to Purgatory!

I still think to separate secondary benefits from primary intentions for the Ship is something of a misnoma (whatever misnoma means).

late but never a quartet

Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

Re: the liberals -- you can't swing a cat without hitting at least ten of 'em around here.

Ouch.

Although I can't decide if I'm a Right wing or a Left wing liberal. <grin>

In general I am happy with the no personal attacks rule, but in my personal conduct use it beyond members of the ship.

I might say that I disagree with Bush on an issue, but to suggest that he is a "dumbass" or his Christian Faith is not genuine is to my mind contrary to the scriptural approach to those in positions of secular authourity. It's also not very nice.

I try to avoid personal abuse of anyone - living or dead.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

Don't forget a Liberal in Australia is in fact a Conservative...

However the rule against ad hominem attacks is I think a good one and see no reason why it should be restricted to SOF
Ad hominem attacks are in fact impolite

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

We will leave it to each person to decide whether or not they wish to adhere to the rule when it comes to people outside the bounds of the Ship.

Posted by Gill B (# 112) on :

And let us not forget that personal attacks can lay us open to libel charges.

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

I thought for those of us who are still wrestling with issues surrounding issues / persons a new translation of that commandment would help courtesy of URL=http://www.webdez.net/alig/]Ali G[/URL].

Name-callin hand personal disses is not allowed, regardless hof da context. da same goes fer comment which stereotypes or attacks people on da basis hof their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference. Please avoid unintelligent remarks such as "Americans irritate me 'coz..." or, "homosexuals is always saying..." Remarks like dis always start flame wars hand they is treated severely. All da above isas is opun fer reasoned debate, but extreme or insensitive attacks on da beliefs or lifestyle choices hof otha shipmates is not tolerated. Whun discussin a specific people group, please mentally substitute da name hof a shipmate fer da group in question before me Uncle Jamal post your message. dat is da rule da administrators hand hosts will use to determine whetha or not your post is a personal attack, so please do da same. [

Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on :

Apology from me for lack of respect to the hosts, in breach of the 6th commandment.

I have personally apologized to each of the hosts I have offended.

I had not intentionally set out to annoy or disrespect any of them.

However I realize now that that is what I achieved.

So Frin I'm sorry, and Siegfried I'm sorry too.

In both instances I had not seen boundaries which would have been glaringly obvious to those of you who know the Ship better than I.

Enough said.

Jem

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Bumping this to the top.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Posted in the now-closed other thread...

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I'd like to offer what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Would it be possible to add something to the 10 C's about analogies that, as we say, create more heat than light. One thing that I've reflected on following the sex, lies etc. dust up is that what seems to some people a "common sense" matter does not seem to to others. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Indeed, in many circles asking "then explain to me how your position differs from X" is a perfectly legitimate arguing tactic. I can accept that making analogies between someone's position and that of a widely hated group is out of bounds for these boards. But it does not seem to me self-evidently so.
Particularly if hosts are going to tell people to apologize for do this, I would think that it could be spelled out a bit more explicitly in the 10 c's. I don't mean listing the hated groups you are not allowed to invoke (I could see a major row over whether Republicans are included or not), but some sort of general warning, maybe under the 3rd commandment.
I'd be interested in what people thing.
FCB

quote:
Originally posted by Cuttlefish:
I know there could be a risk of detailing the 10 Commandments so much that they become too wordy, and still not cover every eventuality. But even so I think FCB's suggestion is a good one. I think the 11 commandments just wouldn't be catchy enough, so which commandment would "do not compare the arguments of a shipmate with those of a generally despised group or individual such as racists, paedophiles or Hitler" fall under? I think it could slip into commandment 3: name calling etc. In effect it is a subtle form of name calling, even if the offender does not consciously mean it as such.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

Sorry I didn't post on this thread originally. Since I already knew what a sock puppet was, I didn't read far enough in the 10 C's to see the link to this thread. That's what I get.

FCB

Posted by Nancy Winningham (# 91) on :

Commandment 3 reads, in part:

quote:
Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference.

I am always reminded of the funniest line from the movie "A River Runs Through It." The Presbyterian minister is quoted as saying, "Methodists are Baptists who know how to read." Naturally, that sort of remark on this board would quite rightly get one reprimanded.

(My mother was raised Methodist and my in-laws were raised Baptist, so this is just a movie quote, not MY opinion.)

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :

This is a tentative post. Please don't anyone turn it into anything more than a request for clarification.

I'm concerned about rule 3.

I'm not sure what constitutes a personal attack. The problem that I have seen happening, twice now, since starting to read these boards is that personal attacks have been made by people in charge of the boards. I don't want to give examples or start name calling as I think this would cause more harm than good, but perhaps you could clarify what is, and what is not acceptable.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

What is not acceptable: name-calling. That's pretty much it.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

Erin, your reply strikes be as a bit non-responsive. I think Bonzo was asking what constituted name-calling. For example, is calling someone a "troll" (as I have done on one occasion in the past) name calling?

FCB

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Erin, your reply strikes be as a bit non-responsive. I think Bonzo was asking what constituted name-calling. For example, is calling someone a "troll" (as I have done on one occasion in the past) name calling?
FCB

Well, he may have meant what constitutes name-calling, but he asked what constitutes a personal attack. When someone asks me what time it is, I try to avoid telling them how to build a watch.

That said, the best thing, really, is to lurk if you're unsure about it. Get to know the tenor of the boards. It is impossible for me to sit here and identify when something is and is not acceptable. And what is acceptable on one board may not be on another. I can't answer this, I leave it to the judgment of the hosts and administrators (a judgment I trust very much).

Another rule of the board culture: if you violate the rules and guidelines of the board, you absolutely cannot appeal to them if someone dishes it right back to you. That argument will be ignored by hosts and administrators (except to maybe ridicule it).

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I guess this means use your common sense

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

What is the point of the (Biblical) Ten Commandments?

Each one of them is obviously a prohibition or a burden, but the effect of each one is a liberation. Of course, you could post 23 messages on the semiotics of individual commands, but all you would be doing is missing the point.

So what is the point?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, he may have meant what constitutes name-calling, but he asked what constitutes a personal attack. When someone asks me what time it is, I try to avoid telling them how to build a watch.

Presumably he knew that a personal attack meant a verbal one (i.e. name-calling), since physical assault is difficult over the internet.

FCB

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

I have an idea, FCB. Since I don't remember asking for an interpreter, why don't we let Bonzo (and others) speak for himself if he wants to. Okay?

Posted by da_Musicman (# 1018) on :

So What is different?

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

The change that struck me as the most obvious is in Commandment 3. I think it used to read something like "Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed". Now it's been softened to "only allowed in Hell". This will presumably deal with all the people complaining in Hell that so-and-so is breaking the commandments because they used a personal insult.

At least, I think that's been changed...

I'm also wondering whether "cop to it" in commandment 5 is understandable slang outside of the UK....

Posted by Neil (starbelly) (# 25) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:

I'm also wondering whether "cop to it" in commandment 5 is understandable slang outside of the UK....

Is it understandable inside the UK?

Must be about copulation, seems a strange thing to ask us to do, but if you insist...

Neil

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
if you know you've stuffed it up, cop to it without excuse. We've all had to at some point.

Certainly sounds like some kind of sexual practice. Though it's a bit sweeping to assume we've ALL done it.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Commandments ought to be short and to the point, so ours have been edited down to get at the essential point in each case. Major changes are...

No.1: In the 1662 version, this began: "This is a community of intelligent, passionate, adult Christians..." This has been dropped as we don't want to imply that people who are not Christians aren't welcome. It also sounded naff.

No.3: Inanna's right. "Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell" (current version) is more accurate than "Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed" (old version). The third commandment was very wordy, and we've cut it down to 25 percent of its original size. It was originally written when we were in the throes of anti-American and anti-homosexual postings, hence the detail, which is no longer needed.

No.5: This is one we've completely changed. The old version had "If you get it wrong, own up to it -- If you get it wrong, please apologise. Sincere apologies have always been warmly received on these boards." The new says, "Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended -- Disagreement is normal here. Try not to nurse hurt feelings, and, conversely, if you know you've stuffed it up, cop to it without excuse. We've all had to at some point." We wanted to get away from the childish, "say sorry, play nicely" feel and instead have something which puts the onus on both sides in a dispute.

The rest of the changes are for the sake of brevity. The complete text of the old 10cs can be found by clicking here.

[ 26. July 2006, 11:05: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
We wanted to get away from the childish, "say sorry, play nicely" feel and instead have something which puts the onus on both sides in a dispute.

All joking aside, I applaud the change of emphasis and think it reflects what now generally happens anyway.

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :

I have a question about Commandment 7. What constitutes a breach of copyright?

I'm asking because I found a really great passage in a Peter Gomes book that I would like to put in the "Why Do Liberals Go to Church?" thread in Purgatory, but I don't want to do anything that isn't cricket.

Thanks!
Paige

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
but I don't want to do anything that isn't cricket.

Unlike the England cricket team who excell in doing things that aren't exactly cricket

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Paige: how long is the passage? Because you can quote a paragraph or two (or three) out of an entire book and be well within the law.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Hi paigeb

Posting a reasonably short quote from a book should be OK here, as in my understanding it would be regarded in law as "fair use". Fair use is judged particularly by two factors: what proportion of the total work you are quoting (e.g. quoting a few lines from a long novel would be OK, but a few lines from a short poem would not); and how you are using it (non-profit use tends to be better than commercial use).

Take a look at the following test for fair use before doing anything else. Ideally, the best thing to do is to provide a link to a page where the passage you want to quote has already been posted -- that way there's no potential for copyright violation. Ultimately, copyright violations posted here will cause Ship of Fools problems, so we reserve the right to delete quotes which we believe cross the line.

Here's the link. Scroll down to the four-factor test...

Fair use of copyrighted materials

Simon

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :

PaigeB

This is personal reflection. Asking the question shows that you are concerned over the quantity. The normal response is not to say that this is an infringement of copywrite but it is to provide undigested information. The normal approach when doing this is to paraphrase the passage, may be quoting directly some of the crucial passages and then provide a book and page reference back to the original source. This allows the passage to be interpreted in context of the discussion and the curious to actually check back to what the author.

Jengie

[ 08. August 2003, 08:31: Message edited by: Jengie ]

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :

The piece in question is actually only a short paragraph, but it's in a brand new book. I've seen the admonition before to link, rather than post---so that's why I was asking. If I was quoting it in an article here, I wouldn't have blinked an eye, but I'm still a bit confused about UK rules.

I'll probably post it in a bit, and you can let me know if I've crossed any lines. Thanks!

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Hi all...

We have revised our 10Cs, streamlining them and making them a bit more consistent. The new rules are effectively immediately -- you can access them by clicking the 10 Commandments link in the left frame.

Also going into effect immediately are the removal of most of our unwritten rules. Specifically, we're ditching the official prohibitions on the following:

"You're not a Christian";
"[insert nation of choice] is a big mean bully/whining has-been/bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys"; and,
the homosexual/pedophile analogy.

This is not to say that we are condoning those things. Far from it. However, we are taking the position that the membership should administer the beatings that those who resort to the aforementioned arguments richly deserve.

Please note that we will still enforce the following:

Two-click rule for pornographic and other links that are likely to trigger an employer's net nanny alert;
no outing of other shipmates;
no homework threads;
no suicidal ideations.

Also note that we retain still retain the right to revoke access to the boards at any time for any or no reason at all. If you have questions about the new policies, post 'em here. If you want to argue about them, please just take it straight to Hell.

Thanks.
Erin
Community Editor

[who knew one tiny little word would make such a difference?]

[ 04. February 2004, 23:00: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Glad to see that Erin plans to enforce the outing of shipmates [Biased]

Talking of which, I happen to have inside information that Erin is in league with Bill Gates. Upon changing my screen background to the Clouds wallpaper, I noticed a familiar shadow the length of the bottom 2 inches of the screen.....

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

Look, Erin,

they were all so impressed with the changes you've stunned them to silence.

'frin

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Unless perhaps they have all jumped overboard!

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :

thus spoke Erin-

quote:
Also going into effect immediately are the removal of most of our unwritten rules. Specifically, we're ditching the official prohibitions on the following:
"You're not a Christian";
"[insert nation of choice] is a big mean bully/whining has-been/bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys"; and,
the homosexual/pedophile analogy.

This is not to say that we are condoning those things. Far from it. However, we are taking the position that the membership should administer the beatings that those who resort to the aforementioned arguments richly deserve.

So, you thought Hell was getting a bit tame, Erin? [Devil]

I think I'm right in assuming it is Hell where these juicy insults may fly. The thought of homosexuality-compares-to-paedophilia fireworks in Purg or solemn declarations in MW that anyone who doesn't know a dalmatic from a dalmation Is Not a Christian™ boggles the mind. [Eek!]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The expectation is that outwith Hell someone making such a comparison be politely and firmly corrected. Or called to Hell to get flamed. But we (hosts) won't be going round telling people "don't do that".

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :

Ah. Thanks, Alan. [Smile]

I still think Hell might become a bit busier. [Two face]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Also going into effect immediately are the removal of most of our unwritten rules. Specifically, we're ditching the official prohibitions on the following:
"You're not a Christian";

I think allowing people to say "You're not a Christian" is a very un-Christian thing to do and you're a big meanie.

[Happier, 'frin?]

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :

Hmmm. I don't think Erin's called anyone to Hell in a while, Chapelhead.

Of course, she might have to dust off her Insult Seismograph to see if "meanie" even registers. [Disappointed]

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :

count me as a fence sitter on this one... my first gut reaction was to say "bad idea to remove those prohibitions", then i thought a bit more and i'm not so sure.

i do think it will tend to lower the tone of debate somewhat, but thats not automatically a bad thing.

so i'll wait and see.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

I'm with nicole on this. There are times (especially when we go round the "homosexuality does not equal paedophilia" carousel once again) when it really helps to have a Host step in and say, "Sorry, this is not allowed". My fear is that certain deceased equines are going to get even more of a flogging in future, and clutter things up. However, we'll have to wait and see how things work out in practice; my predictions of the future are rarely accurate.

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :

I disagree; I think it's good to have the "homosexuality = pedophilia" prohibition stop being a rule, written or especially otherwise.

Not because it ought to be encouraged, mind you! But because any number of grossly offensive analogies or comparisons can be made (indeed, have been made) around here. It's a rather inconsistent policy to only jump all over one of them. On the other hand, obviously and with good reason nobody wants to start building a "Things you can't say on the Ship" list.

Better that those who are offensive (whether intentionally or not) hear first-hand from those they've offended.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
There are times (especially when we go round the "homosexuality does not equal paedophilia" carousel once again) when it really helps to have a Host step in and say, "Sorry, this is not allowed". My fear is that certain deceased equines are going to get even more of a flogging in future, and clutter things up.

Hosts will still be pointing out the perfectly good DH threads that exist for those among us who insist on flogging extinct nags. Failure to heed such hostly pointing toward DH would constitute disrespect of a host and being a jerk, both of which are of course still very much no-no's.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Hi all...

We have revised our 10Cs, streamlining them and making them a bit more consistent. The new rules are effectively immediately -- you can access them by clicking the 10 Commandments link in the left frame.

I don't like this one bit. It's the Ship that's abandoning the tradition and not us. I have been on this Ship for all of five months and I want it to be there for my children and grandchildren. If they change the Commandments what is next - the berths, the lavatory, the deck?

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

The lavatories ("heads" for you pathetic landlubbers) are slated for renovation next. And, phew! do they need it.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Hi all...

We have revised our 10Cs, streamlining them and making them a bit more consistent. The new rules are effectively immediately -- you can access them by clicking the 10 Commandments link in the left frame.

I don't like this one bit. It's the Ship that's abandoning the tradition and not us. I have been on this Ship for all of five months and I want it to be there for my children and grandchildren. If they change the Commandments what is next - the berths, the lavatory, the deck?

Perhaps we should have a schism, with a group forming the "One True Ship (Continuing)", based on a desire to adhere to holy tradition?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Perhaps we should have a schism, with a group forming the "One True Ship (Continuing)", based on a desire to adhere to holy tradition?

Based on their interpretation of the original 10 commandments which were butchered by worldly liberals.

P

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Perhaps we should have a schism, with a group forming the "One True Ship (Continuing)", based on a desire to adhere to holy tradition?

No you can form your own Ship, but I think we should stay and fight the changes. We could remain in Simon's navy while rejecting the captaincy of Erin. If the worst cames to the worse, then we could always sign up with some overseas Admirals and still be within the Ship.

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I'm with nicole on this. There are times (especially when we go round the "homosexuality does not equal paedophilia" carousel once again) when it really helps to have a Host step in and say, "Sorry, this is not allowed". My fear is that certain deceased equines are going to get even more of a flogging in future, and clutter things up. However, we'll have to wait and see how things work out in practice; my predictions of the future are rarely accurate.

I wonder if we don't rely on the H&A's to do too much for us? Those who feel strongly about a point can make it themselves, there's certainly been a few instances recently of the homosexual/peadophile analogy getting short thrift on threads from shipmates rather than just H&A's, and it seems to have worked.

If you see shoddy arguments, tell people they are. If the thought of a little conflict unsettles you, good, it should, but it oughtn't be avoided.

Regards
M UK

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:

quote:
solemn declarations in MW that anyone who doesn't know a dalmatic from a dalmation Is Not a Christian™ boggles the mind.

I don't think that it is gin swilling Anglo-Catholics who make these kinds of declarations. Speaking for myself, the prospect of having some frothing sola scriptura type who has finally run out of arguments spit: "You're not a real Christian" will add great merriment to the life of the boards.

Actually, the fact that I am going to get way too much pleasure from this is probably a sign that it's a bad thing. A large gin says, that the first person whom this is levelled at is either a) not a Christian in actuality or b)Someone so patently charitable, devout and orthodox that the ensuing hysterical laughter is taken as a sign that the Toronto blessing has descended upon the Ship. [Big Grin]

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Perhaps we should have a schism, with a group forming the "One True Ship (Continuing)", based on a desire to adhere to holy tradition?

IIRC, that experiment has already failed.

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Hi all...

We have revised our 10Cs, streamlining them and making them a bit more consistent. The new rules are effectively immediately -- you can access them by clicking the 10 Commandments link in the left frame.

I don't like this one bit. It's the Ship that's abandoning the tradition and not us. I have been on this Ship for all of five months and I want it to be there for my children and grandchildren. If they change the Commandments what is next - the berths, the lavatory, the deck?

And

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
The lavatories ("heads" for you pathetic landlubbers) are slated for renovation next. And, phew! do they need it.

Sounds like you've got a volunteer there, Laura [Big Grin]

Gremlin

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Actually, the fact that I am going to get way too much pleasure from this is probably a sign that it's a bad thing.

Pleasure?

I thought this was supposed to be a Christian message board?

[ 06. February 2004, 13:49: Message edited by: Arrietty ]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Unless perhaps they have all jumped overboard!

From what I saw yesterday some people seemed to be getting some pent-up pond-war ya-yas out.

Charlotte

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We could remain in Simon's navy while rejecting the captaincy of Erin.

I'm not sure you can, actually. Erin is Simon's Vicar on the Boards. To reject the captaincy of Erin is to reject Simon himself.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We could remain in Simon's navy while rejecting the captaincy of Erin.
I'm not sure you can, actually. Erin is Simon's Vicar on the Boards. To reject the captaincy of Erin is to reject Simon himself.

Isn't that a very fundamentalist - literalist interpretation? What about those of us who take a more liberal view? Are you saying we're not Shippian?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

We're going with a more fundamentalist / literalist view of the Ship's 10 Commandments now, so yeah - fall in line or burn!

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :

Mark 12, 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

So...which commandment is greatest?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The first. (as it was for Our Lord)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yep, it could be argued that Commandments 2-10 relate to particular forms of jerkiness.

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :

RuthW said:

quote:
We're going with a more fundamentalist / literalist view of the Ship's 10 Commandments now, so yeah - fall in line or burn!

Shouldn't that be drown?

Jengie

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Erin is Simon's Vicar on the Boards. To reject the captaincy of Erin is to reject Simon himself.

I'm not rejecting her, I'm just toying with the concept she's not infallible. [Two face]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Of course she's fallible. Except when she puts on the Community Editor hat.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Hi all...

We have revised our 10Cs, streamlining them and making them a bit more consistent. The new rules are effectively immediately -- you can access them by clicking the 10 Commandments link in the left frame.

[Deletia - please read Erin's original]

Please note that we will still enforce the following:
Two-click rule for pornographic and other links that are likely to trigger an employer's net nanny alert

Could someone please explain this one to me?

And is putting "NOT WORK SAFE" in big/bold letters considered sufficient polite warning?

Thanks,

Charlotte

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Assuming you mean the "two-click rule" - any link posted on the boards should be work safe, but the pages to which you link may themselves have links to porno or other things that might make people's employers look at them funny. Labelling something "not work safe" is really not enough, because it's too easy to click on something inadvertently.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
So...which commandment is greatest?

"Hear O Israel, the Erin thy lord is one lord, and thou shalt obey the Erin thy lord with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What about Simon?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

We do not call Him directly by his name.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

That explains what you meant by "S-m-n is the bestest thing in the whole world." I had misunderstood.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

yeah, er, that's it. Forget all the rest of that stuff we were talking about.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What about Simon?

Creationist ideas linked to 'Simon' have largely been debunked by academic research. I'd have thought you would have known that, Alan.

[ 07. February 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

I too thought that any refernece to "simon" or "s m n" were purely mythical... alhought there may have once been a person called simon, the myths and legends that have grown surroundding this figure are purely added...

Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
So...which commandment is greatest?
"Hear O Israel, the Erin thy lord is one lord, and thou shalt obey the Erin thy lord with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength."

And the second is this: "Thou shalt love thy Shipmates as thyself"

Paul W

Posted by Ronist (# 5343) on :

It doesn't matter if (not a crocodile) is fallible or not. She has very big teeth and a ferocious disposition. And she is gonna be the next President.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul W:
And the second is this: "Thou shalt love thy Shipmates as thyself"

Actually I think it might be "Thou shalt be nice to thy Shipmates as thyself".

Erin's a big believer in us all being nice to each other.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
So...which commandment is greatest?
"Hear O Israel, the Erin thy lord is one lord, and thou shalt obey the Erin thy lord with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength."

So where is all this obeying going on and why didn't anyone tell me?

Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
So...which commandment is greatest?
"Hear O Israel, the Erin thy lord is one lord, and thou shalt obey the Erin thy lord with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength."
So where is all this obeying going on and why didn't anyone tell me?

Is it time for your weekly bout of Erin-Worship?

Ahhh, well...here goes:

oh great one, we would all obey your every word, as you are a god-like creature (i think i *just* avoided heresy). It is indeed meet and right always and everywhere to give you thanks and praise...

[Razz]

sophs - hero worship on demand

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I too thought that any refernece to "simon" or "s m n" were purely mythical... alhought there may have once been a person called simon, the myths and legends that have grown surroundding this figure are purely added...

That the Simon-myth has a long history is evidenced by its incarnation in our culture in various naive modern-day forms such as the well-known children's nursery rhyme "Simple Simon met a pie-man" and, more significantly, in the game "Simon says", which is a clear vestige of the view of Simon as supreme authority figure: apart from Simon man can do nothing. We can also recall the electronic game Simon of a few years ago, which lit a series of colored panels which the "worshipper" had to repeat exactly; a rudimentary form of catechism, clearly degraded from a more complete catechism which, unfortunately, has been lost to us over the centuries. The aforementioned poem expresses the same motif:

quote:
Simple Simon met a pieman
Going to the fair;
Says Simple Simon to the pieman,
"Let me taste your ware."

The Simon archetype asserts his authority. This authority is then questioned:

quote:
Says the pieman to Simple Simon,
"Show me first your penny."
Says Simple Simon to the pieman,
"Indeed I have not any."

Simon's subtle response makes the idea clear: he needs no penny, for his very standing guarantees him the object of his desire (represented in this bit of verse as the pieman's wares, thus adducing food as the most fundamental human need and desire, and pie as an especially sweet and delectable form of this basic necessity).

With such a cultural background, it was clearly inevitable that the name of Simon would be chosen here to represent the highest authority figure; to understand why such a strategy could not be other than effective, one need only consider the "Dread Pirate Roberts" phenomenon.

The disturbing question will not leave us be: If Simon is indeed a mythical figure, then who stands behind the ostensible pronouncements by the Simon purported to head this web site? But this is hardly the place for such speculation; the followers of Simon have eyes everywhere.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

Shipmates need 'Simon' to relate to and without 'Simon' the commmuntiy would fall to pieces.

This means that while 'Simon' is non-realist, he is none the less real.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Shall I let on that Simon is about to go away for a few days, or will that throw everyone into mass confusion, and cause the Ship to sink? [Eek!]

IRL Simon looks nothing like the picture in his profile. I believe we have an impostor on board.... The person you think is your captain, I hereby unmask as -

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! <thunk>

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
hall I let on that Simon is about to go away for a few days

To some of us Simon often seems far away. About 8000 miles away, in my case.

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :

Ruth, it has been vouchsafe to me that soon you knwo the joy of being closer to S-m-n.

Rejoice sister.

bb

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

If simon wasnt real then someone by the same name would have to have been invented....

Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sophs:
sophs - hero worship on demand

Cool.

Can you worship me next?

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :

I have a Revelation for you all. I have seen the Simon, Himself. I have met with Him, and spoken with Him, and my faith is all the greater for it.

And he didst speak these words, 'Do you believe because you see me? How happy are those who believe without seeing me!'

Have faith my friends [Votive]

Gremlin

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :

I, too, have seen the Simon.

Not only that, but he hath bought me a cup of tea.

Ohhhh great was the day when I drank tea with the Captain!

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :

He did eat the food that I had prepared, and didst favourably comment upon the chocolate dipped strawberries.

bb

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
hall I let on that Simon is about to go away for a few days
To some of us Simon often seems far away. About 8000 miles away, in my case.

He'll reduce the distance to about two thousand miles away within the month.

Not that it helps very much, I know.

Charlotte

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
He did eat the food that I had prepared, and didst favourably comment upon the chocolate dipped strawberries.

You didst recognise him in the breaking of chocolate?

Unless I see the marks of the keyboard on his fingers, and poke my fingers in his eyes, and buy him a pint I will not believe.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

(OK, that's St Gremlin, St Peronel, St babybear, and St "Doubting" Chapelhead. I wonder if the rest of the apostles will post?)

But no one has ever met Erin. Perhaps hers is the face of terrifying glory, which no man may look upon and live?

[ 08. February 2004, 18:30: Message edited by: jlg ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

So, who is Mary?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
So, who is Mary?

We need to find a virgin.

At least one of those advertises on the boards, I believe, but I'm not sure if he is quite right for the role. [Biased]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Not just any Mary will do sweetie.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

Who are you calling Mary? [Paranoid]

Or should that be "Who are you calling, Mary?"

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Gender issue aside, you and I both lost one of the prime qualifications some time ago.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

I have debated whether to stand up and be counted here. And lo, did a message appear on my computer from the great Simon. And he did command unto me that I should do the tasks to which he had appointed me. And I responded promptly and forthwith:
"Simon, I've told you already, we'll sort it when you get back."
And he did smile and say that he was well pleased with me.

And he sent me a Christmas present - does that count? [Big Grin]

Sarkycow

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :

But lo, I am fearful that if I were to go to the house of the Lord Simon and asked to be let in, he would say to me,
"Depart from me, I never knew you."

Stalking is an arrestable offense.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Guys... while this is all hilarious and everything, this is a permanent thread, and as such really needs to be on topic. Feel free to move this discussion to Heaven.

Posted by Paul_H (# 7817) on :

Okay, back to topic, then.

Amorya's sigfile states

quote:
Will you give me some money?
I'm making a trip to Ukraine this summer as part of Link Ukraine and we need cash!

There is a hot link in the real sigfile. Isn't this kind of solicitation prohibited under the commandment banning advertising and spam?

[ 20. July 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Paul_H ]

Posted by Belisarius (# 32) on :

In general, Commandment 9 pertains to the posts themselves and the signature may include any link that doesn't violate the spirit of Commandment 7.

ETA: Or Commandment 1 (done on a case-by-case basis in response to complaints)

[ 20. July 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Paul_H (# 7817) on :

Just trying to understand.... Why are sigfiles exempt from the advertising ban?

Posted by Belisarius (# 32) on :

In part because, if part of a legitimate post, they are incidental; the poster's emphasis is on meaningful interaction.

It may not be the best analogy, but it's also partly the difference between having a Bridal Registry and saying "you will buy this for our wedding."

[grammar]

[ 20. July 2004, 18:21: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Paul_H (# 7817) on :

Poor analogy.

So, if I make a relevant post to a thread, then ask people to buy my book, that's okay?

I'm kind of new here and don't know the evolution of the policy, but it seems a bit daft to me.

Posted by McLürkér (# 1384) on :

If you are asking people in your sig, yes.

[ 20. July 2004, 18:39: Message edited by: McLürkér ]

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

IIRC, the policy evolved over time as a way to deal with shipmates requesting permission to start threads for a favorite charity or a church event or whatever was important to them, which put the Hosts/Admins in the position of trying to decide where to draw the line between legitimate charity event and promotion of something commercial or purely personal. Having people put links in their sigs lets anyone who might be interested get further information without actually having a thread and discussion/sales pitch which would violate Commandment #9.

So it provides a bit of a safety valve, reducing the temptation to slip in the occasional irrelevant (or semi-relevant) link in the body of one's post, and allowing the hosts to immediately deal with such links. (Yes, hosts click on every link to make sure it works and is appropriate!)

Posted by Paul_H (# 7817) on :

Well, that kind of makes sense...

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Here's another way to look at it.

The Powers That Be charge for advertising in order to help keep this site afloat. However, they have benevolently decided to allow shipmates to display some types of advertising in their sigs. Wasn't that nice of them? Thank you, Powers That Be!

Posted by Chad Lyon (# 7621) on :

Erin,

I have been accused tonight of "trolling", an accusation which, from the information I have been given, is fully justified.

However, for some reason, when I tried to access the Ship's information about trolling under the 10 commandments link, my stupic PC came back with a server-down message.

Can you please post me a copy of this on this message board or something? Thanks.

You probably think I'm an ass still pursuing this issue, but I really want to make sure that I don't do this again!! I'm all for lively and on-the-edge debate, but the last thing I want to do is upset people.

Thanks.

Chad

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Chad, if the pages linked in the 10 Commandments stay down, we'll replace the links. In the meantime, click here for a pretty good explanation of trolling as the term is used around here.

Posted by Chad Lyon (# 7621) on :

Thanks

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :

Having seen a few invocations of the 10C's I realise I am still abit vague about them - they only make sense after being used by someone. Can I suggest a few offending
threads be put in limbo and linked too from the Commandments page as examples of different offenses?

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

You're overthinking it, Real Ale Methodist. If you just avoid being an asshole, everything will be 99.8% peachy. The other 0.2% of the time, the hosts will let you know that there's a problem. If you listen to them, things will be 100% peachy.

It's only when somebody starts intentionally violating rules that the fur starts to fly. Accidents and misunderstandings are lovingly and gently corrected. More or less.

Posted by linzC (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Accidents and misunderstandings are lovingly and gently corrected.

Someone's been watching the Hellhosts in action! [Biased]

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

I am guessing I violated the commandment of don't be easily offended. I am a highly sensitive person. Is that unacceptable to this community? I strive to put principles before personalities. [Confused]

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I am guessing I violated the commandment of don't be easily offended. I am a highly sensitive person. Is that unacceptable to this community? I strive to put principles before personalities.

My suggestion would be to chill, hang about for a bit, look around the boards and get a feel for the place. Each of the boards has its own tone.

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I am guessing I violated the commandment of don't be easily offended. I am a highly sensitive person. Is that unacceptable to this community? I strive to put principles before personalities.

Being "highly sensitive" certainly isn't going to help you. One learns early on to develop a thick skin, stick to the friendlier boards, or find another discussion board.

In addition, you are not to bring problems from other forums/websites to these boards. I don't want to read another post from you about who is stalking you on the Internet. This is not negotiable.

Erin
Community Editor

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I am guessing I violated the commandment of don't be easily offended. I am a highly sensitive person. Is that unacceptable to this community? I strive to put principles before personalities.
My suggestion would be to chill, hang about for a bit, look around the boards and get a feel for the place. Each of the boards has its own tone.

I waited a month to post after I signed up.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Another friendly suggestion is to post to existing threads for a while before starting a new thread, especially on what was bound to be a controversial topic. Sort of like going to a cocktail party where you don't know anyone -- join an ongoing discussion to start.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Miss Pixxie Styx,

Here's another top tip. One commandment that it's easy for the unaware to break is the Sixth:

quote:
6. Respect the Ship's crew

If you disagree with a member of the Ship's crew (in their official capacity), raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff.

Generally a host or other admin posts as an ordinary Shipmate, and so arguing or disagreeing with them is fine (depending on the board). But as soon as they sign a post with their official Ship of Fools title, that's it - no protests. Your only options are to shut up, or raise an objection here in the Styx.

(Personally, I think it's too easy for newcomers to miss the distinction between someone posting as a staff member and as a Shipmate. Some discussion groups reserve red text for official stuff, which makes life a bit clearer.)

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

how about a blinking red light and sirens?

the admin won't let me post pictures of pigs being slaughtered in the body of my host posts, unfortunately, so we have to go for the standard subtlety and hope the newbies get this far with basic literacy.

(not arguing, H's Leap, but I just don't see what more we can do.)

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Another friendly suggestion is to post to existing threads for a while before starting a new thread, especially on what was bound to be a controversial topic. Sort of like going to a cocktail party where you don't know anyone -- join an ongoing discussion to start.

Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Miss Pixxie Styx,

Here's another top tip. One commandment that it's easy for the unaware to break is the Sixth:

quote:
6. Respect the Ship's crew

If you disagree with a member of the Ship's crew (in their official capacity), raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff.
Generally a host or other admin posts as an ordinary Shipmate, and so arguing or disagreeing with them is fine (depending on the board). But as soon as they sign a post with their official Ship of Fools title, that's it - no protests. Your only options are to shut up, or raise an objection here in the Styx.

(Personally, I think it's too easy for newcomers to miss the distinction between someone posting as a staff member and as a Shipmate. Some discussion groups reserve red text for official stuff, which makes life a bit clearer.)

I don't believe I have gotten into any arguments with any staff members when they have spoken as such. I simply don't like the patronizing attitude of many of the ship members, but I'll deal, I'll be all right, they are no different than any other ship of fools on or off the internet. I expected human kindness and mercy and justice to abound when I entered the church. Not so. Oh well. So I am a cynic now. Such is life.

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Another friendly suggestion is to post to existing threads for a while before starting a new thread, especially on what was bound to be a controversial topic. Sort of like going to a cocktail party where you don't know anyone -- join an ongoing discussion to start.
Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.

Have you ever walked into a room of strangers before? Work? Church? Anywhere that is friendly? Just translate to that situation.

It does help around here to be adaptable and to think outside your previous experiences. There are people posting around here from pretty much all continents. We don't think alike. We use words in different ways. The benefits of taking this effort pays off in the long run.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Another friendly suggestion is to post to existing threads for a while before starting a new thread, especially on what was bound to be a controversial topic. Sort of like going to a cocktail party where you don't know anyone -- join an ongoing discussion to start.
Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.
Have you ever walked into a room of strangers before? Work? Church? Anywhere that is friendly? Just translate to that situation.

It does help around here to be adaptable and to think outside your previous experiences. There are people posting around here from pretty much all continents. We don't think alike. We use words in different ways. The benefits of taking this effort pays off in the long run.

Your question displays an attitude I like dislike immensely. As I said, the overall tone of this community is one of sarcasm. Not all fools on this ship are disrespectful, but the majority of them are. I have no problem walking into a room of strangers anywhere and making myself and everyone else right at home. I hope you can adjust your attitude towards me, its very unpleasant.

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:

quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Another friendly suggestion is to post to existing threads for a while before starting a new thread, especially on what was bound to be a controversial topic. Sort of like going to a cocktail party where you don't know anyone -- join an ongoing discussion to start.
Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.
Have you ever walked into a room of strangers before? Work? Church? Anywhere that is friendly? Just translate to that situation.

It does help around here to be adaptable and to think outside your previous experiences. There are people posting around here from pretty much all continents. We don't think alike. We use words in different ways. The benefits of taking this effort pays off in the long run.
Your question displays an attitude I like dislike immensely. As I said, the overall tone of this community is one of sarcasm. Not all fools on this ship are disrespectful, but the majority of them are. I have no problem walking into a room of strangers anywhere and making myself and everyone else right at home. I hope you can adjust your attitude towards me, its very unpleasant.

You asked a question. It was answered. You replied in a way that suggested you didn't have the background to understand what was being suggested to you. I suggested other ways to understand that answer. You suggested I was using sarcasm.

You might try to give some of us the benefit of the doubt when attributing motives or intent. Please.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.

So, by metaphor, you're saying that you've looked over all the hundreds of conversations on the Ship that we're eagerly involved in and deemed none of them interesting to you. The natural response, in your eyes, is to introduce conversations we don't appear to be interested in. Fascinating approach, really.

quote:
I expected human kindness and mercy and justice to abound when I entered the church. Not so.

Hint: This is not a church.
Hell, many of us would be appalled at the idea of being considered "christian".

Yes, my tone is not respectful to your contributions thus far. You don't need to point it out - everybody else can read too.

And please feel free to exempt me from Bede's request for not automatically assuming the worst intentions. Let's not kid ourselves.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Except I don't go to cocktail parties nor am I interested in those types of discussions.
So, by metaphor, you're saying that you've looked over all the hundreds of conversations on the Ship that we're eagerly involved in and deemed none of them interesting to you. The natural response, in your eyes, is to introduce conversations we don't appear to be interested in. Fascinating approach, really.

quote:
I expected human kindness and mercy and justice to abound when I entered the church. Not so.
Hint: This is not a church.
Hell, many of us would be appalled at the idea of being considered "christian".

Yes, my tone is not respectful to your contributions thus far. You don't need to point it out - everybody else can read too.

And please feel free to exempt me from Bede's request for not automatically assuming the worst intentions. Let's not kid ourselves.

Your judgment of me is wrong and I refuse to engage with you. I can point out whatever I want. I wasn't calling this group a church. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a Christian. I find you to be one of the most despicable people here yet. I have participated on the despair and self-harm thread. I find it interesting. Again, your analogy is off the mark. I don't find cocktail party conversation interesting, so that was a bad parallel to draw. If you are looking for an argument, look somewhere else. If authority is not allowed to be questioned here, what is the point?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I find you [RooK] to be one of the most despicable people here yet.

Flattery will get you everywhere. I'm not sure when someone last said something so nice about RooK.

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Your judgment of me is wrong and I refuse to engage with you.

Too late. You already did engage RooK with this post.

Please make up your mind. Are you here to engage other people or the enrage them? Or, just to try to confuse us by saying you won't do something and then do it?

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And please feel free to exempt me from Bede's request for not automatically assuming the worst intentions. Let's not kid ourselves.

I wasn't. After all, this is what I said:

quote:
You might try to give some of us the benefit of the doubt when attributing motives or intent. Please. (Emphasis added)

Every St. George needs his dragon.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I don't find cocktail party conversation interesting, so that was a bad parallel to draw.

As The Bede's American Successor tried to explain, I used the cocktail party analogy just meaning any sort of social situation where you are new and don't know the other people.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
... As I said, the overall tone of this community is one of sarcasm. Not all fools on this ship are disrespectful, but the majority of them are. ... I hope you can adjust your attitude towards me, its very unpleasant.

Given that there are over 12,000 Shipmates, I sure hope you aren't holding your breath until we all do. OliviaG

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I find you [RooK] to be one of the most despicable people here yet.
Flattery will get you everywhere. I'm not sure when someone last said something so nice about RooK.

RooK gets all the love around here.
[Roll Eyes]

______

Pixxie Styx - I'm going to give it a shot here.

You keep saying you don't like people's tones or what they say or their attitudes. this is not how to win friends and influence people. You don't have to like it. We're not here to please you.

You may notice the Ship has over 13,000 members. that's a lot. if you leave, we have others to take your place, don't worry. it's a big world.

Meanwhile, your overall tone is very defensive and you seem to think you get to make your own rules of the game around here.

so let me be clear:

if you want to play, you play our way.
we are not all nice people, and most of us don't give a shit what your personal crises are. We have our own.
If you want to discuss the moral implications of things, you're in the right place. but don't expect a pass. Shipmates expect you to defend your side of an issue. That part that says "robust debate" is not a joke. if you can't hack it, stay out of the deep issues.
We don't care if you are sensitive. We're all sensitive. Along the way we decided that it was worth growing a thicker skin so we could grow intellectually and spiritually by engaging with eachother.
you haven't even begun to see offensive and attack mode yet. see number 2. screaming "you're not playing nice" will get you mocked. We assume you are an adult and can hack it and don't need a kindergarten teacher to hold your hand. You want to succeed in the modeling world, you need to toughen up, child.
on the off chance that you are hoping to go for shock value here with the issues you bring up - we have valued Shipmates who are more shocking than that before they get out of bed in the morning.

my suggestion is you take the chip off your shoulder, quit worrying about what other people are doing/saying/believing/archiving, and actually try and learn something.

the bottom line is, you will not change us this way. if you want, we may very well change you - and you also have a positive impact on the Ship as well. But not like this.

Good Luck.

[ 28. September 2007, 20:29: Message edited by: comet ]

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a Christian.

ITTWACW.

Has there ever been a Hell-call based upon a thread in Styx?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Your question displays an attitude I like dislike immensely. As I said, the overall tone of this community is one of sarcasm....

If you haven't found any discussions or Shipmates to your liking, perhaps the Ship isn't the right forum for you. There's terrific variety here, from Fluffy Bunny to...uh...Hellhost.

If sarcasm is an issue, then you should probably stay away from Hell -- and, perhaps, the Styx (despite the fact that it's your family board).

Ross

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Your judgment of me is wrong and I refuse to engage with you.
Too late. You already did engage RooK with this post.

Please make up your mind. Are you here to engage other people or the enrage them? Or, just to try to confuse us by saying you won't do something and then do it?

If someone chooses to get enraged with me, that is not my problem, that is their problem.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I find you [RooK] to be one of the most despicable people here yet.
Flattery will get you everywhere. I'm not sure when someone last said something so nice about RooK.
RooK gets all the love around here.

______

Pixxie Styx - I'm going to give it a shot here.

You keep saying you don't like people's tones or what they say or their attitudes. this is not how to win friends and influence people. You don't have to like it. We're not here to please you.

You may notice the Ship has over 13,000 members. that's a lot. if you leave, we have others to take your place, don't worry. it's a big world.

Meanwhile, your overall tone is very defensive and you seem to think you get to make your own rules of the game around here.

so let me be clear:
if you want to play, you play our way.
we are not all nice people, and most of us don't give a shit what your personal crises are. We have our own.
If you want to discuss the moral implications of things, you're in the right place. but don't expect a pass. Shipmates expect you to defend your side of an issue. That part that says "robust debate" is not a joke. if you can't hack it, stay out of the deep issues.
We don't care if you are sensitive. We're all sensitive. Along the way we decided that it was worth growing a thicker skin so we could grow intellectually and spiritually by engaging with eachother.
you haven't even begun to see offensive and attack mode yet. see number 2. screaming "you're not playing nice" will get you mocked. We assume you are an adult and can hack it and don't need a kindergarten teacher to hold your hand. You want to succeed in the modeling world, you need to toughen up, child.
on the off chance that you are hoping to go for shock value here with the issues you bring up - we have valued Shipmates who are more shocking than that before they get out of bed in the morning.
my suggestion is you take the chip off your shoulder, quit worrying about what other people are doing/saying/believing/archiving, and actually try and learn something.

the bottom line is, you will not change us this way. if you want, we may very well change you - and you also have a positive impact on the Ship as well. But not like this.

Good Luck.

You have surpassed the host of hell in your vileness. Am I allowed to say STFU up here or will I get banned?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
If someone chooses to get enraged with me, that is not my problem, that is their problem.

In the same way, if you choose to be annoyed or irritated with others, or to find what they say disrespectful or unpleasant, that is not their problem, that is your problem.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Miss Styx, I'm starting to think that you want to be banned, and have a bet on to see if you can manage the feat before hitting Shipmate status.

It strikes me as a rather sad use of your time, but you know what works best for you.

Ross

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
Your question displays an attitude I like dislike immensely. As I said, the overall tone of this community is one of sarcasm....
If you haven't found any discussions or Shipmates to your liking, perhaps the Ship isn't the right forum for you. There's terrific variety here, from Fluffy Bunny to...uh...Hellhost.

If sarcasm is an issue, then you should probably stay away from Hell -- and, perhaps, the Styx (despite the fact that it's your family board).

Ross

Yes, I am quiet sure the Ship might not be the correct forum for me. As I stated, considering the person who referred me here tried to manipulate my priest, I am pretty sure it is not. I will give the private forum a go that she referred me to, and if that does not work out, I will try to leave this Ship alone.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Miss Styx, I'm starting to think that you want to be banned, and have a bet on to see if you can manage the feat before hitting Shipmate status.

It strikes me as a rather sad use of your time, but you know what works best for you.

Ross

You are a gambler. I am asking if I can tell someone to STFU up or not. I did not see anything about that in the 10 Commandments. I clearly stated I would not post here if it was not the right fit. I suspect the community is too large for me. I do not do good in large communities, nor does any mentally gifted person. I need a private, supportive environment. Please answer my question as to whether or not I can tell someone to STFU without getting banned. Thank you.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I will give the private forum a go that she referred me to

You might want to PM the host of the private board you're considering joining, and see if they'll be willing to give you a go when you reach Shipmate status.

And you're welcome to tell someone to STFU in Hell. Not in Styx.

[ 28. September 2007, 22:41: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Oh go on then, let's get real and go to the right place.

Comet, Rook .... it's coming your way [Devil]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Oh, and look! Triple Tiara has opened a thread in Hell just for you! It gives you a place to say STFU to all the folks who don't know that they need to be kind and supportive to a mentally gifted person like you.

Posted by Miss Pixxie Styx (# 12956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I will give the private forum a go that she referred me to
You might want to PM the host of the private board you're considering joining, and see if they'll be willing to give you a go when you reach Shipmate status.

And you're welcome to tell someone to STFU in Hell. Not in Styx.

Once again you assume that I have not done so already and make a fool of yourself. Thank you for answering my question. I request this thread be sent to hell. Am I allowed to do that without violating the 10 Commandments?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

It's already there waiting for you. See post above.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
... I suspect the community is too large for me. I do not do good in large communities, nor does any mentally gifted person...

I hear you, hon! I've always had that problem, too.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a Christian.
ITTWACW.

Has there ever been a Hell-call based upon a thread in Styx?

yep. Pyx_e and Ancient Mariner (I think Pyx_e was the one called) but that very day there was like, 4 or 5. oh ye of the short memory.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
You have surpassed the host of hell in your vileness. Am I allowed to say STFU up here or will I get banned?

Hey RooK! Neener! [Razz]

Pix - I'm a Hell Host as well.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

Comet [Overused]

Yeah, c'mon Pixxie Styx, let us have a hard-ball game of WDYYB

(btw, making shipmate status does not guarantee automatic right of entry to private boards)

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Oh go on then, let's get real and go to the right place.

Comet, Rook .... it's coming your way

I was about to do my first Hell call. Damn you! [Biased]

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a Christian.
ITTWACW.

Has there ever been a Hell-call based upon a thread in Styx?
yep. Pyx_e and Ancient Mariner (I think Pyx_e was the one called) but that very day there was like, 4 or 5. oh ye of the short memory.

You're the one that has to read them, not me.

[ 28. September 2007, 23:00: Message edited by: The Bede's American Successor ]

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

What in the name of Satan's left nut does any of this have to do with the 10Cs? If you don't have a question about the 10Cs, go find another thread to puke on.

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pixxie Styx:
I find you [RooK] to be one of the most despicable people here yet.
Flattery will get you everywhere. I'm not sure when someone last said something so nice about RooK.

So right. He lives for this sort of thing. [Devil]

Posted by Sha_Sha (# 10880) on :

I read the exchange about C9. Are there any types of sites (aside from obscene ones) that you don't want advertised, even in sigs? Some forums don't take kindly to other forums being advertised, for instance. The forum I linked to usually tries to stay away from things that aren't work-safe, but I can't guarantee that. Would the link in my sig (or any other issues with the sig) be a problem?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sha_Sha:
Would the link in my sig (or any other issues with the sig) be a problem?

My opinion is hardly any sort of guarantee, but the link in your sig is pretty tame. I can't imagine that it would cause any problems.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We certainly don't have any problems with links to other discussion boards. It's hardly as though we're insecure and think our Shipmates will find that A_N_Other_Christian_Board.com is much better than the Ship and desert us.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

It's certainly a comfort to know the Ship's H&As aren't sarky, insecure paranoids.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
It's certainly a comfort to know the Ship's H&As aren't sarky, insecure paranoids.

No, we're sarky, secure paranoids.

Moo

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sha_Sha:
Would the link in my sig (or any other issues with the sig) be a problem?

I can't see a problem with the content, but I am probably not the only person on the web who wouldn't usually click a link which gives only an oblique clue of what might be on the other side.

'frin

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I'm at work and just clicked on that link - ninguno problemo for me. Also, I'm delighted to hear that the H&As are so secure.

tangent//
I was diverted by the preceding posts in this thread, and the tragic saga of the mentally gifted Miss Pixxie Styx. I was distraught to find that Triple Tiara's Hell-call thread seems to have shuffled off this mortal coil; does anybody know if it still exists in some archival netherworld? Or perhaps it failed to successfully gestate, and its atoms were returned to the universal pool of creation by

quote:
one of the most despicable people here

or his consort who

quote:
surpassed the host of hell in (her) vileness

I note that Miss Styx has not graced us with her presence since that day.
//end tangent

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

Merry Christmas.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Merry Christmas.

Many thanks. Most interesting and enlightening.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

I'm interested in posting a link about a guy who's doing sort of an independent Mystery Worshipper project. He's anonymously visiting a different place of worship every week for a year and blogging about his spiritual experiences and the styles of worship he encounters.

However, I was afraid that by linking to a blog (or a newspaper article about said blog) that I'd be breaking the commandment about advertising other websites. What say ye, Hosts?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I'm interested in posting a link about a guy who's doing sort of an independent Mystery Worshipper project. He's anonymously visiting a different place of worship every week for a year and blogging about his spiritual experiences and the styles of worship he encounters.

However, I was afraid that by linking to a blog (or a newspaper article about said blog) that I'd be breaking the commandment about advertising other websites. What say ye, Hosts?

If the link is a germane part of a post, either continuing or starting a discussion, it's totally fine. As an opening post just saying, "Look HERE!" - that's what might come across as advertising and get closed by a Host.

Alternatively, there are virtually no restrictions for links in signatures.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Bump

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Going way back to the start of the thread, I thought suicides dyed by their own hands? [Big Grin]

eta - oops, sorry. I got caught up in Miss Ps's posts, and forgot it was al about the 10 Cs. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 10. November 2010, 15:12: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Bump

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill B:
It is worth bearing in mind that the British actor William Roache successfully sued for thousands of pounds (I think it was about 50K but I may have misremembered) for being described as 'boring' by the British press. What makes it particularly ironic is that it was actually the character that he plays (Ken Barlow in the soap Coronation Street who was described as boring rather than Roache himself. That's how tough the UK libel laws are.

Now if one of you kind souls will describe me as 'boring', I will have great pleasure in taking you to the cleaners...

(As this thread has been bumped and pinned, I thought I may as well respond, I hit Preview, and the board fell over. I thought an 11th commandment (don't disinter 11 year old posts) had been created.)

Anyway,
I note that comedian Frankie Boyle won a similar adjudication last week, based on the racism of the character he portrays being attributed to him personally, so the UK libel laws are still.... vibrant.

What I really want to know is who was chastised and disemposted by Erin for flirting - anyone who's still here?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
What I really want to know is who was chastised and disemposted by Erin for flirting - anyone who's still here?

I doubt anyone can remember and considering it happened over 11 years ago, it really doesn't matter

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

Just wanted to say that this [below, posed on the 'Flippin Synod' thread in Hell], seemed to me (not a lawyer) to be skating close to actual slander/libel - or does it have to be directed at a named individual rather than a category of persons, to qualify?

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[snip]Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money [snip]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
or does it have to be directed at a named individual rather than a category of persons, to qualify?

I'm not a lawyer either, but that's certainly my understanding or the relevant law(s).

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

We all say rude things about groups of people, particularly, those who climb the social, monetary or political ladders. If everyone in one of those groups sued for personal libel, the entire court system and country would grind to a halt.

And what would we ever gossip about? The weather is already being rude to us!

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

On the UKIP Membership thread I mentioned that comments by a social worker in the news were in my opinion, libellous. Barnabas posted as a host that I should be careful about this as per commandment 7. I've read commandment 7 but It says nothing about suggesting that other people are being libellous. I'm not sure why I should be careful so thought I'd check here. How is it against Commandment 7 to make this suggestion? Advice gratefully recieved.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I think B62 was just helpfully reminding everybody, including himself, to tread carefully about libel-related issues. Because The Ship cannot afford to defend itself even against spurious litigation, which causes all the Admins to worry and harass the Hosts incessantly about being watchful.

So, specifically, you've done nothing wrong. But B62 pointed out that the discussion has wandered near the edge of a minefield. Prudence and mindfulness is requested of every participant, that is all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks RooK, exactly what I was thinking - after realising my own inadvertent wandering.

This is a live issue, people's reputations and continuing employment may be at stake.

Is it possible to libel a particular social work director on these websites. It sure is.

There's a grey area between fair and libellous comment on work performance. Not sure I know where it is; my instinct told me we (including me) were heading that way.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I am concerned by transphobia in the gender history thread in Purgatory. Is transphobia included in the 1st commandment?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Jade Constable

Can you give an example of a post which you think illustrates transphobia? If you're not sure, or don't want to put a possible example here in the Styx, please feel free to PM a Purg Host.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'd like to know if it would be OK to post a link to a charitable activity set up for this week (only, as far as I can make out), or if it would come under the no crusade rule. It would offer an alternative to activities suggested in various Margaret Thatcher related threads, being quiet, and a way of doing something positive while commenting on the expenditure at a time when the precariat is being asked to bear a heavy burden.
It's called "Matching Thatcher's Funeral" and doesn't show up on Google yet, only set up today - but I'm carefully not posting a link here.
The idea is that people make a donation to a charity of their choice and then list it on the site. So far they have £85. Or a charity has. They aren't touching the money themselves.
Could I post a link?

[ 15. April 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think you would need to put it in your signature.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Putting a link to such a site in your sig would be no problem at all.

If there is an ongoing discussion on one of the existing threads where you could post an on-topic response that includes an alternative means of marking the funeral of Mrs Thatcher, then you might be able to squeeze in a link as part of that discussion. We don't like people starting a tangent or opening a new thread with the obvious express purpose of pushing a pet subject, but a productive contribution to an existing discussion that includes a link to the site you mentioned should be OK.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thanks, will do.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Perhaps I should state my case here, as I've been accused of "flame-baiting" by Barnabas62 for this remark in a Purgatory thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

Now, I'll just sit back and make myself comfortable while the feathers fly...

IMO "while the feathers fly" is no different to saying "handbags away" about a scuffle at a football match. Such a remark is usually aimed at MEN, and usually intended to be humourous rather than offensive.

I can honestly say that I never intended to offend anyone, so if I have I'm sorry.

Have I avoided the plank this time?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

If the remark is deemed to be offensive, please explain to me how this is so - that way I'll be able to avoid such instances in the future.

Contrary to what some might think, I don't wish to be kicked off the ship. There are many on here who are worlds apart from where I stand, but still a few others whose views I very much value and which help me on my journey through life.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The remark was called as "flame baiting", that doesn't mean it's necessarily offensive.

These are discussion forums, Purgatory is our space for serious debate (yes, really). Posting something with the sole intention of seeing how people react is pretty close to the dictionary definition of trolling. That is covered in Commandment 1 under the general rule "don't be a jerk".

Baranabas also picked you up on this post. Posting views that you think others might hold, especially when those views are inflamatory, is another form of jerkishness. We want to hear and discuss what you believe, what you think ... not what some straw person you posit might believe. If there are people who actually believe that, then they're free to register and share their own views, and defend them if they can.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There are many on here who are worlds apart from where I stand, but still a few others whose views I very much value and which help me on my journey through life.

Funny thing is, the longer I stayed, the more those two groups converged.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Funny thing is, the longer I stayed, the more those two groups converged.

Hmmmm - that's interesting, I guess it depends to some degree on where you stand in the first place.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
IMO "while the feathers fly" is no different to saying "handbags away" about a scuffle at a football match. Such a remark is usually aimed at MEN, and usually intended to be humourous rather than offensive.

I can honestly say that I never intended to offend anyone, so if I have I'm sorry.

Have I avoided the plank this time?

Stirring up trouble and getting out the popcorn to watch the fight is not a debate, it's jerkish and trollish behaviour imo.

Plus "I was only joking" is the classic defense of the bully. (This was not a bullying OP imo - but if you say that phrase often then you need to self-reflect a bit, I reckon)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
IMO "while the feathers fly" is no different to saying "handbags away" about a scuffle at a football match. Such a remark is usually aimed at MEN, and usually intended to be humourous rather than offensive.

FYI: that sounds like a British version of the apparently common occurence of male coaches referring to their male team as "girls", with a derogatory meaning. As an insult. I don't know how guys feel about it, but it's classic misogynism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I didn't think the issue was 'watch the feathers fly', but rather the 'sit back', which suggests you're not actually interested in debate, just in watching other people get angry. Which is pretty much the definition of flame-baiting.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I didn't think the issue was 'watch the feathers fly', but rather the 'sit back', which suggests you're not actually interested in debate, just in watching other people get angry. Which is pretty much the definition of flame-baiting.

OK - I see your point, but I just wanted some input before I responded with my three penn-'urth. I think I've been on here long enough for people to know that I wouldn't start a thread without, at some point, contributing myself.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
IMO "while the feathers fly" is no different to saying "handbags away" about a scuffle at a football match. Such a remark is usually aimed at MEN, and usually intended to be humourous rather than offensive.
FYI: that sounds like a British version of the apparently common occurence of male coaches referring to their male team as "girls", with a derogatory meaning. As an insult. I don't know how guys feel about it, but it's classic misogynism.

It's only a misogynism if you take it too seriously - but you can't go through life believing everything you hear must most likely be a personal insult against you - that's paranoia.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Using the idea of being female as an insult, is by definition insulting to females. After all you are implying there is something wrong with being female - or it wouldn't be a provocative thing to say.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

If you really wanted to stretch a point, you could suggest that if you heard one man say of another, "he's not much of a man," that this is offensive to women.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If you really wanted to stretch a point, you could suggest that if you heard one man say of another, "he's not much of a man," that this is offensive to women.

If you think of human qualities as assigned to one of two categories, either Female=inferior or Masculine=superior, then 'he is not much of a man' = 'he is more of a woman'. So yes, it is offensive if it implies those values for 'man' and 'woman'.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
If you think of human qualities as assigned to one of two categories, either Female=inferior or Masculine=superior, then 'he is not much of a man' = 'he is more of a woman'. So yes, it is offensive if it implies those values for 'man' and 'woman'.

What about the poor man whom the offence was aimed at in the first place? But I suppose he isn't allowed to be offended, because if he does get offended, that in itself will be seen as offensive to women.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Just one specific comment about the phrase. "While feathers fly" does not have the connotation of anything female in western Canada. The image is of chickens fighting, or perhaps coyotes attacking. When either happens, the feathers do fly. The connotation is of fighting about which there can be no resolution. I have never, ever heard of it in the context of women and not meaning people in general.

Parallel to the term "fucktard", which is very clearly meaning 'fucking retard" here and highly offensive, and apparently in other places means "fucking bastard" and not as offensive. For this reason, if people read the phrase "feathers will fly" and variants thereof as an attack on women, I would say it is their problem only and they should accept the variant understanding, because they did not understand that the poster may have not mean their interpreted connotation at all. The alternative would be more sensitivity that terms mean different things in different places and respect for that, but seeing as it doesn't work with fucktard, why should it with this? The right to be offended is personal and not commanding of change by others.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Just one specific comment about the phrase. "While feathers fly" does not have the connotation of anything female in western Canada.

Nor anywhere else.

The objection is not to that phrase. It was to the implied attitude: Here is a link to statements which I know will provoke strong feelings. I will now sit back and enjoy the resulting commotion.

Flying feathers, wigs on the green - or any other colloquial expression for a ruckus - is entirely irrelevant.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

@Mark Betts.

What part of 'If X is regarded in a negative light, then likening something to X is also negative' do you not understand?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Firenze is right. The offence is deliberate provocation purely for the sake of provocation. That's what the post said. That's what flame-baiting is.

It's different from thought-provoking. The stated intention was to provoke a verbal punch up, not a serious discussion. If the stated intention was not the real intentions, that was the fault and the responsibility of the poster.

Verbal punch ups can be provoked in various ways in Hell. A rant or a Hell call, for example. Sometimes serious discussion in Purg gets heated. Hosts draw the line between the two categories. That's one of our jobs.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I'm not looking to question any host's decision nor was I interested in joining in that topic, but I read Mark Betts's line about feathers flying as a prediction rather than a statement of intention. Of course it could have been his intention but I don't myself think that intention is explicit in those words.

I wouldn't single out his opening post in terms of how far it aims at serious debate. We quite often get opening posts about US politics which take the form "Look what a stupid thing the Republicans have done now. I would like people to join me in ridiculing them." It's not obvious that Mark's post is further from the guidelines for Purgatory than that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Now, I'll just sit back and make myself comfortable while the feathers fly...

Well, OK, moonlitdoor.

But I think the smiley [Devil]

is pretty explicit, even if it's meant as a joke. People here talk about getting out the popcorn and settling down to enjoy the punch up when the feathers are flying in Hell. And Mark has more than a nodding acquaintance with that place.

It looked, and still looks, explicitly provocative to me, rather than purely predictive. Hence the call. YMMV. As may anyone else's. That's what the Styx is for.

And with that, I'll bow out here and leave it to others.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

I wouldn't single out his opening post in terms of how far it aims at serious debate. We quite often get opening posts about US politics which take the form "Look what a stupid thing the Republicans have done now. I would like people to join me in ridiculing them."

In that case it should have been posted in Hell - the place for ridicule.

Purg is for debate, so while one may think (and say) a person's views are ridiculous - one wouldn't ridicule them as people. Big difference.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...In that case it should have been posted in Hell - the place for ridicule.

Purg is for debate, so while one may think (and say) a person's views are ridiculous - one wouldn't ridicule them as people. Big difference.

I can assure you it has been bought up in Hell - but, as I've said, I've bowed out of that topic, and the so-and-so's (can't use the word I want to) who post in that thread say much more about the sort of people they are, than they do about the person (in this case me) whom they're trying to attack.

Normally I'd link to a thread I refer to, but in this case it's not worth bothering about. [Mad]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Mark Betts, I'll say to you much the same thing I said to Zach82: Hell is the mechanism provided for getting cranky with people. If you don't wish to use the mechanism that is provided, you do not get to invent your own mechanisms in breach of the rules of Purgatory.

It's as simple as that. Either you use the means that have been provided, or you keep quiet.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...In that case it should have been posted in Hell - the place for ridicule.

Purg is for debate, so while one may think (and say) a person's views are ridiculous - one wouldn't ridicule them as people. Big difference.
I can assure you it has been bought up in Hell - but, as I've said, I've bowed out of that topic, and the so-and-so's (can't use the word I want to) who post in that thread say much more about the sort of people they are, than they do about the person (in this case me) whom they're trying to attack.

You misunderstand.

The topic wasn't the problem - it was the way you introduced it. It's perfectly possible to introduce a topic without including your personal opinions at all. Then, as the thread progresses you can respond with your opinions - without attacking the person.

Simples?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...You misunderstand.

The topic wasn't the problem - it was the way you introduced it. It's perfectly possible to introduce a topic without including your personal opinions at all. Then, as the thread progresses you can respond with your opinions - without attacking the person.

Simples?

Yes, simples - I get all that, I was just letting off some steam.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
...You misunderstand.

The topic wasn't the problem - it was the way you introduced it. It's perfectly possible to introduce a topic without including your personal opinions at all. Then, as the thread progresses you can respond with your opinions - without attacking the person.

Simples?
Yes, simples - I get all that, I was just letting off some steam.

You still misunderstand - Hell is the place for letting off steam!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You still misunderstand - Hell is the place for letting off steam!

I know, but I'm not revisiting that thread (Zach82's thread), and the hosts won't let me start another.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not revisiting that thread (Zach82's thread)

This reflects much about you.

quote:
the hosts won't let me start another.

No. The Hosts prevented you from starting an identical-but-inverse thread complaining about Zach82. Because that violates the philosophical rule about not letting children participate here.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You still misunderstand - Hell is the place for letting off steam!
I know, but I'm not revisiting that thread (Zach82's thread), and the hosts won't let me start another.

Again, not revisiting that thread is your choice, but you have to live with the consequences of that choice rather than trying to find other means of circumventing it.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, not revisiting that thread is your choice, but you have to live with the consequences of that choice rather than trying to find other means of circumventing it.

OK - so long as the same rules apply to everyone else and not just new(ish) posters.

I say this because of something Josephine posted here, which I believe to be a violation of the Third Commandment.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Josephine overstepped, but in that situation, your obvious sheer glee at having a cool new way to further disrupt the thread trumped her snark. You've accumulated much more karma than she has, sorry.

[ 20. April 2013, 19:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Josephine oversteppe...

Yeah, but it was funny.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Here's the dialogue as it went. And if this keeps up, I'll have to leave also. This kind of stuff by barnabas62 is the reason I tend to stay out of Forums entirely: I'm never allowed to give my experience or reasonings without someone yelling Foul! at me. There's ALWAYS A RULE TO SILENCE MY STORY.

****************

The topic of the Annunaki is not far from my heart because I remember my life and family as an Annunaki.

My elder sister is now my younger daughter, the translations that are available of Sumerian writings are very familiar to me in terms of content, and Annunaki traditions are very close to the Anglican Church, so there's no real disconnect there.

Hillop's book connected the dots for me, directly. Maybe it did have lots of errors in it. My writings contain errors also, but that doesn't mean I don't and can't get to the point.

Annunaki & Babylonian teachings percolate through the Jesuits, through the Masons, the Rosecrucians, the Theosophists, and through corporate statutes.

Hierarchy is how we do business--despite the desires and rights of human and other life forms.

What I do on-line is confront and confront and confront again, that very FACT. Hierarchy has preyed upon and destroyed (legalistically) the governance by consent of the governed that YHVH our Sovereign God established (Exodus 19:8) over His people in the Kingdom of David.

So, this is a point where I do not back down. The Church never went far enough in renewing its prayer book, to correct and remove HIERARCHY out of the presumed Teachings of our Lord Jesus.

That's where the church and I now intersect: on the issue of Who's consenting to what ... which is no longer present in the Prayer Book.

EEWC

... [after some more thought]

After all, isn't it the issue of CONSENT (or lack of it over gender issues) what has schismed the
Anglican-Episcopal Church?

Host Hat On

You're off point, Emily Windsor-Cragg, despite your convoluted claim that you are not.

Formal warning for again crossing the Purg 3 "stick to the point" guideline, despite my previous direction.

If you wish to dispute this ruling, take your argument to the Styx. Any more disputing here gets you another formal warning under Commandment 6.

I regret having to go all formal on you this early in your time here, but you are giving the impression that the guidelines you agreed to when you joined SoF are up to your personal interpretation. That's not the way it works here; that's why SoF has Hosts and Administrators. And why it has the Styx so that our decisions can be challenged.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

I shall dispute this ruling because everything I said had to do with my final point:

that Liturgical readjustment never got as far as it ought to have gone: into CONSENT of the laity as to who is allowed to lead.

Everything I said was historical backdrop for the point I was making.

You are out of line, censoring me.

EEWC

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Nobody is censoring you. All you are being asked to do is stick to the point. It's not difficult. You are perfectly welcome to start a new thread if you wish.

BTW, this is the thread for general discussion of the 10 Commandments (i.e the Ship rules). If you wish to discuss a specific ruling from a host, it's best to do so in a new thread.

ETA: Others have helpfully advised yo to read the guidelines for each board and to take a good look around in order to get a feel for this place and how each board works. Please do so.

Spike
SoF Admin

[ 19. May 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

I did stick to the point: the topic was whether liturgical change had effected improvements or not.

I gave reasons why i believe no improvements occurred. To have left anything out, my argument would have lost its substance.

Where do I post a thread that deals with pursuit of doctrine versus activities and behavior? I believe Jesus had quite a bit to say on this topic, but I don't know where to put it.

Thank you.

EEWC

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Already you are not sticking to the point! As I said in my reply, this thread is for general discussion of the 10 Commandments. If you want to discuss a specific ruling, please start a new thread.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

@ Kelly Alves.

Thank you Kelly. I like the thought of our one hand clapping. That we can be positively personal in Purg but not negatively. Yet I am bitterly ashamed that I misused the term 'ad hominem' which is only negative 'to the person'.

My claim that I was deliberately being positive to the person, which is true, which allows me to bend the definition, would be a calumny.

Martin

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That post, and this, seems to hint at a terror of being hosted that strikes me as a way of poking at the Hosts/ Admins while appearing compliant.

"Oh heavens, I know that was the awfullest thing I ever did, I hope you won't ban me or anything."

[Angel]

Knock it off.There has never, ever been any kind of rule about not saying positive things to anyone, and you implying that it might draw ire for "Ad Hominem" was unwarranted, off topic, and meant to draw attention. And especially galling as you chose to do it in the middle of an already volatile situation.

Well, you got my attention. If you want me to scrutinize your posts for any excuse, I'll be happy to do so. If not, stick to the conversation and stop playing games.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

SOL. Got me. Except I really didn't knowingly want to pour petrol on a volatile situation. I know the heart is deceitfully wicked. And I do scratch itches. So I'm sorry. And thank you.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

It was an eventful couple of nights. Sorry if I got testy.

Just leave the comments about what the Admins might or might not like in the Styx, and all will be well. I guess I was hypervigilant because I knew a fairly new person was watching other people's behavior, and I wanted to nip any misunderstanding about what dialogue went where in the bud. All is well.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I was just re-reading the Ship's 10 commandments and a tacky, sleazy ad came up advocating divorce and how to get one cheaply. As a devout Roman Catholic, I find this v. offensive! Can the Ship not vet its advertisers for good taste and lack of offense?!

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Those ads come from Google and are related to key words found in your postings. Nothing to do with the Ship.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Those ads come from Google and are related to key words found in your postings. Nothing to do with the Ship.

Quite a lot to do with Shipmates though. If people post and read posts about a given subject, then adverts on that subject will be more likely to appear.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Valid points raised, but nothing to do with the 10 Commandments, which is what this thread is about.

Spike
Styx host

[ 10. July 2013, 21:50: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Hope this is the right thread to suggest this - can we please add discussion on the veracity of charismatic phenomena (speaking in tongues etc) to Dead Horses? It seems to clog up any Purg thread even tangentially mentioning charismatics.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

I disagree.

For people new to all this stuff, it is very compelling reading and not at all Dead Horses. Jade may be jaded with it, not all are.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

You could still be compelled by it - just on a different Board. DH is intended to be a specialized Purgatory.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

I would disagree also. The Purgatory boards are already very anglo-catholic dominated. To send discussion of charismatic christianty to Dead Horses would merely be a measure to further enforce the current hegemony.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Hope this is the right thread to suggest this - can we please add discussion on the veracity of charismatic phenomena (speaking in tongues etc) to Dead Horses? It seems to clog up any Purg thread even tangentially mentioning charismatics.

Thanks for raising this. We've no plans at the moment to do this, as it doesn't really meet the criteria for Dead Horses

. In the guidelines for Dead Horses it says

quote:
This board is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music.

Of course there may be other subjects that could qualify in the future, which is why it's good to see suggestions on possible improvements, but when deciding what could qualify as a DH, we would take into consideration what is also said in the guidelines:

quote:
Dead Horses is not for things we're tired of, things that people disagree deeply about, or general arguments that go nowhere. It's really about keeping the usual detritus from Christian bulletin boards from cluttering up the Ship. It helps to keep us unrestful and different.

Thanks again for raising this, as it's always good to discuss this sort of thing

Spike
SoF Admin

[ 06. November 2013, 08:41: Message edited by: Spike ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0