Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Props to Elton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Props to Elton

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    Hicks, please demonstrate ignorance in Elton's position and mine.
    I believe to have a desire to ban religion, you have to be at least somewhat ignorant about what it generally is on a church-by-church basis. Is anti-gay sentiment a problem that is fueled by religion? Yes, but I believe it's ignorant to assume that it's such an overbearing issue that it justifies wanting to do away with religion completely. He acknowledges religion does a lot of good, but if he truly understood how much good it provides, I do not believe he would make such a comment.

    Still, ignorance is not my primary descriptor of his comments. Intolerance is, and that's enough.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Props to Elton

      Even if there were no formal religions, one group of citizens always will be trying to foist their convictions about a proper code of conduct on others. Governments that have outlawed formal religion are filled with intolerant law.

      Humans have a tendency to want to use government to enforce their personal way of looking at life.

      As a society we need to check those who want to force on others their personal morality, without regard to common sense and tolerance for others who don't have the same moral code.

      I agree with Hicks that this is about intolerance. It is also about those who haven't learned a healthy respect for the need of a separation between church and state.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Props to Elton

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I don't believe in the "well it might be right for you, but it isn't right for me" way of thinking
        Unlike, say, the founders of this country.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Props to Elton

          This thread has taken the turn that I expected. I want to respond to various posts. Sorry this is so long.


          1. Unclebuck says, "I don't believe in the, Well it might be right for you, but it isn't right for me way of thinking."

          Then 3Ball responds, Unlike, say, the founders of this country.

          3Ball may be a 12-year-old-kid or he may be a Yale professor. I don't know. But with all due respect, he is not qualified to speak on behalf of the founding fathers.

          2. The founders of this country did not believe individual liberty should be the prevailing virtue in the social compact. Jefferson did, and he emphasized liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine did, too. Neither of those guys wrote the Constitution. It is inaccurate to equate Jefferson's extreme position to that of the founding fathers in general.

          The Constitution is all about balancing individual liberties against the equally important social values. Adams says a free society can thrive only if the people have a shared morality leading each citizen to use his freedom in a way that benefits society according to the shared moral code.

          3. People today (sixthman and 3Ball, for example) believe the founding fathers wanted a "separation of church and state" and that religion must be sequestered. Not so. They felt religion was essential for a free society. What they provided was, "No establishment of religion," meaning the government would never set up a Church of America and insist everybody join it. They never intended to keep church out of the social arena. The Federalist Papers and the private writings of Adams are the best proofs of this.

          4. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a private letter written by Jefferson to a church in Connecticut, in which he assured them the government had no intention of meddling with church affairs. The idea that government could or should suppress religion using the justification of the 2nd Amendment and the phrase "separation of church and state" came about much later.

          5. 3Ball's notion of individual liberty as the supreme social virtue has never been practiced in a successful society. As sixthman points out,

          Originally posted by sixthman
          Even if there were no formal religions, one group of citizens always will be trying to foist their convictions about a proper code of conduct on others. Governments that have outlawed formal religion are filled with intolerant law.
          He might have even gone a step further, and shown that purely secular states are always the most brutal, vis, the French Revolution, which is the best example history offers of a state founded on Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

          Pure libertarianism doesn't work. Never has. All it gets you is Ted Kozinski. So a good society has to have a foundation. Religion is the best foundation yet discovered.

          6. Uncle Buck makes a good point above, which Los Angeles has already lauded:

          Originally posted by UncleBuck
          The Bible condemns the way everyone lives.
          This is right, and extremely important to me. The Bible tells me not to judge, but to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling. So I try to treat the two homosexuals in my office with perfect courtesy. In one instance, this is easy, because the fellow is mannerly and capable and it is a pleasure working with him. The other guy is a different story, but I've gotta be courteous to him, too. So you see? Even though my religion condemns their behavior, it also protects them from harm by constraining me to act with compassion.

          By the way, when the Bible says, Do not judge, it means don't judge people. It does not mean don't judge right from wrong. A rigid morality appears throughout. Jesus spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes, but he told every one of them, Go and sin no more. So when you see the signs asking "Would Jesus discriminate?" remember that the answer is, "Absolutely, yes!"


          7. sixthman alludes to something he calls "their personal morality." If I were Dat Dude, I would respond with RAOTFLMFAO. But being modest and temperate Putnam, let me just say, Phooey.

          Please understand that faith is not something that belongs to those who believe. It comes to us from far away and long ago. Faith is an outside influence on us, and often a very uncomfortable one. We conform to the faith at great personal inconvenience, because we believe it to be true. So please stop thinking our faith is something we made up or something we pull out of a toolbox when it suits us. Christianity constrains my behavior a whole lot more than I'd ever expect it to constrain yours.

          8. As Uncle Buck says, the Bible condemns the way everyone lives. The problem is that some people consider this fact to be of extreme importance, and other people couldn't care less.

          Think about that. What if half the drivers on the road cared nothing about the speed limit? What if half the people cared nothing about paying their taxes? What if a virile male cares nothing for a girl's right to say "Yes" or "No"? You can see quite clearly that the people who don't care are nonetheless capable of inflicting harm on those who do care and on themselves.


          Well, I've written a post so long that no one is going to read it. Let me conclude.

          I started this thread because I consider amoral relativists to be a problem in our society. I thought it was refreshing that Elton John perceives a real conflict involving deeply held convictions about society. I disagree with him about the particulars, but I'm glad there are still people who believe good living requires a social compact and reject the puerile notion that people can do what they like without affecting each other.

          My right to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose, but the concept is useless. Your nose is everywhere.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Props to Elton

            Good post Putman.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Props to Elton

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              7. sixthman alludes to something he calls "their personal morality." If I were Dat Dude, I would respond with RAOTFLMFAO. But being modest and temperate Putnam, let me just say, Phooey.

              Please understand that faith is not something that belongs to those who believe. It comes to us from far away and long ago. Faith is an outside influence on us, and often a very uncomfortable one. We conform to the faith at great personal inconvenience, because we believe it to be true. So please stop thinking our faith is something we made up or something we pull out of a toolbox when it suits us. Christianity constrains my behavior a whole lot more than I'd ever expect it to constrain yours.
              Phooey.

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              3Ball may be a 12-year-old-kid or he may be a Yale professor. I don't know. But with all due respect, he is not qualified to speak on behalf of the founding fathers.
              With all due respect, then explain what makes YOU qualified to speak on behalf of the founding fathers, as you did in this next paragraph.

              Putnam's next paragraph:
              2. The founders of this country did not believe individual liberty should be the prevailing virtue in the social compact. Jefferson did, and he emphasized liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine did, too. Neither of those guys wrote the Constitution. It is inaccurate to equate Jefferson's extreme position to that of the founding fathers in general.
              Your characterization of Thomas Jefferson seems peculiar and judgemental. Maybe he is not the extremist.

              I would also remind that the authors of the Constitution didn't exactly have a handle on perfection either. These "guys" you respect for moderation assured the institutionalization of slavery in this country for decades to come.

              I also think it it clear the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that future generations would have to adapt the Constitution to their needs and requirements.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Props to Elton

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                This thread has taken the turn that I expected. I want to respond to various posts. Sorry this is so long.


                1. Unclebuck says, "I don't believe in the, Well it might be right for you, but it isn't right for me way of thinking."

                Then 3Ball responds, Unlike, say, the founders of this country.

                3Ball may be a 12-year-old-kid or he may be a Yale professor. I don't know. But with all due respect, he is not qualified to speak on behalf of the founding fathers.

                2. The founders of this country did not believe individual liberty should be the prevailing virtue in the social compact. Jefferson did, and he emphasized liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine did, too. Neither of those guys wrote the Constitution. It is inaccurate to equate Jefferson's extreme position to that of the founding fathers in general.

                The Constitution is all about balancing individual liberties against the equally important social values. Adams says a free society can thrive only if the people have a shared morality leading each citizen to use his freedom in a way that benefits society according to the shared moral code.

                3. People today (sixthman and 3Ball, for example) believe the founding fathers wanted a "separation of church and state" and that religion must be sequestered. Not so. They felt religion was essential for a free society. What they provided was, "No establishment of religion," meaning the government would never set up a Church of America and insist everybody join it. They never intended to keep church out of the social arena. The Federalist Papers and the private writings of Adams are the best proofs of this.
                Putnam, the founding fathers had very diverse opinions. Including some who clearly did NOT believe that religion was essential for a free society. But one thing they clearly did NOT believe is that everyone had to have exactly the same beliefs. You are also right that you don't know a damn thing about me or my religious practices. You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth, my man.

                There is a church about half a mile from my office with a lesbian minister. It is a large Christian church that I have been to a few times. A conservative older woman plays the organ, and the congregation sings terrific four-part harmony. There is a terrific playground out back, and the day care they run is considered one of the best in town. They have been marrying gay couples for two decades, even though, of course, the marriages aren't legal in this state. Who is impinging on who's religious beliefs here?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Props to Elton

                  I'm still trying to figure out what ones relationship with another person has anything to do with morals at all.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Props to Elton

                    Originally posted by efx View Post
                    I'm still trying to figure out what ones relationship with another person has anything to do with morals at all.
                    What do you mean

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Props to Elton

                      Originally posted by sixthman
                      With all due respect, then explain what makes YOU qualified to speak on behalf of the founding fathers, as you did in this next paragraph.
                      Thank you. I appreciate the recognition that some people can be more qualified than others. I don't claim to be the world's greatest expert on the constitution, but I have read The Federalist Papers, de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, David Mc Collough's biography of Adams, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, and many more books on the subject. I don't have a history degree, but my Georgetown University graduate program required a substantial amount of political theory.

                      In the earlier posts of this thread I've shown that I know something. Instead of alluding vaguely to "the founding fathers," I named specific persons and linked them to specific ideas, positions or statements which they actually held. About the only thing 3Ball has been right about is that there were diverse opinions. I acknowledged that Paine thought differently than Adams
                      even before 3Ball pointed it out.

                      Who are the founding fathers anyway? Some experts limit the list to four names: Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Jay. There is a strong case that Jefferson doesn't belong on the list at all, since he was in France when the Constitution was written.

                      By the way, Jefferson was radical. This is borne out by the fact that over the past 20 years the US public figure with the strongest and purest philosophical link to Jefferson was Timothy McVeigh.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Props to Elton

                        Hey sixthman. Look at the second paragraph of 3Ball latest post (#22)

                        That is an example of people practicing "their personal morality, without regard to common sense." The church he describes is apostate.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Props to Elton

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          Hey sixthman. Look at the second paragraph of 3Ball latest post (#22)

                          That is an example of people practicing "their personal morality, without regard to common sense." The church he describes is apostate.
                          I think they prefer the term "Open and Affirming".

                          Western countries have grown more civilized as they became increasingly willing to throw Biblical dogma over the side of the boat. It was only then that we stopped stoning people and burning witches and such. It doesn't mean that we can no longer be Christians, clearly the folks at the church I described are Christians, but it means that dogma gives away to civility. The old testament was barbarous, and an important part of Christ's message is that the old time religion needed to be updated for a new millennia. The founding fathers (and by that I mean the founding fathers) were a part of the Enlightenment, a period when people realized that there was quite a lot of scientific and moral hay to be made outside of the church. That we could stop worshiping the king and make laws for the people. They encompassed a wide swath of opinions with that at the core from the elitist Hamilton to the radical Paine.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Props to Elton

                            Originally posted by efx View Post
                            I'm still trying to figure out what ones relationship with another person has anything to do with morals at all.
                            That's the exact thing I keeping saying about my relationship with my five year old girlfriend, but her mother has those morals of hers... Jeeze she loves me and she consents to it, what's the problem?
                            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Props to Elton

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              By the way, Jefferson was radical.
                              Of course Jefferson was a radical. Thank goodness. It seems to me everyone of the early supporters of the overthrow of the existing government qualifies as a radical. At the time you know, God was on the side of the British. Just ask them.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Props to Elton

                                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                                Hey sixthman. Look at the second paragraph of 3Ball latest post (#22)

                                That is an example of people practicing "their personal morality, without regard to common sense." The church he describes is apostate.
                                What you apparently don't appreciate is that one man's apostasy is another man's truth.

                                God's truth doesn't get interpreted the same way by all us mortals. I'm not exactly sure why it is that way...maybe she knew that would be boring and we'd have nothing to disagree about on this message board.

                                Society has to take the different interpretations of God's message into account, and govern with respect for all. There is a reason that those who built our country and wrote our constitution devised checks and balances into our republic: They wanted no tyranny of the majority; they instinctively understood the potential wrong that conventional wisdom run rampant could reign on this nation. Pretty clever bunch of radicals, those guys.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X