mountainman

Yw.

Peace

Toto

No one has the time or energy to go through and edit all of your past work. At some point, some threads might be archived, but otherwise would not be touched.

DCHindley

out,

The thing I object to in a forum called Biblical Criticism & History is that it becomes an apologetic battleground. Biblical criticism, in its original sense, referred to the work of academics on the subjects of biblical text and Judeo-Christian history. How did it start? What can we find out about the text itself? From the oddities of the grammar and materials tell us about possible sources and editorial technique. Who did the authors or final editors wish to address? et. cetera. The foundations of this kind of criticism were laid in the late 19th century, meaning all those books are in the public domain and most of them have been scanned by university libraries.

Spin and I have gone at it several times, and he offers good suggestions as I hope I do as well. Presently I think we both kind of avoid getting involved in each other's threads. Too many cooks (we both feel we are "right") spoil the broth.

If the moderators can develop clear rules of order and apply them without deference, then bias is significantly reduced.

Gotta go to work ...

DCH

Sabine Grant

Good morning everyone! There appears to be a need for clarification as to what the introductory statement in the suggested Guidelines means :

.

All registering Members are expected to agree to comply with the FRDB Terms of Use :

http://www.freeratio.org/misc.php?do=showrules#rules

with subsequent clarifications :

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=312856

by clicking on "From The terms of Use", it will take you to a window with 3 options to click on, "Clarification of the Terms of Use", "How moderation works" and " How membership works". Clicking on either will take you to information relevant to each topic.

BCH was never meant to be exempted from the above. That clarified in view of :

Not picking on you here, Shesh, just that your comments served as an introductory platform for me to insure that everybody receives accurate information regarding moderation in BCH and that under the applied across FRDB (all Forums) Terms of Use.

I also noticed a couple of comments regarding banning, thus the need for clarification :

Bans are the result of an escalation process when a member has generated a high number of active infraction points. Those infraction points reflect violations of the Terms of Use. They are not based on a member having a poor communication in English or /and posting ideas which tend to leave the reader scratching his head.

As a high active infraction count has been reached, Management will issue an OSN or Official Staff Notice. Such will temporary block the member's posting privileges across FRDB until the member agrees to the presented conditions in the OSN. Giving the member a final warning as to the potential for a ban if deviating again from The Terms of Use. Bans can be temporary(suspensions for X months),or permanent.

Moderators do not have the authority to ban. However, they can apply an emergency suspension regarding spammers. Such suspension is then reviewed by the Management.

The main compass across FRDB, to include BCH, is : attack the idea but not the poster of the idea.

Please, do not hesitate if you have any questions as to the above.

ETA : sorry, I forgot to clarify this,

The use of profane terms such as "fucking" to label an idea or/and "bullshit" and the likes are not a reason to infract anyone. FRDB Owners are not concerned with the use of "naughty naughty adult four letter words". They remain concerned about personal attacks targeting the poster of the idea and other listed communications in the FRDB Terms of Use.

Jaybees

Thanks for sounding out opinions.

On this matter, I'm an extreme libertarian. Allow the widest possible latitude for anyone, including Chili, to post.

Most computers come with a scroll button. I use it--liberally.

ph2ter

I suggest to form a new 'elite BCH sub-forum' with the main rule that anybody who is put by more than half of the elite posters on ignore loses the right to write a certain amount of time or maybe forever .
Initially, the sub-forum should have only several elite members who can put someone on ignore (for example these could be: Toto, Hindley, spin, Huller, Doherty, Pearse and some others). Anybody can post on the sub-forum and become the elite member if he survives his first 100 posts without being put on ignore by the majority (or maybe only 30%) of the elite posters.

Expelled posters should be free to use the regular BCH forum.

Bingo the Clown-O

I think all members should be required to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit per Mark 3:29 before they are allowed to post. It will help keep the riff-raff out.

There should be a little check box that we all must check on the web page when we enter our passwords and email addresses.

|x| I agree to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit per Mark 3:29.

Bingo the Clown-O

Also – Anyone who capitalizes the letter l in the name El should be banned permanently, unless all surrounding characters in the sentence are also uppercase.

Sheshbazzar

the bible tells us of the EL of israEL what a incredible EL above all of the ELohim was he.

is this enough to get me permanently banned? or does it take seven EL s?

manwithdream

I think you should make a separate Church History section because the mythicism stuff doesn't really seem to be about the Bible that much. Then you should have separate sections for the Hebrew Bible (Jewish Bible) (or Old Testament) and New Testament (Greek BIble) (Christian Bible, but they would include the Old Testament too?) instead of both under Bible. Would you put the Mormon Bible under the same section as the Bible? The Mormons would say it is a continuation of the Bible.

Kenneth Greifer