Tim Rogers and SBC Today

[Tom Parker]

Poor Tim Rogers. He feels the need to restore his blog so that he can attack others there. As the old saying goes, he can sure dish it out, but he can not take it. Whatever.

[Tom Parker]

My prediction is that Tim Rogers will continue to make himself look foolish at his Blog.

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

[scottaerwin]

I said that I don't believe that Tim is a Christian, not once but twice. In the first case, I made it in a glib and insulting manner and William rightly edited it out. In the second case, I said it to Tim, directly and without accusation. Apparently, my comment made to SBC Today. I don't mean to bring any dishonor to this little community, but I also stand by what I believe about Tim.

I like, William, am a little flumoxed. I am confused about the where the bright red lines are in what is acceptable to say about or to someone.

Tim slanders, accuses, begs to be banned and acts like a horse end, but we the moderators say, "Let it stand and let people decide form themselves." I state what I believe to be a specific belief about the state of Tim's soul and it is out of bounds. I am also having a private conversation and will accept the judgement of the moderators on this point, but I also wanted to have discussion board wide about what is and is not beyond the pale.

I want also to say for the reccord. I like and trust the judgements of the moderators on this board, and if what I said is beyond the pale, I will be offended but I will get over it. I think every moderator on this board are men of integrity and kindness and they have always treated me in the best manner possible. i am not trying to cause a fight about it and I have NO desire to call into question the integrity of these men who volunteer their time to be involved in these manners. Please don't think I am angry or frustrated with William or any other moderator.

I just want to talk about what others think is outside the lines.

Scott

[William Thornton]

Moderating is an imperfect business. I make no claim to infallibility in doing it. It is also subject to whim, caprice, and the lack of objectivity of the moderators. Again, I cannot say that I am completely objective in all this. I will say that there are a few bright lines that all of us follow (there are five moderators and a site owner). One of these has to do with participants classifying each other as Christian or non-Christian. I would think that all of us would agree that, whatever the temperature in a discussion, whatever the issue, and whatever the level of rancor, to classify someone who claims to be a Christian brother or sister as NOT one is no small matter and is a level of discourse best avoided on this Christian forum.

I have great respect for Scott Erwin and value his opinion but this is one of the few things that always get edited. If this action is not what any of you think is fair or reasonable, you are welcome to PM any of the other moderators or Bruce Gourley, site owner. Maybe my sense of forum practices is flawed. If the others disagree I will certainly defer to their collective judgment.

[scottaerwin]

William

Thanks for your post on the matter. I will refrain from saying that again. I am already over being offended, and accept your capriciousness as welcome

I graciously submit to the servant leadership of my moderator.

I just deleted the rest of this post, because I don't think there is anyway I can have this discussion without there being a questioning of your moderation mojo, which I absolutely do not want to happen by me or anyone else.

BTW, I responded to Tim on his blog and apologized for calling his faith into question in a glib way. I should never be glib about salvation.

just thoughts,
Scott

[georgefrink]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

George Frink,

Could you please point to where I referring to anyone as a bitter old anything? I didn't use the phrase. And I do not appreciate you implying that I did.

I was merely pointing out that there is indeed a difference between calling someone a "bitter old man" and saying that a person "appears as a bitter old man" or "comes across as a bitter old man" etc.

Nor was I defending the use of that phrase in this particular instance. Even so, sometimes it is appropriate to describe a person as "bitter" if they are sounding a bitter tone! I think there is probably a great deal of bitterness in Baptist life in general.

Again, I was not the person who used the phrase "bitter old man." So, there is no need for you to write: "I don't see why you...would resort to such phrases." I didn't resort to using the phrase in the first-place. Thank you.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Also, I find interesting your suggestion that the phrase "stupid old man" is more, indecent, more offensive than the same racial slur which got the Criswell College President in a heap of trouble just recently.

Most folks I know do not consider phrases like "old bitter man" and "dumb blonde" to be equally as offensive as a racial slur commonly used against Hispanics.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I was typing as you were typing Timothy. I had never heard that word until I moved to Texas. Nor had my sister. But we both quickly learned that it is used the same way as the N-word was commonly used against African-Americans during our years in south Georgia.

[georgefrink]

[georgefrink]

[Haruo]

Then on the other hand, one difference is you rarely hear Hispanics use the W word, whereas the N word is in common use, constant use, by a large number of African Americans (at least in Seattle) both as a term of endearment and as a generic term almost as broad of application as "person". I hear it every day in non-derogatory use, and only hear it very very rarely used derogatorily by nonblacks. I have been addressed with it myself, so I am not at all sure that its semantic field as currently used is particularly color-loaded, though its speaker population clearly is.

If you have not had this experience, maybe it's a local phenomenon, or maybe you don't spend enough of your commute on buses with dozens of young Blacks.