Crazy Liz

But they are a minority on CF, so I don't see how a minority can marginalize a majority.

Well, yes, I guess I've seen it happen. First you marginalize, then you push them out one-by-one until you end up with a majority. Yeah. I've seen that happen other places. I don't see that happening on CF, though. Maybe I'm blind. Or maybe the politics are too secret for me to see it.

But what I have seen of the politics is that some of the Catholics have been the only ones to stand up to conservative protestants who wanted to marginalize the liberals. So I disagree with your characterization of the polarity.

Why did you express your opinion without first seeking input from those who would be affected?

Why didn't you do something about it when you found out your Admins had run amok over the weekend?

It sure looks to me like Erwin changed his mind, and what's happening now is not against his wishes. If you have reason to think otherwise, what do you think is happening?

Just like there was no one to oppose marginalization of Quakers, Anabaptists, SDAs, C&MA & other small denominations on the Executive level?

OK. When I said "little protest" I was referring to the fact that it appears to involve only 3 of the thousands of members of CF. I'm sorry, though. Even a group as small as 3 should not be marginalized by that kind of words.

Crazy Liz

(((((((Tall Bob)))))))

Stumpjumper

I think there are a lot of places on CF where discussion can be pretty much open and uninhibited as long as you know what you can say and not say...

Origins theology always seemed to have a good dynamic and some really good discussions do go on in General Apologetics from time to time. I really don't think the "no proselytizing rule" is very fair and it can be subjectively applied but other than that theist-atheist discussions can be pretty fair and open at CF.

General Theology is the most contentious and uncharitable forum at all of CF from my experience. Some people complain about GA but the difference between the two is quite large.

Anyway, I believe the flaming rule needs to move away from applying to ideas or statements and simply apply to people or groups of people.

*Starlight*

Yes, I totally agree with that I saw it in many people's custom titled once and I wondered what's going on for a long time, but I eventually found out :grin:
Yes, I guess that's true... so, do you think I should contact some staff about it, or leave it to the Conciliators?

Yes, I know... but I don't really have anything to hide about this whole issue...

rigorist

Neither side gives a shit about the liberals.

We are the tools and pawns of the competing power blocs.

When I snark at NewMan99, drstevej loves me.

When I snark at drstevej, NewMan99 loves me.

God help me survive this deadly love.

ksen

Here you go:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...25#post4210825

Crazy Liz

That I believe. I think you could have done something to help from a position on Team Omega, but I have no way of knowing all the ways your hands were tied there. That would all be seekrit.

I hope I can do some good as a Conciliator, which is why I haven't given up my black cross & why I'm glad Abiel is holding on to hers.

The issue is speech. I think I was recruited onto the Theology team because I stood up for free speech. I think I was asked to move to Support for the same reason, but my Admin changed his mind about free speech soon after. By that time, Theology had different Admins who didn't want me back. I have that much information about the drift away from free speech in Theology. I hope you can find a place to discuss these things. I wish CF could host such a place, somewhere.

Joykins1

Our team is the only power bloc of liberals and we aren't all liberal.

Fat Burger

I'm not that articulate

Who is the enemy - the person who enforces a rule they disagree with and are actively trying to change, or the person who made the rule?

What about if it's a matter of someone enforcing a confusing rule in a way they interpret but don't agree, and someone else who is trying to clarify it but hasn't been able to yet?

What if it's a matter of one person enforcing a rule out of necessity based on outside factors, and someone else trying to remove those outside factors so the rule can be better enforced?



Any of those is a possible in any circumstance, among infinite other possibilities. In my experience, human nature is to always assume the worst out of an unknown situation, and therefore the situation is rarely as bad as it seems. That's not a comment on the specific situation, just something I've been trying to learn and cope with, and a big part of the reason I've always pushed for less confidentiality.

Hallie

My entry for CF's slogan contest: