Oresta

ybnormal,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Alonzo Fyfe

The proximity of our posts was purely concidental -- I was writing more generally about the entire thread, and my thoughts reflected concerns that I had since the thread began.

I do think that a more focused version of the original question may be worth investigating.

Assume that Bush stays in office for 6 years, with a Republican majority in the Senate (so that judicial nominations will not be held up).

During this time, He adheres to his promise only to appoint judges who "realize that our rights come from God,"(*) plus he is able to nominate and obtain approval for two Supreme Court justices of the Scalia/Thomas/Rhenquist faction -- giving them a majority of the Supreme Court.

Given these assumptions -- all quite possible -- what would be the legacy of this administration?

Now, not only does the question have more focus, there are places to go to find evidence to support one's own theory and raise objections to others -- the decisions and writings of the judges in question.

(*) Yes, I know the Constitution forbids the use of religious tests, but nothing prevents Bush from saying, "It's just a coincidence that all of my appointees believe that our rights come from God."

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

ybnormal

Alonzo:

Altho it left me a bit queasy with my decision, I had decided to leave this lie... now it seems that I must address it before I feel comfortable in continuing a discussion on another thread... namely one regarding activism on the BP&C Feedback forum... I reckon my main reason in leaving this alone initially, was your renewed commitment to refocus the thread, but as there have been no further posts since then, I suppose that is maybe of less importance now. Altho I still do not relish having to press this, I have little choice now.

In a nutshell, I guess I was left puzzled with your response to me, which certainly left me lacking any understanding. I thought it was clear that I was seeking your guidance as a Moderator, regarding how issues as important as a Fundy Nation's outlawing of abortion and its first step of "redefining the English language" (in order to accomplish that ultimate goal), should be handled here in the future.

Again, I can't fathom how these issues can be considered lacking focus on a thread titled, "Fundy Nation?", certainly when it began with that #1 issue of abortion, which was what was being debated when you interceded the first time. I did try to explain that reasoning, but your response did not address that either. All you really responded to directly was my offhand comment regarding the proximity of our posts. And without guiding me/us regarding any questioning substance of my post, you then continued with your ideas for a "more focused version of the original question".

And I'm sorry, but this left me even more puzzled. I have no beef with you, Alonzo. I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and there is no doubt that you, your thoughts and your words add a great deal to these forums. But your refocusing here, regarding Bush being in office a second term, seems to disregard the first words of this thread, which were, "Imagine the year is 2010."

All that surely sounds like me nitpicking your second attempt to refocus us, but I had just made an obvious effort to understand this first refocus statement...

Alonzo Fyfe:
The original question presupposes that there is a level of uniformity in Christian thinking -- or even fundamentalist thinking -- that simply does not exist.

But you completely ignored my direct questions and attempt to understand you. Many of my questions around here go unanswered, which is just dandy, as most are rhetorical anyway, but I certainly had reason to be puzzled with your lack of response.

I don't think I have ever had a Moderator anywhere, completely ignore a direct question before now. Certainly one that so clearly asked who the Moderator was attributing a particular thought to. Maybe you and everyone else on the boards understood, but I obviously did not. I still don't, of course, know whether you were speaking for yourself or the thread starter. My questions, which were important for several reasons then, are even more so now.

And again, the main purpose of this belated post, was prompted by some questions on the "activism" thread I mentioned above. It was only there that I realized how personally important my questions for guidance from you actually were. In other words, I didn't tie the subject of general "activism" with my questions to you here, until someone else posed some questions specifically regarding "activism" on the "Activism Forums."

Only then did I realize that I had been seeking the same type of constructive "activism" guidance here, that I thought at first, the other poster was seeking.

As examples of that:

Altho it now seems possible that my "activism" interest is much broader and less targeted towards the Infidels Management than the other questioner, I have now jumped into that discussion with both feet, and thus felt it necessary to address these issues with you before I proceed there.

Again, I do enjoy your input here, altho I often have to reread you several times, which I usually do. It is entirely possible that you as well, have difficultly seeing where I am usually coming from, and I take full responsibility for that of course. I have to convey that better. As I have voiced here before, it is obvious to me that my views are strongly contrary to an overwhelming majority here, but this makes them no less valid.

It is my desire to work within the established rules, and to cause no undue effort on the part of our overworked Moderators; however, I must first understand what the Moderators are saying.

Again, thanks for listening.

Peace!

Alonzo Fyfe

ybnormal:

I am writing up a response to your questions, but it is taking some time. Here is a partial answer with respect to one of your questions.

Sorry, I did not read your original post as a "request for guidance."

I believe that the original question presupposed a common sense of fundamentalism that is not true. Thus, the original question did not lend itself to meaningful debate. That to have a meaningful debate, the term "fundamentalism" needed a clearer definition -- which I attempted to provide in my follow-up example.


My original point was this:

The answer to the question, "Would fundamentalists allow or prohibit X?" depends on what you mean by "fundamentalists".

Ahmish fundamentalists, for example, would prohibit technology. Flat-earth fundamentalists would accompany creationism in school with geocentric theories of the solar system. Some would prohibit work on the Sabbath (and disagree over whether this is Saturday or Sunday).

Should these items be added to the list?

We have, then, a problem of circularity in answering the original question. What the fundamentalists would allow or prohibit depends on what one means by "fundamentalism", and "fundamentalism" is typically defined accourding to what a particular sect would allow or prohibit.

My objection, then, was one of simple logic. The specific nature of the original question allowed only circular reasoning with respect to any given answer. Two people thinking they were in a debate over a "right answer" often were not because they were using two different concepts of "fundamentalism" in forming their two different answers.

It had nothing to do with content.

My advice to such people was to change the question in a way that avoids this problem. Where the question has been suitably modified (as I attempted to demonstrate in my example), the problem goes away, and debate again becomes meaningful. (Whether people find the more meaningful question interesting is another matter.)

The question to answer, with respect to your own discussion, is: Was the question sufficiently refocused to allow for meaningful debate?

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

ybnormal

Alonzo:

Thank you! I think my writing appears to be labored at times because I try too hard to be clear. It does not come easy to me, as it may to others, so I apologize for any and all instances where I confused things.

I think some confusion is still at work here tho, in that your refocusing of the thread, other than in passing, has little to do with what I needed to understand. Altho you are correct that the upper part of my post (which was addressed to you) contained no actual question marks, it did contain "I don't see how", "I do want to understand", "Unless I missed something", and "your post... did leave me a bit confused".

All of that part was IMO, a pleading for direction for myself, and for others as well...

Oresta:
Well, Alonzo, you certainly stopped my response to Layman cold in its tracks. Do continue.

It is clear to me that both Oresta and I believed that a Moderator was advising us to stand down. That is why I prefaced my follow-up post with-

Mr. Fyfe:
I do understand and respect your position...

Thus I felt compelled to respond this once...

In other words, you may have indeed been rightfully trying to bring everyone back home, which you were commended for doing by the thread starter. That is not the issue with me. The issue was and is, that others saw your refocusing as an official stand-down advisory, and it left equally official questions as to how, where and when you thought this obvious hypocrisy and fundy doublespeak should be responded to. I posed this with my-

I also want to understand how one is expected to challenge these tactics that do pop up out of the blue.

because, ...this can only be "corrected" when it is seen in passing, as I and others attempted to do here.

So, to put it bluntly, for the purpose of understanding, it appeared that you were not only, officially stopping some posters from saying what they thought was of critical importance, but that you were also leaving them with no official how, where and when alternative, since the only message we actually got was to stand down.

I guess I'm still trying to learn whether or not that was your intention, over and above your attempt to refocus us. If it was not, then there was no reason for Oresta and I to stand down, and we totally misread your message. I think it was obvious tho, that we both felt that message was being directed at us, or at least at our actions.

That was the main reason I addressed you directly here. I again apologize if I was too vague. The same thing had recently taken place on another thread, where a similar post of yours directly followed mine, in which you advised that someone start a new thread, when I had directly responded to a comment, which I thought was clearly on topic. I had let that one go, as I did this one, until like I said, it just happened to come up in the context of activism. So I am not only still trying to gain some general understanding from you as a Moderator, I am also trying to make a point regarding my personal idea of activism, in light of the before mentioned BP&C thread.

I fully understand your interest in how threads get side tracked when someone says something that others feel compelled to "correct", but I was requesting guidance as to how, where and when these brief corrections can be made, without constant advice to start a new thread. There is possibly no other area more difficult for Moderators to patrol, however, as I've said, the start-a-new-thread advice, by default, has the tendency of letting fundy doublespeak go unchallenged at the point and time it pops up. Maybe it is just my style and habit to catch such instances, and I am then one who attempts to "correct" it on more occasions than others.

I guess the bottom line here for me, is that if you were indeed trying to stop one of these "corrections", then I can only assume the implication that you don't see this issue as important as I do. And if that is the case, I must also assume that it will come up again. I seldom worry about problems I have had in the past, such as this one, so long as I understand how best to avoid the same in the future. That is all I am after here... a clear understanding of the issues I've tried to detail above.

And finally, regarding your statement that I did not ask any questions before- Surely you see that the final 4 inches of my post in question, is nothing but one direct question to you. It is the only place where I was asking for clarification regarding your refocusing statement. And altho I have apologized for any and all instances where I was not clear, I am unable to be any clearer than I was there, with Anyway, I do have one question regarding this..., followed up by a direct quote of your restatement, a series of reasoning to exhibit that I had thought it through, and the actual question itself, Is that correct?

I do detest these belabored two-ships-passing-in-the-night misunderstandings with anyone... more than you can ever imagine... but with a Moderator, it is doubly detestable, as it is clear that these forums lack good folks such as yourself to take the near thankless job... I wish I could help, but I clearly ain't got what it takes... I know you have many other things to do... again, I do apologize for any of this that falls on my head... all I can offer you is that it is important to me... otherwise, it would have been left alone.

Once again, thanks so much for listening.

Alonzo Fyfe

No (and I am not so sure that anybody else took it that way).

The following hypothetical debate illustrates my intention and my interpretation of its aftermath.

Person 1: "My car is purple."

Person 2: "No. No. My car is red."

Person 1: "Here's a picture of my car. And another. And another. As you can see, it is purple."

Person 2: (reaches for his wallet), "I've got pictures of my car, too. And, as you will soon see, it is red."

Alonzo: "Hey, people, this debate only makes sense if you two are both talking about the same car. Are you?"

Person 2: (pausing). No, I guess not.

A debate about what fundamentalists will allow or prohibit only makes sense if people are assuming a common set of fundamentalist beliefs.

That's it.

(Note: I am not ignoring the rest of your post, I simply have to go to work now. I'll be back.)

Alonzo Fyfe

ybnormal:

I have been slow in getting to some of your questions because I had this long belabored response in mind.

Yet, while waiting for the bus, the thought came into my head, "just answer the frippin' question!"

If you sense that somebody committed a fallacy, then call them on it. Fallacious reasoning ought not to go unchallenged.

I have not attempted to stop any "corrections." Feel free to correct anybody that you think may have made a mistake -- as I attempted to do when I noticed debates of the form described in my previous post.

If I see a long string of posts that shows no sign of ending, in a thread where I think that those interested in the subject would not dream to come here to look for a discussion of it, I may recommend that the discussion will go better in a location where those who may be interested can more easily identify it.

I do continue my regular postings on any subject that interests me -- which will include criticism of other peoples' posts. A vast majority of the time when I say, "I think your argument here is flawed," I am speaking as a fellow participant in the discussion, not as a moderator. I recognize that there is no clear distinction between the two and confusion will arise from time to time. We will have to deal with them as they come up.

In this case, as it turns out, I was not writing as a moderator, but as a fellow participant who saw some problems in the arguments that other people were using. Which partially explains why I did not see your questions at first -- because my mind was not in moderator mode. Feel free to disagree with me as you would with any other poster.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>